Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning.
01 Aug 1968-Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology (J Comp Physiol Psychol)-Vol. 66, Iss: 1, pp 1-5
TL;DR: 2 experiments indicate that CS-US contingency is an important determinant of fear conditioning and that presentation of US in the absence of CS interferes with fear conditioning.
Abstract: 2 experiments indicate that CS-US contingency is an important determinant of fear conditioning and that presentation of US in the absence of CS interferes with fear conditioning. In Experiment 1, equal probability of a shock US in the presence and absence of a tone CS produced no CER suppression to CS; the same probability of US given only during CS produced substantial conditioning. In Experiment 2, which explored 4 different probabilities of US in the presence and absence of CS, amount of conditioning was higher the greater the probability of US during CS and was lower the greater the probability of US in the absence of CS; when the 2 probabilities were equal, no conditioning resulted. Two conceptions of Pavlovian conditioning have been distinguished by Rescorla (1967). The first, and more traditional, notion emphasizes the role of the number of pairings of CS and US in the formation of a CR. The second notion suggests that it is the contingency between CS and US which is important. The notion of contingency differs from that of pairing in that it includes not only what events are paired but also what events are not paired. As used here, contingency refers to the relative probability of occurrence of US in the presence of CS as contrasted with its probability in the absence of CS. The contingency notion suggests that, in fact, conditioning only occurs when these probabilities differ; when the probability of US is higher during CS than at other times, excitatory conditioning occurs; when the probability is lower, inhibitory conditioning results. Notice that the probability of a US can be the same in the absence and presence of CS and yet there can be a fair number of CS-US pairings. It is this that makes it possible to assess the relative importance of pairing and contingency in the development of a CR. Several experiments have pointed to the usefulness of the contingency notion. Rescorla (1966) reported a Pavlovian 1This research was supported by Grants MH13415-01 from the National Institute of Mental Health and GB-6493 from the National Science Foundation, as well as by funds from Yale University.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: These findings indicate that actions can be represented, not only by their effects on the inanimate world, but also by theirEffects on the actions of others, and are consistent with ideomotor theory, and with the view that actions are represented by bidirectional response-effect associations.
Abstract: In a semi-naturalistic response-effect compatibility paradigm, participants were given the opportunity to learn that hand-shaking actions would be followed by social effects (human hand-shaking stimuli from a third-person perspective) or inanimate effects (block arrow stimuli). Relative to the actions, these effects appeared on the same or the opposite side of the screen (positional compatibility), and pointed towards or away from the response hand (directional compatibility). After learning, response times indicated a positional compatibility effect for both social and inanimate effects, but a directional compatibility effect occurred only for social action effects. These findings indicate that actions can be represented, not only by their effects on the inanimate world, but also by their effects on the actions of others. They are consistent with ideomotor theory, and with the view that actions are represented by bidirectional response-effect associations. They also have implications with respect to the origins and on-line control of imitation and the systems supporting imitation.
33 citations
Cites result from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...Given that it is well-known that the rate of associative learning is modulated by contiguity and contingency (Rescorla, 1968), these results imply that the sensory consequences of action acquire the capacity to represent action via associative learning....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors compare performance-focused and acquisition-focused models and conclude that the latter is superior to the former in stimulating research, and that the former is more robust to various learning phenomena commonly cited as favoring one or the other.
Abstract: What is encoded during a learning experience? In a learning situation, a training (acquisition) phase is often followed by a test phase. Acquisitionfocused models (most associative models) emphasize information processing that occurs during training and assume that only summary statistics (associative values) are retained to influence behavior during testing. Performance-focused models (a k a “computational” models) emphasize information processing that occurs at test and often assume fairly comprehensive memory of prior experiences. In this article, we contrast these two families of models. We note that neither family can claim unique support from the various learning phenomena commonly cited as favoring one or the other position. Within each family, there are highly diverse models that preclude blanket generalizations. However, the acquisition-focused view that subjects retain only summary statistics suggests unrealistically impoverished memories relative to the fairly veridical memories that clearly are formed. But this oversimplifying assumption of acquisition-focused associative theories is exactly what has made them superior to performance-focused models to date in stimulating research.
33 citations
Cites background or methods from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...In contrast, Rescorla and Wagner’s (1972) model anticipates only forward blocking....
[...]
...Spontaneous recovery, as this phenomenon is called, is anticipated by most performance-focused models (e.g., Rescorla, 1968) because cue-alone (extinction) trials are assumed not to erase memories of the cue-outcome pairings....
[...]
...For example, Rescorla’s (1968) contingency model assumes that acquired responding results from computation based on the frequencies of four trial types: (a) cue and outcome present, (b) cue and outcome absent (these first two types favor responding to the cue), (c) cue-only present, and (d) outcome-only present (these latter two types oppose responding)....
[...]
...The models of Rescorla and Wagner (1972) and Rescorla (1968) are examples of simple acquisition- and performancefocused models, respectively, that proved erroneous in many respects, but were highly successful in stimulating research....
[...]
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors have concluded that there is an addiction blind spot in the form of a psychological scotoma, which enables the gradual erosion of self-control to proceed unrecognized.
Abstract: No one sets out to become an addict. Drug use begins voluntarily, but somehow, through repetition and ritual, drug-taking becomes unstoppable. The most obvious characteristic of addiction is that drug use takes on a life of its own, but how and why this happens remains a mystery. The voices of addicts serve only to deepen the mystery. Many tell us that their drug use escalated, even as they were trying very hard to keep it under control. Despite repeated failed attempts to maintain self-control, when addiction closed in, they were stunned, because all along they were certain that they could quit drug use if they really wanted to. There is something mysterious and stealthy about the drug addiction process that allows addiction to prey upon the unsuspecting. Based upon our research, we have concluded that there is an addiction blind spot in the form of a psychological scotoma, which enables the gradual erosion of selfcontrol to proceed unrecognized. Due to this blind spot the loss of self-control 8 | Sign Tracking and Drug Addiction occurs in the background, at a preconscious level, without awareness. The addiction blind spot obscures the loss of self-control that fuels the transition from social, recreational, and voluntary drug use into the realm of the habitual and automatic drug-taking of the drug abuser.
32 citations
TL;DR: Under biased reinforcement, overall food rate was increased, but variance in preference was increased or decreased depending on which alternative was favored, a Weber law finding that is compatible with multiplicative, scalar sources of variance but incompatible with pacemaker rate changes proportional to food presentation rate.
Abstract: Several theories in the learning literature describe decision rules for performance utilizing ratios and differences The present paper analyzes rules for choice based on either delays to food, immediacies (the inverse of delays), or rates of food, combined factorially with a ratio or difference comparator An experiment using the time-left procedure (Gibbon & Church, 1981) is reported with motivational differentials induced by unequal reinforcement durations The preference results were compatible with a ratio-comparator decision rule, but not with decision rules based on differences Differential reinforcement amounts were functionally equivalent to changes in delays to food Under biased reinforcement, overall food rate was increased, but variance in preference was increased or decreased depending on which alternative was favored This is a Weber law finding that is compatible with multiplicative, scalar sources of variance but incompatible with pacemaker rate changes proportional to food presentation rate
32 citations
TL;DR: Results suggest that acute administration of caffeine may preferentially disrupt the acquisition of hippocampal-dependent learning, including context conditioning, including hippocampus-dependent fear conditioning.
Abstract: Rationale and objective: Acute caffeine administration has both beneficial and adverse effects on learning and memory; however, the brain regions underlying these effects remain unclear. Several experiments were conducted to examine the effects of acutely administered caffeine on the acquisition and expression of hippocampal-dependent and hippocampal-independent forms of conditioned fear. Methods: In the first experiment, caffeine (10, 20, or 30 mg/kg; IP) or vehicle was administered to rats 15 min prior to classical fear conditioning, which consisted of ten tone-shock pairings. Freezing to the conditioning context was measured 24 h later, whereas tone-elicited fear was measured 48 h later. A second experiment examined possible state-dependent effects of caffeine by administering caffeine (30 mg/kg) or vehicle 15 min before conditioning and before testing. Results: Pretreatment of acute caffeine severely impaired the acquisition of context conditioning, a hippocampal-dependent task. Tone conditioning, a hippocampal-independent task, was only modestly and non-significantly affected by caffeine (4–21% suppression compared with controls). The disruption of context conditioning was dose-dependent: 10 mg/kg had little effect on context or tone conditioning, whereas doses of 20 and 30 mg/kg caffeine severely disrupted context conditioning (73–87% suppression). In two subsequent experiments, it was found that caffeine's selective disruption of context conditioning could not be attributed to the fact that it is a weaker form of learning than tone conditioning or to state-dependent learning. Conclusions: Considered together, these results suggest that acute administration of caffeine may preferentially disrupt the acquisition of hippocampal-dependent learning, including context conditioning.
32 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: This "truly random" control procedure leads to a new conception of Pavlovian conditioning postulating that the contingency between CS and US, rather than the pairing of CS andUS, is the important event in conditioning.
Abstract: The traditional control procedures for Pavlovian conditioning are examined and each is found wanting. Some procedures introduce nonassociative factors not present in the experimental procedure while others transform the excitatory, experimental CS-US contingency into an inhibitory contingency. An alternative control procedure is suggested in which there is no contingency whatsoever between CS and US. This \"truly random\" control procedure leads to a new conception of Pavlovian conditioning postulating that the contingency between CS and US, rather than the pairing of CS and US, is the important event in conditioning. The fruitfulness of this new conception of Pavlovian conditioning is illustrated by 2 experimental results.
1,328 citations
301 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, three groups of dogs were trained with different kinds of Pavlovian fear conditioning for three different types of dogs: randomly and independently; for a second group, CSs predicted the occurrence of USs; and for a third group, S predicted the absence of the USs.
Abstract: Three groups of dogs were Sidman avoidance trained They then received different kinds of Pavlovian fear conditioning For one group CSs and USs occurred randomly and independently; for a second group, CSs predicted the occurrence of USs; for a third group, CSs predicted the absence of the USs The CSs were subsequently presented while S performed the avoidance response CSs which had predicted the occurrence or the absence of USs produced, respectively, increases and decreases in avoidance rate For the group with random CSs and USs in conditioning, the CS had no effect upon avoidance
160 citations
64 citations
TL;DR: Rats in an experimental group were given 30 trials of differential CER and then the CS+ and CS− were combined during CER extinction, resulting in less suppression for the experimental group than shown by a control group, interpreted as a demonstration of the active inhibitory properties of CS−.
Abstract: Rats in an experimental group were given 30 trials of differential CER and then the CS+ and CS− were combined during CER extinction. The combination resulted in less suppression for the experimental group than shown by a control group which had a CS+ and a formerly random stimulus combined during extinction. This was interpreted as a demonstration of the active inhibitory properties of CS−.
44 citations
"Probability of shock in the presenc..." refers background in this paper
...Although such an account is plausible for the present data, it fails to explain the active inhibition of fear found by Rescorla and LoLordo (1965), Rescorla (1966), and Hammond (1967)....
[...]