Naltrexone does not disrupt acquisition or performance of inhibitory conditioning

Jesus Landeira-Fernandez; Michael S. Fanselow; Joseph P. DeCola; Jeansok J. Kim

doi:10.3758/bf03337364

Naltrexone does not disrupt acquisition or performance of inhibitory conditioning

Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society ◽

10.3758/bf03337364 ◽

1993 ◽

Vol 31 (6) ◽

pp. 591-594 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jesus Landeira-Fernandez ◽

Michael S. Fanselow ◽

Joseph P. DeCola ◽

Jeansok J. Kim

Keyword(s):

Inhibitory Conditioning

Get full-text (via PubEx)

Transference of Excitatory and Inhibitory Conditioning to an Antagonistic Muscle Group

PsycEXTRA Dataset ◽

10.1037/e538282011-113 ◽

1937 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Delos D. Wickens

Keyword(s):

Muscle Group ◽

Inhibitory Conditioning ◽

Antagonistic Muscle

Get full-text (via PubEx)

The Intertrial Interval in Pavlovian Inhibitory Conditioning

PsycEXTRA Dataset ◽

10.1037/e666672011-077 ◽

1969 ◽

Author(s):

R. G. Weisman

Keyword(s):

Intertrial Interval ◽

Inhibitory Conditioning

Get full-text (via PubEx)

Inhibitory Conditioning Resulting from a Reduction in the Magnitude of Reinforcement

The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B ◽

10.1080/14640748208400884 ◽

1982 ◽

Vol 34 (3b) ◽

pp. 163-180 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

M. M. Cotton ◽

Glyn Goodall ◽

N. J. Mackintosh

Keyword(s):

Stimulus Control ◽

Shock Intensity ◽

Conditioned Suppression ◽

Summation Test ◽

Control Group ◽

Conditioned Inhibitor ◽

Inhibitory Conditioning ◽

Experimental Subjects ◽

The Difference

Five experiments, all employing conditioned suppression in rats, studied inhibitory conditioning to a stimulus signalling a reduction in shock intensity. Experimental subjects were conditioned to a tone signalling a 1·0 mA shock and to a tone-light compound signalling a 0·4 mA shock. On a summation test in which it alleviated the suppression maintained by a third stimulus also associated with the 1·0 mA shock, the light was established as a conditioned inhibitor. Retardation tests gave ambiguous results: the light was relatively slow to condition when paired, either alone or in conjunction with another stimulus, with the 0·4 mA shock, but the difference from a novel stimulus control group was not significant. Two final experiments found no evidence at all of inhibition on a summation test in which the light was presented in conjunction with a stimulus that had itself been associated with the 0·4 mA shock. The results of these experiments have implications for the question of what animals learn during the course of inhibitory conditioning.

Get full-text (via PubEx)