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
Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: This chapter analyzes the results of some modern classical conditioning experiments from the perspective of a computational model based on the assumption that the underlying learning process is specifically adapted to the domain of multivariate, nonstationary time series.
Abstract: Publisher Summary This chapter analyzes the results of some modern classical conditioning experiments from the perspective of a computational model based on the assumption that the underlying learning process is specifically adapted to the domain of multivariate, nonstationary time series. It focuses on the quantitative results from experiments on the effects of partial reinforcement on the rate of acquisition and extinction because the other predictions of the model have been discussed and associative models are conspicuously unsuccessful at making quantitative predictions in this area. The model gives a mathematical characterization of the learning process from which one can derive the results of conditioning experiments. It is unlike these models in the sense that it is not in the associative tradition. The model replaces the associative explanatory framework with a framework that treats the conditioning process as a computational mechanism adapted through evolution to the peculiarities of one domain-a mechanism that solves one and only one of the several fundamentally distinct learning problems that confront mobile, multicellular organisms.

12 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Results are consistent with the view that X, as a result of the AX− trials of inhibitory training, comes to possess a direct X→US associative link, and that the negative summation potential of an inhibitor is a function of the discrepancy in excitatory associative strengths between the putative inhibitor and the conditioned excitor used in inhibition training.

12 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The acquisition, retention, and extinction of context-specific morphine withdrawal in rats were investigated in two experiments and conditioned rearing was extinguished by exposure to the drug context with or without a placebo injection.
Abstract: The acquisition, retention, and extinction of context-specific morphine withdrawal in rats were investigated in two experiments. In Experiment 1, context-specific withdrawal was observed after a placebo injection following 11 sessions in which the context was paired with either a 10-mg/kg or a 75-mg/kg dose of morphine. Contextual withdrawal was retained during 10 days of drug abstinence in both dose conditions. In Experiment 2, context-specific withdrawal (rearing) was retained after 21 days of morphine abstinence. In addition, conditioned rearing was extinguished by exposure to the drug context with or without a placebo injection. Injection cues did not contribute to conditioned withdrawal.

12 citations

Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: This chapter discusses a unified framework, which encompasses the computations, algorithms, and neurobiological implementations underlying classical conditioning, and presents an extensive mathematical analysis of the constraints on classical conditioning.
Abstract: Publisher Summary This chapter discusses a unified framework, which encompasses the computations, algorithms, and neurobiological implementations underlying classical conditioning. It presents an extensive mathematical analysis of the constraints on classical conditioning—that is, the precise contingency conditions under which mammals may and may not learn a particular association between two events in a classical conditioning situation. In classical conditioning, an unconditional stimulus (US)—that is, a cue, which is inherently biologically salient to an animal (such as an electric shock), is repeatedly paired with a conditional stimulus (CS), a cue that initially has no special significance to the animal over repeated trials, the animal can learn that the CS is predictive of or associated with the US. This phenomenon of associative learning is subject to laws and constraints: An association is learned to some extent in some conditions and to a lesser extent in others.

12 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This work elaborates upon the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis by addressing the connection between selection as a domain-general process and phenomena such as classical and operant conditioning, imprinting, adjunctive behavior, and gene-culture coevolution.

12 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)....

    [...]