Onset vs. termination of stimulus energy as the CS in avoidance conditioning and pseudoconditioning.

Myers, Arlo K.

doi:10.1037/h0039133

Cited by 22 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results confirmed the Experiment 1 finding that a temporal cue provided by noise onset can be equivalent to a temporal cue provided by noise offset. They also supported data obtained from earlier studies in which learning was measured relative to a nominal CS rather than relative to background stimuli and which demonstrated the equivalence of CS onset and CS offset (Champion, 1962;Logan & Wagner, 1962;Myers, 1960). Within the third SSS condition, it was found that animals from Group DF reentered the black compartment significantly more than did those from the No-CS group (U = 13; p < .025), but here Group DF did not differ from Group RF (U = 22; P < .164).…”

Section: Results Anddiscussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

The overshadowing of background stimuli by an informative CS in aversive Pavlovian conditioning with rats

Odling-Smee

1978

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments investigated the capacity of a nominal CS to overshadow background stimuli. Rats received CS-shock pairings in one compartment of a double-compartment apparatus. After training, the shock compartment was re-presented but in the absence of both the CS and shock, and overshadowing was assessed by measuring the rats' latency to enter the compartment. In the first experiment, predictive values of temporal cues provided by CS onset and CS offset were manipulated. Rats readily entered the shock compartment, provided shock onset had previously been predicted by CS onset or CS offset. This indicates that background cues in the shock compartment had acquired little associative strength during training. In contrast, rats avoided the shock compartment under every condition in which shock onset had not previously been predicted by either CS onset or CS offset. In the second experiment, a precise temporal cue provided by CS onset was dissociated from other factors arising from CS-shock contiguity. It was found that rats' reactions to the shock compartment after training was governed by both temporal and contiguity factors. The results are relevant to theories which state that conditioning is a function of a competitive relationship between stimuli present in an animal's environment during training.

show abstract

Section: Results Anddiscussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

The overshadowing of background stimuli by an informative CS in aversive Pavlovian conditioning with rats

Odling-Smee

1978

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It may be noted that even when other highly sensitive test procedures have been employed, contradictory effects for buzzer presentations have been reported. While Myers (1965) found a slight aversive effect for a buzzer in an escape test situation, his results were at odds with others (Myers, 1960;Smith, McFarland, & Taylor, 1961). Perhaps this accounts for inability to find any evidence in which extensive pairing of a light with a buzzer produced a learned response capable of evincing the marked and consistent suppression of running reported for the present study.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 86%

Acquisition of a second-order classically conditioned response.

Johnson¹,

Anderson²

1969

Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following alleyway food-training on a 50 per cent random partial reinforcement schedule and 10 forward first-order (cSj-us) conditioning trials elsewhere, forward second-order (csa-csj) classical conditioning trials were initiated for Croup 1 and equivalent but backward (cs 1 -cs 2 ) training was started for Group 2. After each set of 2 CSj-us and 3 cs 2 -cs 1 trials (or 3 cs 1 -cs 2 trials for Croup 2) were given, the cs 2 was presented in the goal area of the alley on non-reinforced trials to assess its suppressing effect on total running times. While die performance of Croup 2 to the cSj was unchanged as a function of conditioning trials, Croup 1 evinced both increasing suppression and skin conductance levels as second-order training progressed. Maximum suppression was obtained by the twelfth cs 2 -cs 1 trial. BECAUSE PECULIAB BETNFORCEMENT PROCEDUBES were employed, earlyRussian and American attempts to demonstrate second-and higher-orders of classical conditioning were not convincing (

show abstract

“…However, avoidance impairments have also been observedwith a "noise-off" CS and whenrats were required to move toward the source of the acoustic signal (Hurwitz & Dillow, 1968;Myers, 1960;Whittleton et al 1965). Therefore, it has been suggested that independently of the "away-versus-toward" or the "on-versus-off" CSresponse contingency, any signal presented in a punishment context becomes aversive, leading to its avoidance (Whittleton et al 1965).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, a buzzer was an effective avoidance signal even in conditions producing a marked suppression of intertrial responses. Of course, an understanding of CS modality effects also requires extensive information on unconditioned, pseudoconditioned, and classically conditioned responses to various types of stimuli (see, e.g., Izquierdo & Cavalheiro, 1976;Jacobs & LoLordo, 1980;Katzev & Mills, 1974;Myers, 1960Myers, , 1965Oliverio, 1968;Sigmundi & Bolles, 1983; for the aversive properties of acoustic stimuli on mice, see Baron & Kish, 1962). …”

Section: Srssionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bidirectional avoidance by mice as a function of CS, US, and apparatus variables

Bignami

Alleva

Amorico

et al. 1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acquisition of two-way avoidance by mice was slower with a light CS than with a buzzer CS, with punishment of intertrial responses than without punishment, and with a short CS-CS interval than with a long CS-CS interval (30 vs. 60 sec). Light-cued avoidance was little affected by shock level (.35-1.5 mA), whereas mice trained with the buzzer CS learned faster at 1.5 mA. Animals required to move away from light or toward light showed comparable rates of acquisition. Other CS, US, and apparatus variables (directionality of cue, maximal shock duration, and presence vs. absence of a central partition in the shuttlebox) interacted in a complex fashion with those already mentioned. This resulted in widely differing performances in what may superficially appear to be different versions of the same task. The differences in mouse and rat responses to some of the variables can contribute to an understanding of the interactions between organismic and test factors and the relative explanatory value of alternative avoidance models.

show abstract

Onset vs. termination of stimulus energy as the CS in avoidance conditioning and pseudoconditioning.

Cited by 22 publications

References 8 publications

The overshadowing of background stimuli by an informative CS in aversive Pavlovian conditioning with rats

The overshadowing of background stimuli by an informative CS in aversive Pavlovian conditioning with rats

Acquisition of a second-order classically conditioned response.

Bidirectional avoidance by mice as a function of CS, US, and apparatus variables

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About