Effects of priming unconditioned stimulus representation in short-term memory on Pavlovian conditioning.

Terry, William S.

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.2.4.354

Cited by 59 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The preexposure effect observed in the postinjection conditioning paradigm in the present experiments is similar in many ways to the proximal US-preexposure effect recently demonstrated in the forward conditioning of ingestional aversions (Cannon et aI., 1975;Domjan & Best, 1977) and eyeblink responses (Terry, 1976). The magnitude of the interference at moderate preexposure intervals is comparable in the two conditioning procedures (Experiment 3), and in both paradigms the effects of drug pretreatment are similarly determined by the preexposure drug dose and the preexposure interval (Experiments I and 2; Cannon et aI., 1975;Domjan & Best, 1977).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Effects of proximal unconditioned stimulus preexposure on ingestional aversions learned as a result of taste presentation following drug treatment

Domjan

1978

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taste aversions were conditioned by exposing subjects to a 1.0% saccharin solution 30 min after an injection of lithium chloride. The aversion learning was disrupted if subjects had also received an additional lithium injection some time earlier (Experiments 1-3). This interference effect of US preexposure was a decreasing function of the preexposure interval. beyond the optimal interval (l05 min) for observing the phenomenon (Experiment 1), and was directly related to the dose of the preexposure injection (Experiment 2). No interference with conditioning occurred at short (e.g.. 3D-min) preexposure intervals (Experiment 1), probably because under these circumstances the preexposure injection itself conditioned a strong aversion (Experiment 4). At moderate (105-min) but not at short (3D-min) preexposure intervals. the interference with aversions learned as a result of taste exposure following drug injection was comparable to the interference with learning in a more conventional forward conditioning procedure (Experiments 3 and 4). These findings are similar to previously documented effects of proximal CS-and US-preexposure and are consistent with recent stimulus rehearsal and opponent-process theories.The extent to which one stimulus becomes associated with another depends not only on the temporal sequence and schedule of their presentation, but also on the nature of the stimulus events. One stimulus characteristic that is important for the establishment of associations is novelty. Reductions in the novelty of conditioned (CS) and unconditioned (US) stimuli have been observed to reduce their associability in a variety of situations (e.g., Lubow, 1973; Siegel & Domjan, 1971). This interference effect of CS and US preexposure is especially evident in ingestional aversion learning. Numerous studies have shown that exposure to either the CS flavor or the US malaise before a conditioning trial attenuates aversion learning. These experiments usually have involved repeated preconditioning presentations of the CS or US event, with at least 24 h between successive preexposures and at least 24 h between the end of the preexposure phase and the subsequent conditioning trial (e.g., Cappell & Le Blanc, 1975;Domjan, 1972; Riley, Jacobs, & LoLordo, 1976;Vogel & Nathan, 1976). Since, typically, 24 h or more intervened between preexposure and conditioning, the resultant interference effects were produced by stim- 133 ulus preexposures which may be characterized as remote from the conditioning trial.In contrast to the experiments described above, recent research (Best & Gemberling, 1977; Domjan & Best, 1977) has shown that CS and US preexposures closer to the conditioning trial can also disrupt aversion learning. In one of these studies (Best & Gemberling, 1977), maximal interference with conditioning occurred when subjects were exposed to the CS flavor 4 h before the conditioning trial, with more remote CS preexposures having less of a deleterious effect. In the other experiment (Domjan & Best, 1977), US exposure 30 min bef...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Effects of proximal unconditioned stimulus preexposure on ingestional aversions learned as a result of taste presentation following drug treatment

Domjan

1978

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, the US might serve as a distractor that reduces CS priming (cf. Best et al, 1979;Terry, 1976;Whitlow, 1975). In that scenario, although the US would cancel the effect of the CS, it could itself remain primed and available to influence the next trial.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In an early report using rabbit eyeblink conditioning, Pfautz and Wagner (1976) found that nonreinforced CS presentations shortly before tests of a target CS suppressed responding to the target. Terry (1976) also demonstrated that proximal US presentations can hurt eyeblink conditioning. In flavor aversion learning, a recent exposure to the CS (Best & Gemberling, 1977;Best, Gemberling, & Johnson, 1979), US (e.g., Domjan, 1980), or CS-US pairing (Domjan, 1980) before a single conditioning trial reduces conditioning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory priming and trial spacing effects in Pavlovian learning

Sunsay

Stetson

Bouton

2004

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A variety of evidence (e.g., Terry, 1976;Whitlow, 1975) suggests that US2-Diff would be more effectively processed than US1-Same. For example, Terry (1976) found that US2 was a more effective reinforcer if it was preceded by a dissimilar US 1 than by a similar US1. Wagner (e.g., 1978Wagner (e.g., , 1981 suggested that a US2 is less likely to enter into associations if a representation of US2 is already activated in memory, for example, as a result of US1 presentation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Excitation and inhibition in unblocking.

Holland¹

1988

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In four experiments the nature of learning established with unblocking procedures in the appetitive conditioning of rats was examined. Measures of learning included response topography, effects of selective satiation, and summation and retardation tests of conditioned inhibition. One cue (A) was first paired with either a single unconditioned stimulus event, US1, or a sequence of two events, US1----US2. US2 was either qualitatively similar to (US2-Same) or different from (US2-Diff) US1. Then, a compound of A and a novel cue (X) was reinforced with US1 or US1----US2. Conditioning to X was blocked if either the single US1 or the US1----US2 sequence was used in both phases. If X accompanied an upshift in the reinforcer, from US1 to US1----US2, it acquired conditioned responding, especially when US2-Diff was used. Responding in the latter case was the consequence of both X-US1 and X-US2 associations. In Experiments 1-3, if X accompanied a downshift from US1----US2-Same to US1, it acquired conditioned responding that was based on X-US1 associations, but if it accompanied a downshift from US1----US2-Diff to US1, it acquired conditioned inhibition based on X-US2 associations. In Experiment 4, X acquired net inhibition at short US1-US2 intervals and net excitation at longer intervals, with downshifts from either US1----US2-Same or US1----US2-Diff to US1. However, the interval gradient was broader with downshifts from US1----US2-Diff. These data, and several other contradictory findings in the unblocking literature, are consistent with the views that (a) the surprising addition or deletion of US2 in unblocking experiments both facilitates the acquisition of excitatory X-US1 associations and establishes either excitatory or inhibitory, respectively, X-US2 associations, and (b) that the gradient of X-US1 facilitation is broader than that of X-US2 association.

show abstract

Effects of priming unconditioned stimulus representation in short-term memory on Pavlovian conditioning.

Cited by 59 publications

References 14 publications

Effects of proximal unconditioned stimulus preexposure on ingestional aversions learned as a result of taste presentation following drug treatment

Effects of proximal unconditioned stimulus preexposure on ingestional aversions learned as a result of taste presentation following drug treatment

Memory priming and trial spacing effects in Pavlovian learning

Excitation and inhibition in unblocking.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About