Effects of miscuing on pavlovian conditioned responding and on probe reaction time

Lipp, Ottmar V.; Siddle, David A.T.; Dall, Patricia J.

doi:10.1080/00049539308259134

Cited by 21 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results are also consistent with recent reports of interaction between elementally trained cues (e.g., Escobar, Arcediano, & Miller, 2001;Escobar, Matute, & Miller, 2001;Matute & Pineño, 1998a, 1998b, as well as with several reports that show interaction between cues that have received differential (i.e., elemental) inhibition training (e.g., Lipp et al, 1993;Packer & Siddle, 1989;Siddle, 1985;Siddle et al, 1990). Moreover, some of the comparisons of the elemental and compound inhibition procedures that have been reported in the literature are also consistent with the results of Experiment 1.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…For example, several researchers have reported attenuated responding to a target cue, X, if a series of X-O pairings intermixed with A-no-O trials are followed by one or more A-O trials (Lipp & Dal Santo, in press;Lipp, Siddle, & Dall, 1993;Packer & Siddle, 1989;Siddle, 1985;Siddle, Broekhuizen, & Packer, 1990). In these studies, the outcome is miscued during Phase 2 by the cue that predicts its absence (A).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparison between elemental and compound training of cues in retrospective revaluation

Escobar

Pineño

Matute

2002

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison between elemental and compound training of cues in retrospective revaluation

Escobar

Pineño

Matute

2002

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Nevertheless, there are some observations in the literature that could be interpreted as convergent and some that could be interpreted as inconsistent with the present findings. Convergent data can be found in the "miscuing effect" literature (e.g., Lipp, Siddle, & Dall, 1993;Packer & Siddle, 1989). The miscuing effect refers to impaired responding that occurs when the US is "miscued" by an inhibitory stimulus (i.e., A+ training experienced after X+/A -training produces impaired responding to X).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 81%

Stimulus competition in the absence of compound conditioning

Matute

Pineño

1998

Animal Learning & Behavior

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most associative theories have assumed that stimulus competition occurs only between conditioned stimuli (CSs) that are trained in compound. The present research investigated the possibility of competition between two CSs that were individually paired to the same unconditioned stimulus (US). We used human subjects in an anticipatory suppression analogue to Pavlovian conditioning. Experiment 1 showed that X+ training followed by A+ training resulted in impaired responding to X. This did not occur when A+ training preceded X+ training. Experiment 2 replicated the basic effect and showed that it did not occur when the Phase 2 training consisted of A-instead of A+ nor when the A+ pairings occurred in a second context. Experiment 3 showed that A+ pairings occurring in a second context could still produce the effect when X was tested in the context in which the A+ pairings had occurred, but not when X was tested in a context different from that used for A+ training. Collectively, these results suggest that individually trained CSs may compete with each other when one of those CSs is more strongly activated by the test context than the other one.One of the best known findings in conditioning research is that if a conditioned stimulus (CS) is a very good predictor of an unconditioned stimulus (US), the conditioned response elicited by other CSs that are trained in compound with the good predictor will be impaired. This effect is often called stimulus competition, or cue selection. A typical example is the forward-blocking effect (Kamin, 1968), in which a CS, A, is paired to the US during Phase I (i.e., A +),and then, in Phase 2, A is presented in compound with a novel CS, X, and followed by the US (i.e., AX +). This results in weaker responding to the target cue X in a subsequent test phase relative to responding by control subjects that were not exposed to the A+ pairings in Phase I. There are many other designs through which stimulus competition effects have been observed (e.g., Wagner, Logan, Haberlandt, & Price, 1968), but all of them have included compound training of the good predictor and the target cue. Consequently, despite many important discrepancies among the theories that attempt to explain these effects, all of them depend on the AX compound training as essential for A influencing responding

show abstract

“…To explore whether the paradoxical lack of potentiation during the more aversive IRL in Pappens et al (2010) could be due to a greater attentional demand of the moderate IRL compared to the other stimuli (Rissling et al, 2005), we added a reaction time task to the acoustic startle probes in the present study. The underlying rationale was that reaction times to the probe would inversely reflect the extent to which the participant directs attention to the lead stimulus (Hermans et al, 2005b;Lipp et al, 1993;Dawson et al, 1982).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An explanation may be that the moderate IRL asked for attentional resources for a longer time than the pictures or the IRL of low International Journal of Psychophysiology 80 (2011) 161-165 intensity. Sustained attention to the interoceptive aversive event might have limited the processing capacity for the exteroceptive startle stimulus, resulting in a lack of startle blink potentiation (Dawson et al, 1997;Ashare et al, 2007;Braff and Geyer, 1990;Lipp et al, 1993;Hermans et al, 2005b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%