Factors affecting conditioning in the truly random control procedure in the rat.

Benedict, James O.; Ayres, John J. B.

doi:10.1037/h0032296

Cited by 93 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1974); and (3) they simplify the selection of control procedures by eliminating from consideration the truly random control (Rescorla, 1967), whose effects are known to be highly variable (Benedict & Ayres, 1972;Keller, Ayres, & Mahoney, 1977;Kremer, 1974;Quinsey, 1971). In backward conditioning, the one-trial procedure is of added interest because it ensures that the CS on trial n cannot possibly predict the US on trial n + 1.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

CS modality effects in one-trial backward and forward excitatory conditioning as assessed by conditioned suppression of licking in rats

Willigen

Emmett

Côté

et al. 1987

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats received a single 4-sec I-rnA grid-shock US either preceded or followed by a 4-sec tone or light CS. Conditioning was later assessed by comparing the amount oflick suppression evoked by the forward-or backward-paired CS versus an explicitly unpaired CS. The backward-paired CS produced more suppression than the unpaired CS only when both were tone; the light evoked . strong suppression whether paired or not. In the forward procedure, tone produced more suppression when paired and less when unpaired than did light; conditioning thus appeared stronger with the tone. In one experiment, observations showed that rats froze during the forward-paired tone but not during the light. Increasing CS duration from 4 to 12 sec had no effect for the forwardpaired light but increased freezing to the forward-paired tone. Another experiment showed similar unconditioned suppression to tone and light but faster habituation to tone. Problems that these results create for interpreting evidence for excitatory backward conditioning in the conditioned suppression procedure are discussed.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

CS modality effects in one-trial backward and forward excitatory conditioning as assessed by conditioned suppression of licking in rats

Willigen

Emmett

Côté

et al. 1987

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The CS presumably remains neutral because it does not predict the presence or the absence of the US in this "random control". However, excitatory conditioning has been repeatedly reported with this control procedure (e.g., Benedict and Ayres 1972;Kremer 1974). This conditioning results from accidental contiguous pairings of the CS and US early in training, even though there is no overall predictive relation between the CS and US.…”

Section: What Is Learned In Cpp?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This change is driven, in part, by an accumulation of failures of information theory and the ability of contiguity-based models to account for these failures (e.g., Benedict and Ayres 1972;Kremer 1974;Papini and Bitterman 1990;Savastano and Miller 1998). For example, information theory suggests that the best control procedure is one in which the probability of the US during the CS is equal to the probability of the US in the absence of the CS (Rescorla 1967).…”

Section: What Is Learned In Cpp?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditioned place preference: what does it add to our preclinical understanding of drug reward?

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale: Among the various experimental protocols that have been used to measure drug reward in laboratory animals, conditioned place preference (CPP) has been one of the most popular. However, a number of controversial issues have surrounded the use of this experimental protocol. Objective: The present review provides a theoretical overview of some critical issues relevant to CPP. The advantages and limitations of CPP are also covered. Results: Based on modern and traditional theoretical formulations of Pavlovian conditioning, CPP appears to refl ect a preference for a context due to the contiguous association between the context and a drug stimulus. Within this theoretical framework, it seems clear that CPP measures a learning process that is fundamentally distinct from drug self-administration. The main advantages of CPP are that it: (1) tests animals in a drugfree state; (2) is sensitive to both reward and aversion; (3) allows for simultaneous determination of CPP and locomotor activity; (4) is adaptable to a variety of species; (5) typically yields dose-effect curves that are monophasic rather than biphasic; and (6) has utility in probing the neural circuits involved in drug reward. The main limitations of CPP are that it: (1) is subject to interpretation based on the notion of novelty seeking; (2) is cumbersome for providing the graded dose-effect curves needed for answering some pharmacological questions; (3) is diffi cult to interpret when animals prefer one context prior to drug conditioning; and (4) lacks face validity as an experimental protocol of drug reward in humans. Conclusion: Despite some limitations, CPP provides unique information about the rewarding effect of contextual cues associated with a drug stimulus.

show abstract

“…An arbitrary CS may coincide with a US occa- sionally, but without the interventionsof an experimenter, such accidental pairings will be rare. In addition, the accidental pairings will be preceded and followed by unpaired CS and US encounters, which would undermine the development of conditioned responding (e.g., Benedict & Ayres, 1971;Rescorla, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning with arbitrary versus ecological conditioned stimuli: Evidence from sexual conditioning

Domjan

Cusato

Krause

2004

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laboratory investigations of Pavlovian conditioning typically involve the association of an arbitrary conditioned stimulus (CS) with an unconditioned stimulus (US) that has no inherent relation to the CS. However, arbitrary CSs are unlikely to become conditioned outside the laboratory, because they do not occur often enough with the US to result in an association. Learning under natural circumstances is likely only if the CS has a preexisting relation to the US. Recent studies of sexual conditioning have shown that in contrast to an arbitrary CS, an ecologically relevant CS is resistant to blocking, extinction, and increases in the CS-US interval and results in sensitized responding and stronger secondorder conditioning. Although the mechanisms of these effects are not fully understood, these findings have shown that signature learning phenomena are significantly altered when the kinds of stimuli that are likely to become conditioned under natural circumstances are used. The implications of these findings for an ecological approach to the study of learning are discussed.

show abstract

Factors affecting conditioning in the truly random control procedure in the rat.

Cited by 93 publications

References 9 publications

CS modality effects in one-trial backward and forward excitatory conditioning as assessed by conditioned suppression of licking in rats

CS modality effects in one-trial backward and forward excitatory conditioning as assessed by conditioned suppression of licking in rats

Conditioned place preference: what does it add to our preclinical understanding of drug reward?

Learning with arbitrary versus ecological conditioned stimuli: Evidence from sexual conditioning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About