scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

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.

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a combination of symmetric and asymmetric association measures is used to study the productivity of A as NP, which is not a construction but merely a pattern of coining due to its limited type productivity.
Abstract: Non-redundant taxonomic models of construction grammar posit that only fully productive patterns qualify as constructions because they license an infinity of expressions. Redundant models claim that, despite subregularities and exceptions, partially productive patterns also count as constructions , providing the overall meanings of such patterns are not the strict sums of their parts. Because productivity is a major bone of contention between redundant and non-redundant construction grammar taxonomies, I examine the productivity of A as NP which, according to Kay (2013), is not a 'construction' but merely a 'pattern of coining' due to its limited type productivity. Expanding on Gries (2013), this paper explores how a combination of symmetric and asymmet-ric association measures can contribute to the study of the 'Productivity Complex' described in Zeldes (2012). Although the productivity of A as NP is admittedly limited at its most schematic level, some partially-filled subschemas such as white/black as NP or A as hell/death are arguably productive.

21 citations


Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."

  • ...However, Rescorla (1968) showed that rats did not emit a CR when trials involving the US alone were added to trials where the temporal pairing between US and CS was preserved....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The results demonstrate the involvement of the lateral habenula in fear memory and suggest that the LHb is engaged in learning about threatening environments through the selection of relevant information predictive of a danger.
Abstract: Increasing evidence points to the engagement of the lateral habenula (LHb) in the selection of appropriate behavioral responses in aversive situations. However, very few data have been gathered with respect to its role in fear memory formation, especially in learning paradigms in which brain areas involved in cognitive processes like the hippocampus (HPC) and the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) are required. A paradigm of this sort is trace fear conditioning, in which an aversive event is preceded by a discrete stimulus, generally a tone, but without the close temporal contiguity allowing for their association based on amygdala-dependent information processing. In a first experiment, we analyzed cellular activations (c-Fos expression) induced by trace fear conditioning in subregions of the habenular complex, HPC, mPFC and amygdala using a factorial analysis to unravel functional networks through correlational analysis of data. This analysis suggested that distinct LHb subregions engaged in different aspects of conditioning, e.g. associative processes and onset of fear responses. In a second experiment, we performed chemogenetic LHb inactivation during the conditioning phase of the trace fear conditioning paradigm and subsequently assessed contextual and tone fear memories. Whereas LHb inactivation did not modify rat's behavior during conditioning, it induced contextual memory deficits and enhanced fear to the tone. These results demonstrate the involvement of the LHb in fear memory. They further suggest that the LHb is engaged in learning about threatening environments through the selection of relevant information predictive of a danger.

21 citations


Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."

  • ...This phenomenon indicates the onset of overshadowing of the CS by the context, a process commonly thought to rely on competition between potential predictors at the time of conditioning (Rescorla 1968; Rescorla and Wagner 1972)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel Hanus1
TL;DR: It is argued that at times inferential reasoning might be the most likely candidate to account for performance differences between experimental and control conditions and a general conclusion drawn could be that a dichotomist battle of 2 conceptual camps is a scientific deadlock.
Abstract: The debate about whether or not one could/should ascribe reasoning abilities to animals has deep historical roots and seems very up-to-date in the light of the immense body of new empirical data originating from various species and research paradigms. Associative learning (AL) seems to be a ubiquitous low-level contender for any cognitive interpretation of animal behavior, mostly because of the assumed mechanistic simplicity and phylogenetic prevalence. However, the implicit assumption that AL is simple and therefore the most parsimonious mechanism to describe seemingly complex behavior can and must be questioned on various grounds. Using recent empirical findings with chimpanzees as an example, I argue that at times inferential reasoning might be the most likely candidate to account for performance differences between experimental and control conditions. Finally, a general conclusion drawn from the current debate(s) in the field of comparative psychology could be that a dichotomist battle of 2 conceptual camps-each of which is lacking a clear and homogeneous theoretical framework-is a scientific deadlock. (PsycINFO Database Record

21 citations


Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."

  • ...However, Rescorla (1968) himself demonstrated that contiguity alone is not sufficient to explain AL, because additional contingency is required as well....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An event-based timing account, Packet theory, provided an explanation of the results and determined the pattern of responding in time was determined by the interval distribution form.
Abstract: Experiments 1 and 2 delivered conditioned stimuli (CSs) at random times and unconditioned stimuli (USs) at either fixed (Experiment 1) or random (Experiment 2) intervals. In Experiment 3, CS duration was manipulated, and US deliveries occurred at random during the background. In all 3 experiments, the mean rate of responding (head entries into the food cup) in the background was determined by the mean US-US interval, and the mean rate during the CS was a linear combination of responding controlled by the mean US-US and mean CS onset-US intervals; the pattern of responding in time was determined by the interval distribution form (fixed or random). An event-based timing account, Packet theory, provided an explanation of the results.

21 citations


Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."

  • ...expectancy theory (Gallistel & Gibbon, 2000, 2002), and contingency theory (Rescorla, 1968)....

    [...]

  • ...…a brief description of the implementation of Packet theory to give a flavor of its workings; for a full specification of the implementation details see Kirkpatrick (2002) and Kirkpatrick and Church (2003). expectancy theory (Gallistel & Gibbon, 2000, 2002), and contingency theory (Rescorla, 1968)....

    [...]

  • ...A few studies verified that the truly random control produced no discernible evidence of learning (Gamzu & Williams, 1971, 1973; Quinsey & Ayres, 1969; Rescorla, 1968, 1969)....

    [...]

  • ...Originally, a lack of contingency was defined as equality between two conditional probabilities, p(US|CS) and p(US|noCS), but the calculations were based on fixed time intervals of 2 min (Rescorla, 1968)....

    [...]

  • ...…in the introduction, there are many instances in which the random control procedure has resulted in learning, but there are also instances in which the random control has resulted in no discernible evidence of learning (Gamzu & Williams, 1971, 1973; Quinsey & Ayres, 1969; Rescorla, 1968, 1969)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Data suggest that the behavioral effects of stimuli in a chain may be better understood in terms of what each stimulus predicts, as measured by relative time to the terminal reinforcer, than in the exclusively positive terms of the traditional formulation of Pavlovian conditioning.
Abstract: If the functional relations governing the strength of a conditioned reinforcer correspond to those obtained with other Pavlovian procedures (e.g., Kaplan, 1984), the termination of stimuli appearing early in the interval between successive food deliveries should be reinforcing. During initial training we presented four key colors, followed by food, in a recurrent sequence to each of 6 pigeons. This established a baseline level of autoshaped pecking. In later sessions, we terminated each of these colors or only the first color for a brief period following each peck, replacing the original color with a standard substitute to avoid darkening the key. Pecking decreased in the presence of the last color in the sequence but increased in the presence of the first. In accord with contemporary models of Pavlovian conditioning, these and other data suggest that the behavioral effects of stimuli in a chain may be better understood in terms of what each stimulus predicts, as measured by relative time to the terminal reinforcer, than in the exclusively positive terms of the traditional formulation (Skinner, 1938). The same model may also account for the initial pause under fixed-interval and fixed-ratio schedules of reinforcement.

21 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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)....

    [...]