Extinction as a function of the spacing of extinction trials.

Stanley, Walter C.

doi:10.1037/h0054667

Cited by 39 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, Cotton and Lewis (1957), Howat and Grant (1958), Ellson (1940), Lewis and Cotton (1959), Scott and Wike (1956), Sheffield (1950), Stanley (1952), andWilson, Weiss, andAmsel (1955) report greater resistance to extinction when extinction trials are massed rather than spaced. Lewis (1956), on the other hand, obtained no difference in resistance to extinction as a function of distribution of extinction trials following training on a 100% reinforcement schedule.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Lewis (1956), on the other hand, obtained no difference in resistance to extinction as a function of distribution of extinction trials following training on a 100% reinforcement schedule. Stanley (1952), when employing the number of correct responses as a depend-ent variable, found greater resistance to extinction with distributed extinction trials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nonrandom stimulus sampling in statistical learning theory.

Wf¹

1961

Psychological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Nonrandom stimulus sampling in statistical learning theory.

Wf¹

1961

Psychological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Resistance to extinction measures, which were not possible here, would supply useful information with respect to the covariation of RT and ST with number of trials to extinction. As is suggested in the Sheffield (18) and Stanley (21) studies, little relation would be expected from the irrelevant motivation point of view; that is, RT and ST would presumably be sensitive to increased motivation, while habit strength as measured by trials to extinction, would not. The opposite prediction would be made by the associative hypothesis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Response strength as a function of delay of reward in a runway.

Holder¹,

Marx²,

Holder³

et al. 1957

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, Rescorla and Durlach reported no difference in the magnitude of responding in a subsequent test for spontaneous recovery and Cain et al (2003) reported continued less responding after massed extinction even with the passage of time. To complicate matters further, Stanley (1952) reported that for an instrumental training task, massing slowed extinction on one measure and speeded it on another in an instrumental choice situation.…”

Section: Recovery Following Massed or Spaced Extinction Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spontaneous Recovery

Rescorla¹

2004

Learn. Mem.

383

328

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spontaneous recovery from extinction is one of the most basic phenomena of Pavlovian conditioning. Although it can be studied by using a variety of designs, some procedures are better than others for identifying the involvement of underlying learning processes. A wide range of different learning mechanisms has been suggested as being engaged by extinction, most of which have implications for the nature of spontaneous recovery. However, despite the centrality of the notion of spontaneous recovery to the understanding of extinction, the empirical literature on its determinants is relatively sparse and quite mixed. Its very ubiquity suggests that spontaneous recovery has multiple sources.Experimental extinction is one of the fundamental observations of Pavlovian conditioning. Just as the arranging of a positive relation between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US) produces acquisition of conditioned responding, breaking that relation produces extinction of that responding. However, similar to many terms in the behavioral sciences, the word "extinction" is used in at least three different senses: as a procedure, as a result, and as an explanation. If we are to understand extinction experiments, it is extremely important that we keep these senses distinct from each other.One use of the term is as an experimental procedure or independent variable under the control of the experimenter, as when one says, "Following learning, we subjected the animal to an extinction procedure." Most frequently, this is meant to refer to a procedure in which the original conditions of learning are disrupted. The most common extinction procedure consists of presenting a stimulus alone, so that it now fails to signal the outcome. However, other procedures, such as retaining the US but arranging for it to be independent of the CS are also available and of interest (see Rescorla 2001a).Another use of the term is as an experimental result or dependent variable under the control of the animal, as when one says, "When the stimulus was presented alone, the behavior extinguished." The prototypical example is one in which responding that was established by training deteriorates, often to a level such as that prior to learning.A third use of the term extinction is as a process or intervening variable that is intended to provide an explanation, as when one says, "When we arranged for the stimulus to be presented alone, the behavior deteriorated because of extinction." Normally, it is this process that is of interest. We would like to understand the basis of the change in behavior resulting from the change in procedure, whether that understanding is achieved at a conceptual or a neural level. Consequently, throughout this article the term extinction will refer to the learning process inferred when the procedure produces a particular result. When there is the possibility of misunderstanding, the phrase "extinction process" will be used.Because interest primarily centers on the learning process that occurs as a result of an ext...

show abstract

Extinction as a function of the spacing of extinction trials.

Cited by 39 publications

References 18 publications

Nonrandom stimulus sampling in statistical learning theory.

Nonrandom stimulus sampling in statistical learning theory.

Response strength as a function of delay of reward in a runway.

Spontaneous Recovery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About