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: Two experiments investigated the relative validity effect with either 1 or 2 continuously reinforced cues in Wistar rats using appetitive Pavlovian and instrumental preparations and found that both TD treatments showed equivalent relative validity effects.
Abstract: Two experiments investigated the relative validity effect with either 1 or 2 continuously reinforced cues in Wistar rats using appetitive Pavlovian and instrumental preparations. Discrimination training involved 3 compound cues containing a common element (1AX: 1BX: 2CX). In the first true-discrimination group (TD-1), CX was followed by food, but AX and BX were not. In the second true-discrimination group (TD-2), AX and BX but not CX were followed by food. In the third, pseudodiscrimination group (PD), food followed 50% of each compound. Compared with the PD group, there were lower levels of responding to X in Groups TD-1 and TD-2, which did not differ. That is, both TD treatments showed equivalent relative validity effects. There was evidence for a relative validity effect on the context. The Rescorla-Wagner model incorrectly predicts a smaller relative validity effect after the TD-2 than the TD-1 treatment. Comparator theory predicts these results.
17 citations
TL;DR: Thirty-six Ss, informed about the contingencies, were given differential SCR training with 3 different signals: CS+, CS−, and a signal which was random with respect to UCS occurrence, to question the proposition that a CS+ acquires general excitatory properties and a CS− acquiresgeneral inhibitory properties.
Abstract: Thirty-six Ss, informed about the contingencies, were given differential SCR training with 3 different signals: CS+, CS−, and a signal which was random with respect to UCS occurrence. UCSs occurred randomly between trials and during random signal trials, were correlated with CS+ presence, and were absent during CS−. Employing nonspecific response frequency and amplitude, as well as responding during random signal trials, as baselines for comparison, evidence for both inhibitory and excitatory influences was obtained. The pattern of these influences was such as to question the proposition that a CS+ acquires general excitatory properties and a CS− acquires general inhibitory properties.
17 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the reliability of EC effects with different types of CS-US relations was investigated and the results suggest that EC depends on neither reinforcement density nor contingency, whereas propositions containing contingency information might exert some influence.
17 citations
11 Sep 2017
TL;DR: Two information-theoretic principles—maximum entropy, and minimum description length—dictate a computational model of associative learning that explains cue competition and response timing and brings into sharp focus the need to focus neurobiological inquiry on the coding question in memory.
Abstract: Two information-theoretic principles—maximum entropy, and minimum description length—dictate a computational model of associative learning that explains cue competition (assignment of credit) and response timing. The theory's primitives are two cue types—state cues and point cues—and two stochastic distributions. The preferred stochastic model gives the relative code lengths for an efficient encoding of the data already seen; it predicts the data not yet seen; and the associated hazard function roughly predicts the observed timing of anticipatory (conditioned) behavior. State cues use the exponential distribution to encode, predict and time; point cues use a form of the Gaussian distribution that allows for event failure. An implementation of the refined minimum-description-length approach to stochastic model selection (Rissanen 1999) determines which stochastic model best compresses the data, and hence which is the best predictive model for a given protocol. The model brings into sharp focus the need to focus neurobiological inquiry on the coding question in memory.
17 citations
Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...Time line for the first two trials (CS presentations, white rectangles) in one of Rescorla’s (1968) protocols....
[...]
...A striking feature of the theory is that in solving the cue competition problem, it also solves the response-timing problem The issues of cue competition and response timing are together evident when considering Figure 2, which shows the first two CS presentations in an experimental protocol like Rescorla’s (1968) truly-random-control experiment....
[...]
...…principle’s prescription for stochastic model selection explains the results observed in the classic cue competition experiments (Rescorla 1968, Wagner, Logan et al. 1968, Kamin 1969), including the retroactive blocking and unblocking versions of those experiments (Matzel,…...
[...]
...This is Rescorla’s (1968) contingency protocol in which the subject eventually attributes the USs to the CS....
[...]
...This is Rescorla’s (1968) truly random control, in which the subject eventually attributes the USs to the background....
[...]
17 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)....
[...]