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: It is demonstrated that the opportunity to experience action–outcome contingencies in the absence of extrinsic rewards promotes capuchins’ exploration and facilitates learning processes, representing a powerful mechanism allowing the acquisition of skills and cognitive competence that the individual can later exploit for adaptive purposes.
Abstract: Animals have a strong propensity to explore the environment. Spontaneous exploration has a great biological significance since it allows animals to discover and learn the relation between specific behaviours and their consequences. The role of the contingency between action and outcome for learning has been mainly investigated in instrumental learning settings and much less in free exploration contexts. We tested 16 capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.) with a mechatronic platform that allowed complex modules to be manipulated and to produce different outcomes. Experimental subjects could manipulate the modules and discover the contingencies between their own specific actions and the outcomes produced (i.e., the opening and lighting of a box). By contrast, Control subjects could operate on the modules, but the outcomes experienced were those performed by their paired Experimental subjects (“yoked-control” paradigm). In the exploration phase, in which no food reward was present, Experimental subjects spent more time on the board and manipulated the modules more than Yoked subjects. Experimental subjects outperformed Yoked subjects in the following test phase, where success required recalling the effective action so to open the box, now baited with food. These findings demonstrate that the opportunity to experience action–outcome contingencies in the absence of extrinsic rewards promotes capuchins’ exploration and facilitates learning processes. Thus, this intrinsically motivated learning represents a powerful mechanism allowing the acquisition of skills and cognitive competence that the individual can later exploit for adaptive purposes.
13 citations
Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...The role of contingency has been mainly studied through instrumental learning paradigms in which behaviour was rewarded (e.g., Rescorla 1968; Pearce 2008)....
[...]
TL;DR: It was found that interpositus lesions effectively eliminated the CR irrespective of the behavioral response measured, providing strong evidence that the effects of the electrical stimulation were confined to the cerebellum and did not require the activation of brainstem structures.
13 citations
01 May 2016
TL;DR: The aim in this chapter is to introduce the fundamentals of learning that will later be developed and applied in subsequent chapters.
Abstract: CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND Learning is a key aspect of behavior that may greatly enhance the survival and fecundity of animals, especially in a changing environment. Wildlife conservation problems often involve increasing the population of threatened or endangered species, decreasing the population of species deemed over abundant or encouraging animals to move to or from certain areas. Learning is an example of reversible plasticity (for review see Dukas 2009), which typically remains open to change throughout life. Old associations can be replaced, relearned and reinstated, facilitating behavioral modifications across an individual's lifetime. Because learning is potentially demographically important, and because it can be used to modify individual's behavior, it may therefore be an important tool for conservation behaviorists (Blumstein & Fernandez-Juricic 2010). Our aim in this chapter is to introduce the fundamentals of learning that will later be developed and applied in subsequent chapters. Animal learning theory defines learning as experience that elicits a change in behavior (Rescorla 1988, Heyes 1994). There are three basic mechanisms, or types of experiences, that underlie animal learning. The simplest learning process is non-associative because it involves an individual's experience with a single stimulus. During this process, exposure to the single stimulus results in a change in the magnitude of response upon subsequent exposures to that stimulus. If the response increases, the process is called sensitization ; if the response decreases, the process is called habituation . More complex associative learning mechanisms involve a change in behavior as a result of experience with two stimuli through Pavlovian conditioning (also referred to as classical conditioning ), or the relationship between a subject's own behavior in response to a stimulus, which is called instrumental conditioning . Finally, learning can also occur as a result of interactions or observations with other individuals through social learning , but it is currently unclear whether social learning actually represents separate learning mechanisms than individual learning (Heyes 1994). Below we will describe these in more detail and outline the conditions that influence them. Later we will explain how knowledge of mechanisms of learning can be applied to wildlife management and conservation. Non-associative learning: habituation and sensitization What is it? Single-stimulus learning is the simplest learning process and involves a change in the frequency or intensity of response to a stimulus.
13 citations
TL;DR: The effects of reinforcers occurring in the absence of a response depend critically upon the stimulus conditions paired with those rein forcers, in much the same manner as has been shown with Pavlovian contingency effects.
13 citations
TL;DR: Whether cue-outcome associations might provide the common underlying mechanism that would allow to explain both accurate and biased contingency learning and a number of findings in the literature can be regarded as supportive of the associative framework.
Abstract: Many experiments have shown that humans and other animals can detect contingency between events accurately. This learning is used to make predictions and to infer causal relationships, both of which are critical for survival. Under certain conditions, however, people tend to overestimate a null contingency. We argue that a successful theory of contingency learning should explain both results. The main purpose of the present review is to assess whether cue-outcome associations might provide the common underlying mechanism that would allow us to explain both accurate and biased contingency learning. In addition, we discuss whether associations can also account for causal learning. After providing a brief description on both accurate and biased contingency judgments, we elaborate on the main predictions of associative models and describe some supporting evidence. Then, we discuss a number of findings in the literature that, although conducted with a different purpose and in different areas of research, can also be regarded as supportive of the associative framework. Finally, we discuss some problems with the associative view and discuss some alternative proposals as well as some of the areas of current debate. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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)....
[...]