Performance in eyelid conditioning following interpolated presentations of the UCS.

Goodrich, Kenneth P.; Ross, Leonard E.; Wagner, Allan R.

doi:10.1037/h0045754

Cited by 22 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study and several others that I will describe employed eyelid conditioning in the rabbit. The use of the rabbit in this form of Pavlovian conditioning is notable in that it was first accomplished by Ken Goodrich, Len Ross, and me when we were working with Kenneth Spence doing human eyelid conditioning (Goodrich, Ross, & Wagner, 1957, 1959, and was assiduously investigated by Dori Gormezano and his students (e.g., Gormezano, Schneiderman, Deaux, & Fuentes, 1962), so that it is, arguably, the best characterized example of Pavlovian conditioning today. Due to the neurophysiological work of Dick Thompson (1986) and his students, we also have greater knowledge of the neurocircuitry involved than in any other instance of learning in a vertebrate.…”

Section: Nonlinear Discriminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of an elemental theory of Pavlovian conditioning

Wagner

2008

Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kenneth Spence (1936, 1937) formalized a quantitative, elemental approach to association theory that has had a broad and dominating influence on learning theory for many years. A set of challenges to the basic approach has spurred the subsequent evolution of elemental theory in various ways. Four of the challenges and some resulting theoretical accommodations are described in the context of Pavlovian conditioning. The evolution involves departures from important specifics of Spence's theory, but is viewed as demonstrating the utility of the basic, elemental approach that is one of his legacies.

show abstract

Section: Nonlinear Discriminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of an elemental theory of Pavlovian conditioning

Wagner

2008

Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But then again, they might not. In the case of the Kimble, Mann, and Dufort (1955) study, counterexplanations and counterexperiments have already begun to pour into the literature (see, e.g., Goodrich, Ross, & Wagner, 1957) with the result so far of complicating matters still further rather than of clearing anything up. One might argue that concepts and assumptions which have been supported by a large accumulation of experimental findings cannot be seriously threatened by one or two apparently negative results.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning theory and the new "mental chemistry."

Wk¹

1960

Psychological Review

311

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The transfer phenomena here reported resemble Harlow's (1949) learning sets and may have special implications for some of the disagreements among investigators regarding the rapidity of eyelid conditioning (e.g., Goodrich, Ross, & Wagner, 1957;Kimble, Mann, & Dufort, 1955). In particular, if V responders have some degree of preexperimental association between the stimuli and an eyelid response that meets the CR latency criteria, then they may very rapidly acquire a new stimulus-response association.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

Transfer of differential eyelid conditioning through successive discriminations.

Grant¹,

Levy²,

Thompson³

et al. 1967

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigation of transfer of differential eyelid conditioning in successive discriminations, using unrelated words, unfamiliar forms, numerals, and spelled numbers as discriminanda revealed almost immediate and complete transfer for unrelated words after the slower initial differential conditioning. Transfer with unfamiliar forms, numerals, and spelled numbers was slower and showed elevation of responding to the negative stimulus. The slower transfer for forms was thought to be related to their unfamiliarity, and the slower transfer for numerals and spelled numbers was thought to be caused by mediation between positive and negative stimuli arising from preexperimental associations between the numbers. Implications of the numerous processes apparently involved-slow initial response learning, rapid stimulus substitution, and stimulus familiarization-were outlined.

show abstract

Performance in eyelid conditioning following interpolated presentations of the UCS.

Cited by 22 publications

References 5 publications

Evolution of an elemental theory of Pavlovian conditioning

Evolution of an elemental theory of Pavlovian conditioning

Learning theory and the new "mental chemistry."

Transfer of differential eyelid conditioning through successive discriminations.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About