Reinforcement history and the extinction of conditioned salivary response.

Wagner, Allan R.; Siegel, Shepard; Thomas, Earl; Ellison, Gaylord

doi:10.1037/h0048721

Cited by 48 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, when pairings ofthe CS+ and food were discontinued, responding to CS+ decreased. This observation is consistent with other reports that repeated nonreinforced presentations of a CS+ lead to a decline in conditioned responding in vertebrates (Annau & Kamin, 1961;Gormezano, 1972;Pavlov, 1927;Schneiderman, Fuentes, & Gormezano, 1962;Smith, 1968;Wagner, Siegel, Thomas, & Ellison, 1964).…”

Section: Testingsupporting

confidence: 82%

Pavlovian appetitive discriminative conditioning inAplysia californica

Colwill

Goodrum

Martin

1997

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments demonstrated Pavlovian appetitive discrimination learning in the marine mollusc, Aplysia californica. In each experiment, subjects were exposed to two conditioned stimuli; one stimulus (CS+) was paired with food presentations and the other stimulus (CS-) was never followed by food. In Experiments 1 and 3 different chemosensory stimuli were used, and in Experiment 2 different tactile stimuli were used. For both types of conditioned stimuli, bite responses occurred significantly more often to the CS+ than to the CS-. Experiment 2 also showed that Aplysia could learn a reversal of this discrimination. Experiment 3 showed that nonreinforced presentations of CS+ resulted in a decline in the frequency of conditioned biting. The implications of these results for neurobiological analyses of learning are discussed.In a typical Pavlovian discriminative conditioning procedure, subjects are exposed to two conditioned stimuli (CSs) that differ in their temporal relation to an unconditioned stimulus (US). One of these stimuli (CS+) immediately precedes presentations of the US; the other stimulus (CS-) is never paired with that US. Differential responding to the CS+ and CS-is found to emerge over the course of discrimination training in various vertebrate (e.g., Hammond, 1967;Hoffman & Fitzgerald, 1982;Moore, 1972;Pavlov, 1927;Rescorla, 1980;Schneiderman, 1972) and invertebrate subjects (e.g., Bitterman, Menzel, Fietz, & Schafer, 1983;Block & McConnell, 1967;Fukushi, 1979;Nelson, 1971;Ricker, Brzorad, & Hirsch, 1986).Of particular interest are reports of Pavlovian discriminative conditioning in those invertebrates especially suited to a neurophysiological analysis of plasticity. Behavioral sensitivity to the differential treatments ofa CS+ and CS -has been found in several experiments using aversive USs with the marine mollusc Aplysia califomica , the leech Haemopis marmorata (Karrer & Sahley, 1988), and the terrestrial mollusc Limax maximus (Sahley, Gelperin, & Rudy, 1981). For example, in the leech, Karrer and Sahley (1988) paired one food (e.g., raw chicken) but not This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant BNS-8922551 to R.M.C. and by funds from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. K.G. and A.M. were supported by research fellowships awarded by Brown University's Early Identification Program. We thank Robin Absher and Emily Whitcomb for assistance with data collection. Experiment 1 was presented at the 65th Annual Meeting ofthe Eastern Psychological Association in Providence and at the Second Annual Summer Research Symposium at Brown University in August 1993. A brief description of Experiment 1 also appears in Colwill (1996). Reprint requests should be addressed to R. M. Colwill, Department of Psychology, Brown University, Box 1853, Providence, RI 02912 (e-mail: ruth_colwill@brown.edu).another food (e.g., raw liver) with a quinidine sulfate solution. On test trials, subjects were given a choice between raw beefand either the CS+ or the CS-foods. The preference for the CS+ relative ...

show abstract

Section: Testingsupporting

confidence: 82%

Pavlovian appetitive discriminative conditioning inAplysia californica

Colwill

Goodrum

Martin

1997

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A measure of support for this suggestion can be found in experiments which have shown that extinction progresses more slowly after Pavlovian conditioning has taken place with a large rather than a small US. For example, Wagner, Siegel, Thomas and Ellison (1964) reported that conditioned salivation extinguished more slowly if the CS had been paired with six pellets of food on each trial instead of one pellet. If two food pellets separated by a short interval constitute a larger US than one pellet, then whatever explanation is deemed appropriate for the results reported by Wagner et al may also apply to the present results.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect Despite Equal Rates of Reinforcement During Pavlovian Conditioning.

Haselgrove

Aydin

Pearce³

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 4 experiments rats received appetitive Pavlovian conditioning followed by extinction. Food accompanied every trial with the conditioned stimulus (CS) for the continuously reinforced groups and only half of the trials for the partially reinforced groups. In contrast to previous experiments that have compared the effects of partial and continuous reinforcement, the rate at which food was delivered during the CS was the same for both groups. The strength of the conditioned response during extinction weakened more rapidly in the continuously than in the partially reinforced groups. The results demonstrate that the partial reinforcement extinction effect is a consequence of the nonreinforced trials with the CS, rather than the rate at which the unconditioned stimulus is delivered during the CS.For many years the partial reinforcement extinction effect (PREE) was a mainstay of research in the field of animal learning and behavior. Within the context of instrumental conditioning, the PREE can be defined as a resistance to the detrimental effects of extinction following trials in which responding is intermittently rather than consistently paired with reinforcement (for a review see Mackintosh, 1974). So widespread was the PREE in studies of instrumental conditioning-and such was the paucity of evidence for the effect within Pavlovian conditioning-that for some time the PREE was thought to differentiate these two forms of conditioning (Kimble, 1961). However, the possibility that the PREE contradicted the single-process rule of learning (Guthrie, 1935;Hull, 1943) has not stood the test of time. Many studies of Pavlovian conditioning have now demonstrated that a conditioned stimulus (CS) that is intermittently paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) will show a resistance to extinction relative to a CS that is consistently paired with a

show abstract

“…Presentations of X alone interspersed with X-O pairings lead to a decrement known as partial reinforcement (e.g., Pavlov, 1927;Wagner, Siegel, Thomas, & Ellison, 1964). Notably, both of these detrimental effects on conditioning have been shown to attenuate overshadowing, and instead lead to facilitation.…”

Section: Variations In Contingencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Competition and facilitation in compound conditioning.

Urcelay¹

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reinforcement history and the extinction of conditioned salivary response.

Cited by 48 publications

References 6 publications

Pavlovian appetitive discriminative conditioning inAplysia californica

Pavlovian appetitive discriminative conditioning inAplysia californica

A Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect Despite Equal Rates of Reinforcement During Pavlovian Conditioning.

Competition and facilitation in compound conditioning.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About