Generalization gradients obtained from individual subjects following classical conditioning.

Auditory differential conditioning of the rabbit nictitating membrane response: V. Stimulus generalization as a function of the position of CS+ and CS on the frequency dimension

“…The lower level of responding in the latter groups was due mainly to poor conditioning by those Ss who received the 4000 Hz as CS+. The general tendency for CSs oflower frequency to be more effective for conditioning agrees with the findings of Siegel et al ( 1968). (400 Hz) and poorest at the high end (4000 Hz), with the intervening values of CS+ yielding an intermediate degree of stimulus control.…”

“…IS (3) effects, but in rabbits, where in tertrial responding is rare, this source of inhibition would be absent. Frey & Ross (1967) Siegel, Hearst, George, & O'Neal (1968) have reported decremental generalization gradients for the conditioned eyelid response of individual rabbits along the auditory frequency scale. Their animals received conditioning to a single CS prior to the generalization tests.…”

“…The purpose of this experiment was to examine the relationship between generalization and differential conditioning. If the two are inversely related, then on the basis of the results from single-stimulus studies such as Siegel et al (1968), one would expect poorer discrimination performance with relatively high tonal frequencies and relatively good differentiation at the lower end of the scale. The effect of differential conditioning upon generalization was also investigated in two extinction sessions.…”

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

“…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.…”

Special issue on computational models of classical conditioning guest editors’ introduction

“…A CS2 elicits a CR to the degree that it shares some characteristics with a CS1 that has been paired with the US. Siegel, Hearst, George, & O'Neal (1968) 3.2 External inhibition. A special case of 3.1 where CS2 is CS1 with an added stimulus.…”