Timed excitatory conditioning under zero and negative contingencies.

2008 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas A. Williams ◽  
Carla Lawson ◽  
Rachel Cook ◽  
Amber A. Mather ◽  
Kenneth W. Johns
1994 ◽  
Vol 74 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1363-1381
Author(s):  
Paul L. DeVito ◽  
Laurie Cashman ◽  
Kimberly Petka

The effect of prior excitatory conditioning to a stimulus not included in the compound conditioning phase of the typical blocking experiment was assessed in three CER studies. The first experiment, in which rat subjects received A +, C +, or a combination of A + /C + trials prior to AB + conditioning, showed that A + /C + or C + training produced as robust blocking as A + training relative to a control group with no prior conditioning. A second experiment which was designed to assess the role of background cues in mediating the blocking effect indicated that background cues were not responsible for the A + or C + effects, while a third experiment showed these same effects were not mediated by stimulus generalization. The findings of these experiments are interpreted in the context of pseudoconditioning-induced rehearsal of a US representation in short-term memory.


1981 ◽  
Vol 33 (1b) ◽  
pp. 45-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Pearce ◽  
Anthony Montgomery ◽  
Anthony Dickinson

In Experiment I, rabbits received training to establish a clicker as a conditioned inhibitor. In a subsequent test phase this stimulus was used as a signal for shock either to the eye reinforced during initial training or to the opposite eye. Learning to the clicker was slower in both conditions than in the appropriate control groups. The second experiment replicated the results of those subjects trained and tested with opposite eyes and ruled out the possibility that the slower learning was due to the effects of latent inhibition. Experiment III demonstrated that excitatory conditioning to a clicker to one eye facilitated future excitatory conditioning to that stimulus to the opposite eye. These results are consistent with the view that inhibitory and excitatory conditioning both involve the acquisition of a general, motivational conditioned response which is capable of mediating the transfer of conditioning across different response systems.


2000 ◽  
Vol 53 (2b) ◽  
pp. 97-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa M. Gunther ◽  
Ralph R. Miller

Presentation of unsignalled unconditioned stimuli (USs) interspersed among Pavlovian excitatory conditioning trials weakens conditioned responding to a target conditioned stimulus (CS; Rescorla, 1968). However, signalling these intertrial USs with another cue (a cover stimulus) has been shown to alleviate this degraded-contingency effect (e.g. Durlach, 1982, 1983). In contrast to signalling the inter-trial USs, the present experiments examined the effect on the degraded-contingency effect of signalling the target CS-US pairings. Experiment 1, using parameters selected to avoid overshadowing, found that consistently presenting a cover stimulus immediately prior to the target CS-US pairings during degraded-contingency training alleviated the degraded-contingency effect. Experiment 2 examined the underlying mechanism responsible for this cover-stimulus effect through posttraining associative inflation of the cover stimulus or the context, and found that inflation of the cover stimulus attenuated responding to the target CS (i.e. empirical retrospective revaluation). The results are discussed in terms of various acquisition- and expression-focused models of acquired responding.


1979 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 987-992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moshe J. Levison ◽  
Edward I. Gavurin

Both Jensen (1965) and Dyal (1973) have called for the introduction of the truly random control group in studies of planaria to provide an appropriate baseline against which to evaluate the associative effects of CS-US pairings. Accordingly, an experiment was performed comparing a Pavlovian excitatory conditioning group both with the traditional unpaired control group and a Rescorla truly random group. Three conditions were compared (six planaria in each) using a trace conditioning procedure (3-sec. light CS followed by a 1-sec. shock US). The major results of the experiment were that (a) the Pavlovian excitatory group showed an increase in performance only for the contraction CR measure, (b) head turns and combined CR measures showed only decreases or no changes in performance in any of the groups; (c) the performance of the truly random control group was between the Pavlovian excitatory and unpaired control groups, providing support for the notion that the latter is not truly a control condition but an inhibitory one.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document