Differential conditioning and stimulus generalization of the rabbit's nictitating membrane response.

Liu, Shirley S.

doi:10.1037/h0031587

Cited by 15 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Except for one response to a 6.1-kHz test tone in one animal from group 9.5, no other shortlatency responses were observed (data not shown). Responding was strongest to CS1 and weak or nonexistent to increasingly different test stimuli, generalizing somewhat within the auditory modality but not across modalities (Siegel et al 1968;Liu 1971;Solomon and Moore 1975;Powell and Moore 1980;Holt and Kehoe 1985;Schreurs and Kehoe 1987;Kehoe and Napier 1991;Garcia et al 2003). For group 1.0, CRs occurred mostly to the 1.0-kHz tone and decreased with increasing frequency of test tones (Fig.…”

Section: Stimulus Specificity With Cerebellar Cortex Intactmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To prevent stimulus pre-exposure effects and allow direct comparisons between the pre-and posttraining tests, we used a relatively small number of trials (i.e., 54) equated across tests (see Solomon and Moore 1975 for a lack of CS preexposure effect on posttraining generalization gradients). In the posttraining tests, we infused ACSF or picrotoxin and then tested for CRs or short-latency responses to test stimuli presented alone (Siegel et al 1968;Liu 1971;Solomon and Moore 1975;Powell and Moore 1980). We opted for testing in extinction rather than interspersing occasional test trials among paired CS-US trials to (1) provide more test trials per session; (2) prevent sharpening of the generalization gradient with differential reinforcement (Liu 1971;Moore and Mis 1973;Powell and Moore 1980); and (3) take advantage of the strong resistance to extinction of short-latency responses (Perrett and Mauk 1995;Medina et al 2001).…”

Section: Generalization Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stimulus Generalization of Conditioned Eyelid Responses Produced Without Cerebellar Cortex: Implications for Plasticity in the Cerebellar Nuclei

Ohyama

Nores

Mauk³

2003

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Pavlovian eyelid conditioning and adaptation of the vestibulo-ocular reflex, cerebellar cortex lesions fail to completely abolish previously acquired learning, indicating an additional site of plasticity in the deep cerebellar or vestibular nucleus. Three forms of plasticity are known to occur in the deep cerebellar nuclei: formation of new synapses, plasticity at existing synapses, and changes in intrinsic excitability. Only a cell-wide increase in excitability predicts that learning should generalize broadly from a training stimulus to other stimuli capable of supporting learning, whereas the alternatives predict that learning should be relatively specific to the training stimulus. Here we show that deep nucleus plasticity, as assessed by conditioned eyelid responses produced without input from the cerebellar cortex, is relatively specific to the training conditioned stimulus (CS). We trained rabbits to a tone or light CS with periorbital stimulation as the unconditioned stimulus (US), and pharmacologically disconnected the cerebellar cortex during a posttraining generalization test. The short-latency conditioned responses unmasked by this treatment showed strong decrement along the dimension of auditory frequency and did not generalize across stimulus modalities. These results cannot be explained solely by a cell-wide increase in the excitability of deep nucleus neurons, and imply that an input-specific mechanism in the deep cerebellar nucleus operates as well.Several examples of motor learning including Pavlovian eyelid conditioning and adaptation of the vestibulo-ocular reflex require the cerebellum, and the relevant plasticity appears to occur in the cerebellar cortex and the deep cerebellar or vestibular nuclei

show abstract

Section: Stimulus Specificity With Cerebellar Cortex Intactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Generalization Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus Generalization of Conditioned Eyelid Responses Produced Without Cerebellar Cortex: Implications for Plasticity in the Cerebellar Nuclei

Ohyama

Nores

Mauk³

2003

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A generalization test produced symmetrical gradients, with a peak at CS+, similar to those produced by a group of rabbits that received interdimensional (CS + only) training. Hupka, Liu, and Moore (1969) employed intradimensional classical discrimination training in a design essentially similar to that of Liu (1971), with the addition that CS+/ CS-separations were manipulated over six groups of rabbits. These counterbalanced stimulus separations were 400 versus 1600 Hz, 1600 versus 2800 Hz, and 2800 versus 4000 Hz.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In one classical conditioning study, Liu (1971) gave 8 rabbits intradimensional differential conditioning in which a 1200-Hz tone (CS+) preceded a brief shock to the infraorbital region of the eye, activating the nictitating membrane. A 1600-Hz tone (CS-) was never followed by shock.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Generalization Peak Shift for Autoshaped and Operant Key Pecks

Weiss

Weissman

1992

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons acquired discriminated key pecking between 528-and 540-nm stimuli by either a responsereinforcer (operant group) or a stimulus-reinforcer (autoshaped group) contingency, with other training-schedule parameters comparable over groups. For the birds in the operant group, key pecks intermittently produced grain in the presence of one hue on the key (positive stimulus) but not in the other (negative stimulus). For the birds in the autoshaped group, pecking emerged when grain was intermittently presented independently of key pecking during one key color but was not presented during the other key color. Two independent contingency assays, peck-location comparisons and elimination of differences in reinforcement rate, confirmed the effectiveness of the two training procedures in establishing operant or respondent control of key pecking. After reaching a 10:1, or better, discrimination ratio between key pecks during the two key colors, the birds received a wavelength generalization test. Criterion baseline key-peck rates were comparable for operant and autoshaped groups prior to testing. On the generalization test, performed in extinction, all birds pecked most at a stimulus removed from the positive training stimulus in the direction away from the negative stimulus. In testing, autoshaped "peak" rates (24.5 to 64.9 pecks per minute) were from 33% to 80% higher than rates in the presence of the training stimuli. Respondent peak shift rarely has been reported heretofore, and never this consistently and robustly. These results further confirm the similarity of perceptual processing in classical and operant learning. They are discussed in terms of Spence's gradient-interaction theory and Weiss' (1978) two-process model of stimulus control.

show abstract

“…A few studies have explored peak shift following classical conditioning, and these have not been successful in establishing the phenomenon within that paradigm. For example, following discrimination training in classical conditioning, reliable peak shift has been obtained only when S+ was a higher frequency tone than S- (Hupka, Liu, & Moore, 1969;Liu, 1971;Moore, 1972), suggesting that intensity dynamism might have been operating (Gray, 1965;Hull, 1949). In the one study that established differential autoshaping in an intradimensional line-tilt discrimination, peak shift was not obtained on a line-tilt generalization test (Nallan, McCoy, Pace, & Welch, 1979).…”

Section: Respondent Key Pecksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incentive Processes and the Peak Shift

Weiss

Dacanay

1982

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intradimensional operant discrimination schedules were employed, which eliminated the covariation of response and reinforcement rates that are found on most operant baselines.In Phase 1, one keylight (S,) controlled an increase in pigeons' treadle pressing, relative to another keylight (5,), while being correlated with a decrease in frequency of reinforcement.In Phase 2 both treadle pressing and reinforcement increased in the presence of one keylight, relative to the second. In Phase 1 the relatively flat treadle-press generalization gradients peaked at S,, whereas the peaks of those in Phase 2 were shifted from S, in a direction away from 5,. It was postulated that these positive and negative stimulus-reinforcement contingencies influence the likelihood of obtaining peak shift through the operation of a classically conditioned "central motive state." How response-reinforcement and stimulusreinforcement contingencies might contribute to the development of inhibitory effects of S5 is discussed. Autoshaped key pecking also was produced by these procedures. During manipulations of stimuli, the gradients obtained for autoshaped key pecking were narrow and sharply peaked at the food-correlated stimulus (S.) in Phase 1. This failure to obtain peak shift for an elicited response suggests a difference in discriminative processes operating in classical and instrumental learning.

show abstract

Differential conditioning and stimulus generalization of the rabbit's nictitating membrane response.

Cited by 15 publications

References 8 publications

Stimulus Generalization of Conditioned Eyelid Responses Produced Without Cerebellar Cortex: Implications for Plasticity in the Cerebellar Nuclei

Stimulus Generalization of Conditioned Eyelid Responses Produced Without Cerebellar Cortex: Implications for Plasticity in the Cerebellar Nuclei

Generalization Peak Shift for Autoshaped and Operant Key Pecks

Incentive Processes and the Peak Shift

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About