Classical conditioning in the planarian, Dugesia dorotocephala.

Thompson, Robert; McConnell, James V.

doi:10.1037/h0041147

Cited by 123 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of yet more interest, however, is recent work providing evidence of associative learning in invertebrate species. For example, demonstrations, not only of conditioning, but also of blocking, have been reported in insects [3], molluscs [4] and platyhelminthes [5].…”

Section: Case Study: Prosocial Behaviour In Chimpanzeesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simple minds: a qualified defence of associative learning

Heyes

2012

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

193

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using cooperation in chimpanzees as a case study, this article argues that research on animal minds needs to steer a course between 'association-blindness'-the failure to consider associative learning as a candidate explanation for complex behaviour-and 'simple-mindedness'-the assumption that associative explanations trump more cognitive hypotheses. Association-blindness is challenged by the evidence that associative learning occurs in a wide range of taxa and functional contexts, and is a major force guiding the development of complex human behaviour. Furthermore, contrary to a common view, association-blindness is not entailed by the rejection of behaviourism. Simplemindedness is founded on Morgan's canon, a methodological principle recommending 'lower' over 'higher' explanations for animal behaviour. Studies in the history and philosophy of science show that Morgan failed to offer an adequate justification for his canon, and subsequent attempts to justify the canon using evolutionary arguments and appeals to simplicity have not been successful. The weaknesses of association-blindness and simple-mindedness imply that there are no shortcuts to finding out about animal minds. To decide between associative and yet more cognitive explanations for animal behaviour, we have to spell them out in sufficient detail to allow differential predictions, and to test these predictions through observation and experiment.

show abstract

Section: Case Study: Prosocial Behaviour In Chimpanzeesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simple minds: a qualified defence of associative learning

Heyes

2012

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

193

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, planarians are a popular model to understand learning, behavioral changes due to drug exposure or withdrawal, and general locomotion mechanisms (Jennings, 1906;Moore, 1919;Cole, 1926;Thompson and McConnell, 1955;Pavlova, 2000;Hicks et al, 2006;Nishimura et al, 2007;Pagan et al, 2008). Despite this interest in planarian behavior, a quantitative method to assay planarian locomotion in detail is still lacking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative characterization of planarian wild-type behavior as a platform for screening locomotion phenotypes

Talbot

Schötz

2011

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYChanges in animal behavior resulting from genetic or chemical intervention are frequently used for phenotype characterizations. The majority of these studies are qualitative in nature, especially in systems that go beyond the classical model organisms. Here, we introduce a quantitative method to characterize behavior in the freshwater planarian Schmidtea mediterranea. Wild-type locomotion in confinement was quantified using a wide set of parameters, and the influences of intrinsic intra-worm versus interworm variability on our measurements was studied. We also examined the effect of substrate, confinement geometry and the interactions with the boundary on planarian behavior. The method is based on a simple experimental setup, using automated center-of-mass tracking and image analysis, making it an easily implemented alternative to current methods for screening planarian locomotion phenotypes. As a proof of principle, two drug-induced behavioral phenotypes were generated to show the capacity of this method. Supplementary material available online at

show abstract

“…In the language of the system proposed by Rescorla, the majority of Pavlovian conditioning research involves a positive contingency (i.e., if CS-then US) stimulus arrangement and results in excitatory conditioning. A Thompson and McConnell, 1955;Bitterman, 1964), but rather in presenting the CS and US in random relationship to each other so that no CS-US contingency exists. Under this control procedure, CS and US may occasionally be paired on a particular trial, but such a pairing occurs strictly under a random distribution of events and predicts nothing about the order of events on subsequent trials.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

CONDITIONED SUPPRESSION UNDER POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, AND NO CONTINGENCY BETWEEN CONDITIONED AND UNCONDITIONED STIMULI¹

Davis

McIntire

1969

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a conditioned suppression procedure, the effects of three contingent relationships between conditioned (CS) and unconditioned (US) stimuli were investigated. A traditional positive (if CS-then US) contingency suppressed response rate during the CS relative to responding during stimulus-free minutes of the session. A negative (if CS-then no US) contingency resulted in suppressed responding during CS-off minutes, and rate increases during the CS. A no-contingency control procedure, during which CS and US were randomly related, almost totally suppressed responding throughout the session and showed no differential effects of the CS on response rate. An analysis of changes in response rate during the minute after US-offset revealed acceleration under the no-contingency condition and, to a somewhat lesser degree, under the negative contingency. Both conditioned suppression and non-suppression are analyzed in terms of the temporal relationship between CS and US.In a recent theoretical paper, Rescorla <1967) argued that the contingency between the conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US), rather than the pairing or simple contiguity between these two events, is a critical determinant of Pavlovian conditioning. In the language of the system proposed by Rescorla, the majority of Pavlovian conditioning research involves a positive contingency (i.e., if CS-then US) stimulus arrangement and results in excitatory conditioning. A Thompson and McConnell, 1955;Bitterman, 1964), but rather in presenting the CS and US in random relationship to each other so that no CS-US contingency exists. Under this control procedure, CS and US may occasionally be paired on a particular trial, but such a pairing occurs strictly under a random distribution of events and predicts nothing about the order of events on subsequent trials. Furthermore, such a procedure provides a control for both excitatory and inhibitory aspects of Pavlovian conditioning.A recent survey (Davis, 1968) of research involving the conditioned suppression or conditioned emotional response procedure of Estes and Skinner (1941) indicates that this procedure shares the emphasis on the positive contingency and excitatory conditioning typical of much Pavlovian conditioning research in this country. Conditioned suppression is frequently analyzed in terms of the elicitation of respondents (the "fear" CR) during the CS. Fear is presumed to be incompatible with the baseline operant, which is thereby suppressed (e.g., Hunt and Brady, 1951;Kamin and Schaub, 1963

show abstract

Classical conditioning in the planarian, Dugesia dorotocephala.

Cited by 123 publications

References 3 publications

Simple minds: a qualified defence of associative learning

Simple minds: a qualified defence of associative learning

Quantitative characterization of planarian wild-type behavior as a platform for screening locomotion phenotypes

CONDITIONED SUPPRESSION UNDER POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, AND NO CONTINGENCY BETWEEN CONDITIONED AND UNCONDITIONED STIMULI¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Classical conditioning in the planarian, Dugesia dorotocephala.

Cited by 123 publications

References 3 publications

Simple minds: a qualified defence of associative learning

Simple minds: a qualified defence of associative learning

Quantitative characterization of planarian wild-type behavior as a platform for screening locomotion phenotypes

CONDITIONED SUPPRESSION UNDER POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, AND NO CONTINGENCY BETWEEN CONDITIONED AND UNCONDITIONED STIMULI1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

CONDITIONED SUPPRESSION UNDER POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, AND NO CONTINGENCY BETWEEN CONDITIONED AND UNCONDITIONED STIMULI¹