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: The goal of the experiments presented in this article was to demonstrate that classical conditioning, which is dependent on pairing and predictability, can be readily demonstrated in the semi-intact leech preparation, which lays the foundation for cellular experiments to delineate the neural mechanisms mediating the associative process.
Abstract: Three experiments addressed the importance of the inter-event relationships of contiguity and contingency for associative learning in the semi-intact leech. It was found that both of these relationships are important for the leech to acquire a learned association between a touch (conditional stimulus, CS) and shock (unconditional stimulus, US). The learning can be extinguished if training is followed by explicitly unpaired presentations of the CS and US, which removes the contiguity between the stimuli. Learning is degraded by the introduction of unpredicted USs, as well as by unreinforced presentations of the CS (CS preexposure), both manipulations reduce the contingency between the CS and US. These results suggest that the associative process in both vertebrates and invertebrates share considerable functional similarity in the inter-event relationships important to learning. For vertebrates and invertebrates alike, the specific temporal relationships between the conditional stimulus (CS) and the unconditional stimulus (US) are critical for associative learning to occur. The contiguous occurrence of these two stimuli in time and the predictive relationship of the CS to the US are essential for an association between the stimuli to take place (Carew, Hawkins, & Kandel, 1983; Colwill, Absher, & Roberts, 1988; Farley, 1987; Hawkins, Carew, & Kandel, 1986; Kamin, 1969; Rescorla, 1969; Sahley, Rudy & Gelperin, 1981). The goal of the experiments presented in this article was to demonstrate that classical conditioning, which is dependent on pairing and predictability, can be readily demonstrated in the semi-intact leech preparation. This work lays the foundation for cellular experiments to delineate the neural mechanisms mediating the associative process. Associative learning, a rich and complex phenomenon involving the integration of many inter-event relationships, has not been completely addressed by neurobiologists (Rescorla, 1984; 1988). Current cellular models of learning in invertebrates have focused on the contiguity aspects of learning with little attention paid to aspects of learning, such as predictability, conditioned inhibition, second-order conditioning, sensory preconditioning, and latent inhibition, or such basics as mechanisms of the acquisition of learning over trials, extinction of learning, and the effects of intertrial intervals. Our long-term goal is to use this semi-intact preparation to identify and characterize the cellular mechanisms underlying the associative process. We began this analysis by testing the effects of
13 citations
01 Jan 1987
TL;DR: The original premise of behavior therapy was that certain pathological behavior patterns are acquired through conditioning and therefore treatable by controlled and appropriate manipulation of the processes underlying this form of learning as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The original premise of behavior therapy was that certain pathological behavior patterns are acquired through conditioning and therefore treatable by controlled and appropriate manipulation of the processes underlying this form of learning. This assumption places conditioning at the theoretical focus of any discussion of abnormal behavior, not only for those who endorse the premise but also for those who wish to challenge it. And for both parties the analysis and treatment of such disorders must be measured against contemporary views of conditioning rather than those current at the genesis or behavior therapy a generation or so ago. This would be of little import if our view of conditioning had remained relatively static; the fact, however, is that conditioning theory has undergone a major revison during the intervening years.
13 citations
TL;DR: By exploiting an emergent property of selection networks—acquired reinforcement—critical aspects of imagining, thinking, and language acquisition can also be interpreted, and both the temporal paradox and the binding paradox are resolved.
Abstract: Evolution through natural selection has addressed the problem of modifying synapses throughout large networks of neurons by exploiting diffusely projecting neuromodulatory systems. When pre- and postsynaptic neurons are coactive, synaptic efficacies increase or decrease dependent upon whether the neuromodulator dopamine is simultaneously present or absent. Salient characteristics of this process can be simulated with selection networks, artificial neural networks whose architecture instantiates a processing system whose connection weights are modified by a scalar reinforcing signal. This arrangement resolves both the temporal paradox and the binding paradox, twin challenges to any attempt to interpret complex behavior by means of neural networks. Further, by exploiting an emergent property of selection networks—acquired reinforcement—critical aspects of imagining, thinking, and language acquisition can also be interpreted.
13 citations
TL;DR: Visual perceptual learning can occur as a result of a repetitive stimulus-reward pairing in the absence of any task, and training subjects with an operant conditioning task showed that VPL only occurred for positive contingencies, but not for neutral or negative contingency.
Abstract: Visual perceptual learning (VPL) can occur as a result of a repetitive stimulus-reward pairing in the absence of any task. This suggests that rules that guide Conditioning, such as stimulus-reward contingency (e.g., that stimulus predicts the likelihood of reward), may also guide the formation of VPL. To address this question, we trained subjects with an operant conditioning task in which there were contingencies between the response to one of three orientations and the presence of reward. Results showed that VPL only occurred for positive contingencies, but not for neutral or negative contingencies. These results suggest that the formation of VPL is influenced by similar rules that guide the process of Conditioning.
13 citations
Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...We hypothesized that if VPL followed the rule of contingency in Conditioning (Rescorla, 1968) we should observe VPL in the positive-contingency orientation and no VPL in the zero-contingency orientation....
[...]
...A question arises whether VPL follows the same rules of contingency as found in Conditioning (Rescorla, 1968; Schultz, 2006; Schultz, Dayan, & Montague, 1997)....
[...]
...When the probability of a reward is higher during the conditioned stimulus than at other times (positive contingency), excitatory Conditioning occurs and when the probability is lower (negative contingency), negative Conditioning occurs (Rescorla, 1968, 1988a, 1988b; Schultz, 2006; Shanks, 1987)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors used a selected mouse line of high and low Pavlovian conditioned fear created from an advanced intercrossed line (AIL) to identify the cellular basis of phenotypic divergence in fear conditioning.
13 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)....
[...]