CS and US duration effects in one-trial simultaneous fear conditioning as assessed by conditioned suppression of licking in rats

Burkhardt, Paul E.; Ayres, John J. B.

doi:10.3758/bf03209605

Cited by 46 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, successful demonstrations of conditioning to white noise and tone CSs are common, even with only one conditioning trial and regardless of whether the CS occurs before, during, or after the US (Burkhardt, 1980;Burkhardt & Ayres, 1978;Mahoney & Ayres, 1976;Shurtleff & Ayres, 1981). The present paper provides some clues as to why the light may be seldom used in the lick-suppression literature.…”

mentioning

confidence: 70%

“…Previous papers from this laboratory describing experiments similar to the present one (Burkhardt & Ayres, 1978;Mahoney & Ayres, 1976;Shurtleff & Ayres, 1981) reported group median CS times and analyzed the results using nonpararnetric statistical procedures. Other laboratories, however, routinely convert the CS times to logs (base 10), report group means and standard errors of the mean of those logs, and use parametric analyses of variance (ANOVAs) on the log scores (e.g., Kasprow et aI., 1982;Marlin, 1983).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

CS modality effects in one-trial backward and forward excitatory conditioning as assessed by conditioned suppression of licking in rats

Willigen

Emmett

Côté

et al. 1987

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats received a single 4-sec I-rnA grid-shock US either preceded or followed by a 4-sec tone or light CS. Conditioning was later assessed by comparing the amount oflick suppression evoked by the forward-or backward-paired CS versus an explicitly unpaired CS. The backward-paired CS produced more suppression than the unpaired CS only when both were tone; the light evoked . strong suppression whether paired or not. In the forward procedure, tone produced more suppression when paired and less when unpaired than did light; conditioning thus appeared stronger with the tone. In one experiment, observations showed that rats froze during the forward-paired tone but not during the light. Increasing CS duration from 4 to 12 sec had no effect for the forwardpaired light but increased freezing to the forward-paired tone. Another experiment showed similar unconditioned suppression to tone and light but faster habituation to tone. Problems that these results create for interpreting evidence for excitatory backward conditioning in the conditioned suppression procedure are discussed.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

CS modality effects in one-trial backward and forward excitatory conditioning as assessed by conditioned suppression of licking in rats

Willigen

Emmett

Côté

et al. 1987

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Differences in the absolute level of suppression in successive replications of the same procedure with rats from different shipments are not unusual in this procedure (for discussion, see Burkhardt & Ayres, 1978). Methodologically, these differences argue strongly against the use of post hoc controls in the present preparation.…”

Section: Retention Of Backward Conditioning 69mentioning

confidence: 58%

“…The remaining dependent measures, the pre-CS times, the first lick latencies, and the recovery times were not expected to differ systematically across groups (cf. Burkhardt & Ayres, 1978;; accordingly, they were analyzed using two-tailed post hoc multiple comparisons for unequal sample sizes with a set equal to .05 experimentwise (Hollander & Wolfe, 1973, pp, 124-129).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

One-trial backward excitatory fear conditioning in rats: Acquisition, retention, extinction, and spontaneous recovery

Shurtleff

Ayres

1981

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water-deprived male albino rats received a single presentation of a 4-sec electric-grid-shock unconditioned stimulus followed by a 4-sec white-noise conditioned stimulus (a single backward conditioning trial.) Excitation conditioned to the noise was indexed in terms of the noise's subsequent ability to suppress ongoing licking of a water tube. The main findings were: (1) Excitation was acquired and was retained over a 30-day retention interval; (2) although excitation was retained, it did not grow significantly stronger during the interval (there was no incubation effect); (3)excitation was extinguished by noise-alone trials; and (4)excitation showed more spontaneous recovery when extinction trials were separated by 29 days than when separated by only 1 day. Because these results are similar to those in the forward conditioning literature, they seem consistent with, but do not demand, the view that forward and backward excitatory conditioning involve similar learning processes. A current theory that embraces this view is opponent-process theory (Solomon & Corbit, 1974). We suggest that opponent-process theory can (1)account for existing backward conditioning data, (2) explain the phenomenon of incubation that has previously been described in the literature while simultaneously explaining its absence in the present study, and (3)integrate certain nonmonotonic acquisition phenomena that have appeared in both the forward and backward conditioning literatures.Reports that conditioned excitation can be established through backward conditioning procedures have for years met with skepticism (e.g., Kimble, 1961;Mackintosh, 1974;Osgood, 1953;Underwood, 1949). Indeed, backward conditioning procedures have often been used in classical conditioning experiments as control procedures designed to leave the conditioned stimulus (CS) neutral. Furthermore, when this practice was eventually criticized (Rescorla, 1967), the criticism was not that the CS might become excitatory but, rather, that it might acquire an opposite, inhibitory tendency. Such conditioned inhibition is clearly predicted by several modern theories of conditioning, including contingency theory (Rescorla, 1967) and discrepancy theory (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972). More generally, conditioned inhibition is predicted by any theory that emphasizes the information that CSs provide about unconditioned stimuli (USs). Since backward CSs usually predict relatively long periods of US absence (e.g., Moscovitch & LoLordo, 1968), they are expected to acquire conditioned properties opposite to those of CSs that predict the imminent occurrence of USs. Empirical support for this predicted conditioned inhibition has been accumulating in recent years and now appears substantial (Heth, 1976;Maier, Rapaport, & Wheatley, 1976;Moscovitch & LoLordo, 1968;Plotkin & Oakley, 1975;Siegel & Domjan, 1971, 1974. In addition, it has also been shown that backward (US-CS) pairings can serve to extinguish excitatory conditioning based on forward (CS-US) pairings (Ayres, Mahoney, Proulx, & Benedict,...

show abstract

“…According to these writers, there is little evidence in the experimental literature for one-trial Pavlovian fear conditioning. In contrast to Sturgis and Scott, we believe that there are numerous examples of one-trial fear conditioning in the animal experimental literature, including several reports from our own laboratory (Albert, 1990;Ayres, Haddad & Albert, 1987;Burkhardt & Ayres, 1978;Mahoney & Ayres, 1976;Shurtleff & Ayres, 1981;van Willigen, Emmett, Cote & Ayres, 1987). The present results will add to that body of data.…”

mentioning

confidence: 43%

One-trial backward excitatory fear conditioning transfers across contexts

Bevins

Ayres

1992

Behaviour Research and Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary--One path to human phobia may be one-trial backward fear conditioning. Human phobias transfer readily across contexts.However, animal studies of one-trial backward fear conditioning have yet to demonstrate such transfer. The present study sought to do so.It used a lick-suppression procedure with 84 naive male albino rats. Two conditioning contexts, designated O and V, were crossed factorially with two test contexts, O and V. Within each cell of the factorial design, rats received in the conditioning context either a single 12 sec tone backward paired with a single 4 sec 1 mA shock or the same tone explicitly unpaired with shock. Fear of context and fear of tone were subsequently assessed in terms of the suppression of licking that they evoked. Test results suggested that (1) the rats discriminated between contexts O and V, and (2) despite such discrimination, one-trial backward fear conditioning transfered across the two contexts. The results enhance the plausibility of one-trial backward fear conditioning as a source of human phobia.This report deals with two questions of interest to students of human anxiety disorders. The first is whether the animal conditioning literature provides convincing evidence that a single Pavlovian conditioning trial can cause significant fear conditioning. The second is whether Pavlovian backward conditioning is a plausible source of human phobia.With regard to the first issue, Sturgis and Scott (1984, p. 103) have argued that Pavlovian conditioning models of human phobias should be rejected in part because phobias often result from a single experience. According to these writers, there is little evidence in the experimental literature for one-trial Pavlovian fear conditioning. In contrast to Sturgis and Scott, we believe that there are numerous examples of one-trial fear conditioning in the animal experimental literature, including several reports from our own laboratory (Albert, 1990;Ayres, Haddad & Albert, 1987;Burkhardt & Ayres, 1978;Mahoney & Ayres, 1976;Shurtleff & Ayres, 1981;van Willigen, Emmett, Cote & Ayres, 1987). The present results will add to that body of data.With regard to the second issue, a number of writers have observed that human phobias are so widespread that theorists must consider broadening the theoretical pathways to fear acquisition rather than confining their attention to the obvious routes of Pavlovian forward delay and/or trace conditioning. Eysenck (1975), for example, suggested the possibility that backward conditioning might provide an additional path to human phobia. In backward conditioning procedures, the unconditioned stimulus (US) precedes the conditioned stimulus (CS), and thus the CS cannot predict US onset. Even so, evidence is mounting that backward fear conditioning procedures using a small number of trials can indeed establish measurable conditioned fear to the backward-paired CS (for a review, see Spetch, Wilkie & Pinel, 1981). Again, the demonstrations from our own laboratory seem especially relevant because they were based on ...

show abstract

CS and US duration effects in one-trial simultaneous fear conditioning as assessed by conditioned suppression of licking in rats

Cited by 46 publications

References 17 publications

CS modality effects in one-trial backward and forward excitatory conditioning as assessed by conditioned suppression of licking in rats

CS modality effects in one-trial backward and forward excitatory conditioning as assessed by conditioned suppression of licking in rats

One-trial backward excitatory fear conditioning in rats: Acquisition, retention, extinction, and spontaneous recovery

One-trial backward excitatory fear conditioning transfers across contexts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About