Dependence of equality judgments upon the temporal interval between stimulus presentations.

McAllister, Wallace R.; McAllister, Dorothy E.; Franchina, Joseph J.

doi:10.1037/h0022675

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This view is compatible with generalization data obtained from animals following instrumental reward training (Perkins & Weyant, 1958), and with the results of a 140 recent psychophysical study with human Ss which shows that time elapsing between the presentation of constant and variable stimuli impairs discrimination of line lengths (McAllister, McAllister, & Franchina, 1965).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 79%

Incubation of anxiety: Effect on temporal generalization

1966

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Temporal generalization gradients were obtained, either immediately after training or after a 6-hr. delay, from Ss exposed to either aversive or innocuous reaction time signals. Smaller generalization decrements were found for Ss receiving delayed testing, and signal aversiveness did not affect the magnitude of the decrement. Instead of finding support for an "anxiety-incubation" hypothesis, it was concluded that non-emotional factors associated with elapsed time produce flattened generalization gradients.For human Ss, the effect of delayed testing on the PGR has been to elevate, but not flatten, the generalization gradient, suggesting an increase, or "incubation," of conditioned anxiety across time (Mednick, 1957). However, several acquired-drive studies have indicated that, following classical aversive conditioning, rats show smaller generalization decrementS-without elevation of the overall gradient-if time elapses between conditioning and testing (McAllister & McAllister, 1963; Desiderato, Butler, & Meyer, 1966).While it is possible that the "incubation effect" may be limited to human Ss, wide procedural differences make comparison between these studies difficult. Accordingly, the present study is an additional test of the "incubation effect" at the human level, using a temporal generalization paradigm. To test whether gradient effects associated with delay necessarily involve changes in conditioned emotionality, for half the Ss, the training phase did not involve aversive stimulation. Thus, gradient effects could be attributed to an "incubation" process only in the case of Ss tested following aversive training. MethodThe Ss were 40 college women. 3 Following the procedure for obtaining temporal gradients described elsewhere (Desiderato, 1964), each S was trained for 25 trials to press a telegraph key in response to an auditory signal delivered via earphones once every 12 sec. Since the S's response immediately terminated the signal, signal duration was equivalent to her reaction time. Throughout the experiment, for half the Ss, the signal was white noise at an aversive level of 119 dB, SPL (Group N); the remaining Ss heard a pure tone of 1000 cps, at 86 dB, SPL (Group T).Following the 25th training trial, for half the Ss in each group the generalization test commenced without interruption. Ss in the remaining subgroups were asked to return for a continuation of the experiment 6 hr. later. Every S received five testblocks,eachconsisting of seven trials. Within each block, the following interstimulus intervals were used: 5.5, 7.0, 9.0, 12.0, 15.5, Psychon. Sci., 1966, Vol. 6 (4) 20.0, and 26.0 sec. The order varied randomly from S to S and from block to block. After the last test trial, Ss were asked to indicate on 5-point rating scales how unpleasant they found (1) the signal to respond (noise or tone) and (2) the entire experiment. Results and DiscussionAll RT scores were transformed into reciprocals. Analysis of training trials revealed that Group N responded faster than Group T, F=34.71, df=I/36, P < ....

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 79%

Incubation of anxiety: Effect on temporal generalization

1966

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This experiment additionally suggested that the recovery of suppression to the blocked stimulus was not due to an impaired association between the blocking stimulus, A, and O after a retention interval because suppression to CS A at test was not appreciably affected by the retention interval. Finally, Experiment 3 showed that sensory preconditioning is attenuated over a retention interval, a result that allowed us to reject alternative accounts for the results of Experiments 1 and 2 based on a flattening of the generalization gradients of CSs X and A as a function of passage of time (e.g., McAllister & McAllister, 1963;McAllister et al, 1965;Perkins & Weyant, 1958;Thomas & Lo ´pez, 1962) or incubation of fear over the retention interval (Eysenck, 1968). This experiment also found that responding to the first-order CS, A, was not significantly affected by the retention interval.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Spontaneous Recovery From Forward and Backward Blocking.

Pineño

Urushihara

Miller

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article demonstrates and analyzes spontaneous recovery of stimulus control following both forward and backward blocking in a conditioned suppression preparation with rats. Experiment 1 found, in first-order conditioning, robust forward blocking and an attenuation of it following a retention interval. Experiment 2 showed, in sensory preconditioning, recovery of responding following both forward and backward blocking. Also, the results of this experiment indicated that response recovery to the blocked stimulus cannot be explained by an impaired status of the blocking stimulus after a retention interval. Experiment 3, also in sensory preconditioning, suggested that spontaneous recovery following both forward and backward blocking in Experiment 2 was due to impaired associative activation of the blocking stimulus' representation during testing with the blocked stimulus. Although no contemporary model of associative learning can explain these results, a modification of R. R. Miller and L. D. Matzel's (1988) comparator hypothesis is proposed to do so.Few findings in the associative learning literature have encouraged as much research as Kamin's (1968) report of the blocking effect. Blocking refers to impaired responding to a conditioned stimulus (CS), X, as a result of its being paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) in the presence of another CS, A, which receives additional pairings with the US without CS X, relative to a control group that does not receive the additional A-US pairings. Typically, a blocking experiment consists of two different types of training trials (i.e., A-US and AX-US trials) administered in separate phases followed by the presentation of CS X during testing. When the A-US trials precede the AX-US trials, the response impairment to X is called forward blocking, whereas when the A-US trials follow the AX-US trials, it is referred to as backward blocking. The forward blocking effect is quite robust, and explaining it has become a benchmark test of contemporary models of associative learning (e.g., Rescorla & Wagner, 1972). In addition, the study of blocking has strengthened the link between animal conditioning and human learning by providing evidence of this effect in diverse species. Whereas forward blocking was first found in conditioned suppression with nonhuman animals by Kamin and then demonstrated with humans in a causal learning preparation by Dickinson, Shanks, and Evenden (1984), backward blocking was originally demonstrated by Shanks (1985) in a causal learning preparation with humans and then replicated in a classical conditioning preparation with nonhuman animals (Denniston, Miller, & Matute, 1996;R. R. Miller & Matute, 1996b).The first explanation of the forward blocking effect was provided by Kamin (1968), who proposed that it occurred because the US was not surprising during the AX-US trials because of its occurrence being fully predicted by the presence of CS A as a consequence of A's prior training with the US. Therefore, CS X was a redundant CS (i.e., it did not add an...

show abstract

“…In a psychophysical study examining the effects of temporal interval on judgments of physical equality in humans, McAllister, McAllister, and Franchina (1965) had subjects briefly observe a standard stimulus (a line 50 mm long). Testing occurred 0.5 or 8 min later.…”

Section: -Attributes Of Target Stimuli In Human Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%