Magnitude of fear as a function of expected time to all aversive event

LaBarbera, Joseph D.; Church, Russell M.

doi:10.3758/bf03199177

Cited by 41 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such temporally regulated behavior has also been observed, although with more difficulty, in aversively motivated Pavlovian paradigms such as conditioned barpress suppression (Estes & Skinner, 1941), a widely used procedure in which fear triggered by a CS that was previously paired with a footshock US is assessed by measuring the degree to which the CS disrupts baseline barpressing for food or water according to a variable-interval (VI) schedule of reinforcement (see Hammond & Maser, 1970;Hendry & Van-Toller, 1965;Holmes, Jackson, & Byrum 1971;Labarbera & Church, 1974;Libby & Church, 1975;Rosas & Alonso, 1996, 1997a, 1997bSchachtman, Channell, & Hall 1987;Zielinski, 1966).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Two components of responding in Pavlovian lick suppression

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research examined the temporal distribution of responding in a lick suppression paradigm. In Experiment 1, rats were trained with either a 30-or a 120-s conditioned stimulus (CS), which was followed either by a footshock (unconditioned stimulus [US]) or nothing. Licking during the CS was suppressed only in the former condition. Suppression was more pronounced early in the CS. In Experiment 2, rats were exposed to two 30-s or two 120-s CSs, with delivery of the shock being contingent on CS1 for half of the animals and on CS2 for the other half. For both the paired and the unpaired conditions, suppression at the beginning of CS1 was observed for all the groups. By discounting the possibility of generalization between CS1 and CS2, it appears that this initial suppression was not a conditioned response to the CS, but an unconditioned one due to mere exposure to the shock US.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Two components of responding in Pavlovian lick suppression

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With short response components, over which a temporal discrimination might better have been established, a time-dependent response suppression effect was found. LaBarbera and Church (1974) found a similar temporal decay in food response rates with shock at regular intervals. The rate of responding soon after shock was higher for ICS but decayed at a similar rate for both food and ICS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Food and Intracranial Stimulation Responding Suppressed With Regular‐interval Shock

Schmidt

McCaleb

Merrill

1977

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attenuation of conditioned suppression during intracranial stimulation was compared with that during food reinforcement. Response rates controlled by food and by brain stimulation were equalized on a multiple schedule by adjusting the stimulating current. When foot shock was delivered during timeout periods separating response components, responding for food was significantly more suppressed than responding for brain stimulation. When' components were shortened from 10 to 2 minutes, responding maintained by either food or brain stimulation showed a similar temporal pattern of suppression preceding each shock, but responding in the component involving food remained significantly more suppressed. Explanations for the attenuated suppression during brain stimulation based on neural disruption, stimulus blocking, and analgesic properties were questioned. The increased responding during brain stimulation seemed to reflect greater response strength relative to food reinforced responding.Key words: suppression, intracranial stimulation, shock, temporal discrimination, differential suppression, response strength, lever press, ratsResponse suppression during a brief conditioned stimulus paired with electric shock is the usual index of conditioned suppression (Estes and Skinner, 1941). Brady and Conrad (1960) noted a marked difference in suppression when intracranial stimulation (ICS) was compared to conventional reinforcers. Rats have typically failed to suppress responding during a conditioned stimulus (CS) with ICS as the reinforcer (Geller, 1970;Goldstein, 1966;McIntire, 1966). Merrill, Lott, and Bergen (1970) utilized procedural changes to discount several possible explanations for the attenuated suppression during ICS: neural disruption (Goldstein, 1966), blocked stimulus perception (Ball, 1967), resistance to distraction (McIntire, 1966), and analgesic effects (Breglio, Anderson, and Merrill, 1970). Russell (1975) reported that the intensity of the brain stimulating current was the determining factor, noting that response suppression was attenuated only with high-intensity ICS.The present study employed a variation of the traditional (Estes and Skinner, 1941) on the suppression of responding between, rather than during, the presentations of the CS and foot shock. A multiple schedule with alternating components of food and ICS reinforced responding was used, with presentation of CS and foot shock separating the components. The multiple schedule allowed a direct comparison of response suppression during food-and ICS-reinforced responding in the same animal. Nevin (1974) used a similar procedure to assess response strength under varying reinforcement conditions. He used multiple schedules with timeout periods, during which response-independent food deliveries were found to suppress component rates. Resistance to change in response rate was identified with response strength. Similarly, in the present study, differential response suppression could be identified with differential response strength for food-and ICS-reinf...

show abstract

“…Instead, Group MID and, especially, Group END reached their highest levels of freezing at some later point in the test session (Periods2 and 5, respectively). This patternof resultscan be interpreted as beingdue to temporal conditiorting during the trairting phase(for literature on timingbehavior, see, e.g., Church, 1989;LaBarbera & Church, 1974;Libby& Church, 1975). Notably, in bothGroupsMID and END, the anticipated time of occurrence of shock during the test session (as demonstrated by the enhanced freezing during Periods 2 and 5 for Groups MID and END, respectively) was two 3-min periods ahead of the actual occurrence of the shock during the conditioning session (Periods 4 and 7 for Groups MID and END, respectively).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

One-trial aversive conditioning to contextual cues: Effects of time of shock presentation on freezing during conditioning and testing

Maes

Vossen

1992

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present experiment examined the course of contextual freezing as a response to the delivery of a single electric footshock, In three groups of rats, the time of shock presentation was manipulated while the total amount of time spent in the shock context was equated among groups, One group received the shock early in the session, a second group was shocked in the middle of the session, and a third group received the shock at the end of the session. An additional control group was included that did not receive a shock . Relative to the early-shock group, the other two shock groups demonstrated a retarded onset of freezing after the shock delivery, During a subsequent nonshock test session, the pattern of freezing in the shock groups was indicative of one-trial temporal conditioning as a result of the previous conditioning session, Taken together, the results suggest that, within the range of the present parameters, manipulations of the time of a single shock presentation result in differences in freezing to contextual cues that are dependent on the presence of temporal cues .Under most conditions , a rat starts to freeze a few seconds after having received a single electric footshock in a distinctive environment. Previous research demonstrated that this freezing reflects a conditioned response to the contextual stimuli that have become associated with shock. For instance, the rat does not freeze when, after shock, it is placed in a distinctively different context (e.g., Fanselow, 1990), and freezing is reinstated when the contextual cues that were present during conditioning are represented (e.g., Fanselow, 1982Fanselow, , 1984.The incidence of contextual freezing after a single footshock has been demonstated to depend on the amount of experience the animal has had with respect to the training context. The time spent in the context, both before and after the footshock, is important in determining contextual fear. A relatively short time interval (e.g . a few seconds) between placement in the shock context and the occurrence of shock impairs the acquisition of conditioned responding (an effect termed the immediate shock freezing deficit; e.g. , Fanselow, 1986). Such an impairment also occurs if the time between placement and shock is relatively long (e.g., more than a few hours ; see Balaz, Capra, Kasprow, & Miller, 1982; Blanchard, Dielman, & Blanchard, 1968a;Fanselow, 1989). Finally, if an animal spends a long time in the conditioning context after the shock delivery, the freezing response eventually exCorrespondence should be addressed to J. H. R. Maes, Department of Comparative and Physiological Psychology , University of Nijmegen, P.O . Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands (e-mail: u212863@hnykunll .bitnet) .tinguishes (e.g., Blanchard, Dielman, & Blanchard, 1968b).The purpose of the present experiment was to further examine the involvement of temporal aspects in conditioned contextual responding after a single footshock. Specifically, three groups of rats received a single shock at various times ...

show abstract

Magnitude of fear as a function of expected time to all aversive event

Cited by 41 publications

References 7 publications

Two components of responding in Pavlovian lick suppression

Two components of responding in Pavlovian lick suppression

Food and Intracranial Stimulation Responding Suppressed With Regular‐interval Shock

One-trial aversive conditioning to contextual cues: Effects of time of shock presentation on freezing during conditioning and testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About