Robust-single-trial delayed backward conditioning.

Keith-Lucas, Timothy; Guttman, Norman

doi:10.1037/h0076220

Cited by 121 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in the CER paradigm, shocks are paired (i.e., concurrent with) CS presentations. Yet we have already seen that some "conditioning" can take place even when the CS occurs after the US (Keith- Lucas & Guttman, 1975). If the CS and US are properly chosen, moreover, conditioning can occur over long delays, and some CSs can become preferentially conditioned over others that are (in terms of relative frequency of pairing) better predictors of the US.…”

Section: Mathematical Models For Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive Behavior and Learning

Staddon

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Every day at about 4:30, Jazz, a Hungarian Vizsla dog, leaps up on the sofa and looks out for his owner who always comes home at 5:00. He doesn't need an internal clock because he has an acute sense of smell that allows him to measure how long his master has been absent. Explaining complex behavior in simple ways, this book is a fascinating exploration of the evolution, development and processes of learning in animals. Now in its second edition, there is increased emphasis on development, evolution and dynamics; new accounts of taxic orientation, reflex induction, habituation and operant learning in organisms; more discussion of spatial learning and the processes underlying it; expanded chapters on choice and completely new chapters on molar laws, classical conditioning theories and comparative cognition. J. E. R. Staddon provides a definitive summary of contemporary theoretical understanding suitable for graduates and advanced undergraduates.

show abstract

Section: Mathematical Models For Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive Behavior and Learning

Staddon

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Smith et al found no evidence of conditioning at ISIs of -50, 0 or 50 msec, but increasingly rapid acquisition at ISIs of 100 msec and higher. Recent studies, however, have seemed to show substantial conditioning at 50-msec lSI (Patterson, 1970) as well as simultaneous and backward conditioning in rats and rabbits (e.g., Ayres, Mahoney, Proulx, & Benedict, 1976;Barker, Suarez, & Gray, 1974;Heth & Rescorla, 1973;Keith-Lucas & Guttman, 1975;Mahoney & Ayers, 1976;Plotkin & Oakley, 1975;Siegel & Domjan, 1974;Wagner & Terry, 1975), a situation which appears to challenge whether, indeed, there is a value of lSI below which there is no conditioning. Additionally, in two studies from this laboratory (Salafia, Daston, Bartosiak, Hurley, & Martino, 1974;Salafia, Martino, Cloutman, & Romano, 1979), substantial variation in acquisition rate was demonstrated as a function of US locus.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Rabbit nictitating membrane conditioning: Lower limit of the effective interstimulus interval

Salafia

Lambert

Host

et al. 1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, the nictitating membrane response of rabbits was conditioned for 10 daily sessions at interstimulus intervals (ISIs) ranging from 48 to 125 msec, followed by a shift to 250 msec for 5 days. At tested ISIs shorter than 67 msec, there was no evidence of conditioning, and postshift performance revealed neither facilitation nor interference as a result of the first 10 conditioning sessions. Postshift performance of groups conditioned at preshift ISIs of 67 msec or longer revealed a gradient of increasing savings with increasing lSI. One of the groups in Experiment 1, initially conditioned at 250 msec lSI and then shifted to 48 msec, exhibited extinction of the previously well-conditioned response. Analysis of CR-onset latencies substantiated the absence of associative effects at very short ISIs. It was concluded that there is a temporal limit below which classical conditioning of the nictitating membrane response of rabbits employing forward CS-US pairing does not occur.The detailed interstimulus interval (lSI) function for the rabbit nictitating response (NMR), established by Smith, Coleman and Gormezano (1969), indicates that the minimum lSI required for conditioning is between 50 and 100 msec. Smith et al. found no evidence of conditioning at ISIs of -50, 0 or 50 msec, but increasingly rapid acquisition at ISIs of 100 msec and higher. Recent studies, however, have seemed to show substantial conditioning at 50-msec lSI (Patterson, 1970) as well as simultaneous and backward conditioning in rats and rabbits (e.g

show abstract

“…Certainly, these findings are entirely consistent with the classic statements in the literature that the backward conditioning curve "is apparently the reverse of that present in forward conditioning [and that] forward and backward conditioning are fundamentally distinct processes" (Spooner & Kellogg, 1947, p. 334, italics in the original). Notwithstanding the above, there has also grown a body of evidence suggesting that backward conditioning can, after all, make the CS excitatory (Champion & Jones, 1961;Heth, 1976;Heth & Rescorla, 1973;Keith-Lucas & Guttman, 1975;Matsumiya, 1960; Mowrer & Aikin, 1954;Wagner & Terry, 1975). It now appears that the crucial variable that determines whether the CS becomes excitatory or inhibitory is the number of backward pairings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

One-trial backward excitatory fear conditioning in rats: Acquisition, retention, extinction, and spontaneous recovery

Shurtleff

Ayres

1981

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water-deprived male albino rats received a single presentation of a 4-sec electric-grid-shock unconditioned stimulus followed by a 4-sec white-noise conditioned stimulus (a single backward conditioning trial.) Excitation conditioned to the noise was indexed in terms of the noise's subsequent ability to suppress ongoing licking of a water tube. The main findings were: (1) Excitation was acquired and was retained over a 30-day retention interval; (2) although excitation was retained, it did not grow significantly stronger during the interval (there was no incubation effect); (3)excitation was extinguished by noise-alone trials; and (4)excitation showed more spontaneous recovery when extinction trials were separated by 29 days than when separated by only 1 day. Because these results are similar to those in the forward conditioning literature, they seem consistent with, but do not demand, the view that forward and backward excitatory conditioning involve similar learning processes. A current theory that embraces this view is opponent-process theory (Solomon & Corbit, 1974). We suggest that opponent-process theory can (1)account for existing backward conditioning data, (2) explain the phenomenon of incubation that has previously been described in the literature while simultaneously explaining its absence in the present study, and (3)integrate certain nonmonotonic acquisition phenomena that have appeared in both the forward and backward conditioning literatures.Reports that conditioned excitation can be established through backward conditioning procedures have for years met with skepticism (e.g., Kimble, 1961;Mackintosh, 1974;Osgood, 1953;Underwood, 1949). Indeed, backward conditioning procedures have often been used in classical conditioning experiments as control procedures designed to leave the conditioned stimulus (CS) neutral. Furthermore, when this practice was eventually criticized (Rescorla, 1967), the criticism was not that the CS might become excitatory but, rather, that it might acquire an opposite, inhibitory tendency. Such conditioned inhibition is clearly predicted by several modern theories of conditioning, including contingency theory (Rescorla, 1967) and discrepancy theory (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972). More generally, conditioned inhibition is predicted by any theory that emphasizes the information that CSs provide about unconditioned stimuli (USs). Since backward CSs usually predict relatively long periods of US absence (e.g., Moscovitch & LoLordo, 1968), they are expected to acquire conditioned properties opposite to those of CSs that predict the imminent occurrence of USs. Empirical support for this predicted conditioned inhibition has been accumulating in recent years and now appears substantial (Heth, 1976;Maier, Rapaport, & Wheatley, 1976;Moscovitch & LoLordo, 1968;Plotkin & Oakley, 1975;Siegel & Domjan, 1971, 1974. In addition, it has also been shown that backward (US-CS) pairings can serve to extinguish excitatory conditioning based on forward (CS-US) pairings (Ayres, Mahoney, Proulx, & Benedict,...

show abstract

Robust-single-trial delayed backward conditioning.

Cited by 121 publications

References 16 publications

Adaptive Behavior and Learning

Adaptive Behavior and Learning

Rabbit nictitating membrane conditioning: Lower limit of the effective interstimulus interval

One-trial backward excitatory fear conditioning in rats: Acquisition, retention, extinction, and spontaneous recovery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About