Reduction in the effectiveness of reinforcement after prior excitatory conditioning
TL;DR: This article found that prior fear conditioning of the elements of a compound stimulus limits the effectiveness of subsequent reinforcement of that compound, and the inadequacy of a stimulus selection account of the results is noted.
About: This article is published in Learning and Motivation.The article was published on 1970-11-01. It has received 144 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Measures of conditioned emotional response & Fear conditioning.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: A new model is proposed that deals with the explanation of cases in which learning does not occur in spite of the fact that the conditioned stimulus is a signal for the reinforcer by specifying that certain procedures cause a conditioned stimulus to lose effectiveness.
Abstract: Several formal models of excitatory classical conditioning are reviewed. It is suggested that a central problem for all of them is the explanation of cases in which learning does not occur in spite of the fact that the conditioned stimulus is a signal for the reinforcer. We propose a new model that deals with this problem by specifying that certain procedures cause a conditioned stimulus (CS) to lose effectiveness; in particular, we argue that a CS will lose associability when its consequences are accurately predicted. In contrast to other current models, the effectiveness of the reinforcer remains constant throughout conditioning. The second part of the article presents a reformulation of the nature of the learning produced by inhibitory-conditioning procedures and a discussion of the way in which such learning can be accommodated within the model outlined for excitatory learning.
2,779 citations
Cites background from "Reduction in the effectiveness of r..."
...Experimental studies of a phenomenon that has been called "overexpectation" (Kremer, 1978; Rescorla, 1970; Wagner, 1971) allow us to specify this relationship more precisely....
[...]
Book•
[...]
01 Jan 1977
TL;DR: It now appears possible to identify these circuits, localize the sites of memory storage, and analyze the cellular and molecular mechanisms of memory.
Abstract: How the brain codes, stores, and retrieves memories is among the most important and baffling questions in science. The uniqueness of each human being is due largely to the memory store—the biological residue of memory from a lifetime of experience. The cellular basis of this ability to learn can be traced to simpler organisms. In the past generation, understanding of the biological basis of learning and memory has undergone a revolution. It is clear that various forms and aspects of learning and memory involve particular systems, networks, and circuits in the brain, and it now appears possible to identify these circuits, localize the sites of memory storage, and analyze the cellular and molecular mechanisms of memory.
1,248 citations
TL;DR: Behavioral, theoretical and neurobiological work, including the regions in which extinction-related plasticity occurs and the cellular and molecular processes that are engaged are covered, along with a discussion of clinical implications.
Abstract: Excessive fear and anxiety are hallmarks of a variety of disabling anxiety disorders that affect millions of people throughout the world. Hence, a greater understanding of the brain mechanisms involved in the inhibition of fear and anxiety is attracting increasing interest in the research community. In the laboratory, fear inhibition most often is studied through a procedure in which a previously fear conditioned organism is exposed to a fear-eliciting cue in the absence of any aversive event. This procedure results in a decline in conditioned fear responses that is attributed to a process called fear extinction. Extensive empirical work by behavioral psychologists has revealed basic behavioral characteristics of extinction, and theoretical accounts have emphasized extinction as a form of inhibitory learning as opposed to an erasure of acquired fear. Guided by this work, neuroscientists have begun to dissect the neural mechanisms involved, including the regions in which extinction-related plasticity occurs and the cellular and molecular processes that are engaged. The present paper will cover behavioral, theoretical and neurobiological work, and will conclude with a discussion of clinical implications.
1,174 citations
TL;DR: Cheng and Novick as mentioned in this paper proposed a causal power theory of the probabilistic contrast model, which is based on covariation and causal power, and showed that causal relations are neither observable nor deducible.
Abstract: Because causal relations are neither observable nor deducible, they must be induced from observable events. The 2 dominant approaches to the psychology of causal induction—the covariation approach and the causal power approach—are each crippled by fundamental problems. This article proposes an integration of these approaches thai overcomes these problems. The proposal is that reasoners innately treat the relation between covariation (a function denned in terms of observable events) and causal power (an unobservable entity) as that between scientists' law or model and their theory explaining the model. This solution is formalized in the power PC theory, a causal power theory of the probabilistic contrast model (P. W. Cheng & L. R. Novick, 1990). The article reviews diverse old and new empirical tests discriminating this theory from previous models, none of which is justified by a theory. The results uniquely support the power PC theory.
1,119 citations
Additional excerpts
...…1995; Kamin, 1968; Shanks, 1991), induced overshadowing (e.g., Baker et al., 1993; Price & Yates, 1993), overexpectation (e.g., Park & Cheng, 1995; Rescorla, 1970), acquisition of conditioned inhibition (e.g., Miller & Schachtman , 1985; Williams, 1995; Williams & Docking, 1995; Yarlas et al.,…...
[...]
TL;DR: A selective review of experiments that can be said to demonstrate the effects of generalization decrement in Pavlovian condition is presented, and it is argued that an adequate theoretical explanation for them is currently not available.
Abstract: A selective review of experiments that can be said to demonstrate the effects of generalization decrement in Pavlovian condition is presented, and it is argued that an adequate theoretical explanation for them is currently not available. This article then develops a theoretical account for the processes of generalization and generalization decrement in Pavlovian conditioning. It assumes that animals represent their environment by a stimulus array in a buffer and that this array in its entirety constitutes the conditioned stimulus. Generalization is then held to occur whenever at least some of the stimuli represented in the array on a test trial are the same as at least some of those represented in the array during training. Specifically, the magnitude of generalization is determined by the proportion of the array occupied by these common stimuli during training compared to the proportion of the array they occupy during testing. By adding to this principle rules concerning excitatory and inhibitory learning, it is proposed, the model can explain all the results that were difficult for its predecessors to account for. A fundamental property of conditioned responding is that it may occur in circumstances that differ from those prevailing during acquisition. This phenomenon is referred to as generalization, and the term generalization decrement is used when this transfer is less than complete. These effects have been revealed with both Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning, using a variety of species and a wide range of conditioned stimuli (CS) and unconditioned stimuli (US). As iar as instrumental conditioning is concerned, a considerable number of studies have been directed at examining the factors that influence the magnitude of generalization from one situation to another (for reviews see Honig & Urcuioli, 1981; Mackintosh, 1974). These results also have been the focus of considerable theoretical analysis. In contrast, much less attention has been paid to the role of generalization in Pavlovian conditioning. Only a few studies have been concerned specifically with demonstrating the generalization decrement of a Pavlovian conditioned response (CR) as a result of modifying the properties of the CS (Hofiman & Fleshier, 1961; Hovland, 1937; Moore, 1972; Pavlov, 1927; Siegel, Hearst, George, & O'Neal, 1968). Furthermore, only a few theorists have been specifically concerned with the analysis of these and related effects (Hull, 1943; Pavlov, 1927). An alternative approach has been to show how a particular theoretical analysis of the Pavlovian learning process can be extended to account for generalization and generalization decrement (cf. Rescorla, 1976). The argument presented in this article is based on the premise that an adequate account for the effects of generalization must lie at the core of
1,044 citations
Cites result from "Reduction in the effectiveness of r..."
...A number of authors have noted that the results of overexpectation experiments are incompatible with analyses of Pavlovian conditioning similar to that offered here (James & Wagner, 1980; Rescorla, 1970; Wagner, 1971)....
[...]
References
More filters
01 Dec 1967
TL;DR: The role of attention in Pavlovian conditioning, and use of auditory and visual stimuli to condition rats is discussed in this article, where the authors discuss the use of both visual and auditory stimuli.
Abstract: Role of attention in Pavlovian conditioning, and use of auditory and visual stimuli to condition rats
1,562 citations
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
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.
1,002 citations
01 Jan 1968
TL;DR: Conditioned emotional response studies using rats already trained to press bar for food supply were conducted in this paper, where the authors used conditioned emotional response to evaluate the emotional response of rats.
Abstract: Conditioned emotional response studies using rats already trained to press bar for food supply
819 citations
64 citations