Spontaneous recovery: A (Hullian) non-inhibition interpretation

Burstein, Kenneth R.

doi:10.3758/bf03331138

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the data confirm the role of transportational stimuli in spontaneous recovery as proposed by Skinner (1950) and implied by Burstein (1967), the manner in which such stimuli control responding within the apparatus is not obvious. The positions of Skinner and Burstein assume that the potential for transportational stimuli to exert control over responding is limited to a brief period of time at the beginning of a session.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

“…Empirical ascription of such spontaneity to control acquired by transportational and contextual stimuli over instrumental responding is consistent with a variety of noninhibitory interpretations (Burstein, 1967;Estes, 1955;Skinner, 1950;Spear, 1971). Specification of the manner in which contextual and transportational stimuli acquire control over responding remains as an interesting question.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In discrete-trial situations, Burstein (1967) views the first conditioned stimulus (CS) within sessions of acquisition and extinction as unique because it is the only CS directly preceded by intersession events (cf. transportational stimuli) and not directly preceded by another CS.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reductions in resistance to extinction and spontaneous recovery as a function of changes in transportational and contextual stimuli

Welker

McAuley

1978

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thirty rats received 10 sessions of baseline training in which leverpressing was reinforced according to a variable-interval (VI) 60-sec schedule. Twenty-four of the subjects were then assigned to one of four groups that received five sessions of extinction, with groups being differentiated in a 2 by 2 factorial design on the basis of: (1) changes in stimuli accompanying transportation of subjects from home cages to the laboratory and placement in the apparatus, and/or (2) changes in contextual stimuli within the apparatus. During the sixth session of extinction, the transportational and contextual stimuli previously associated with baseline training were reinstated. The remaining six rats experienced changes in both transportational and contextual stimuli but were maintained on the VI 60-sec schedule of reinforcement. Changes in either transportational or contextual stimuli reduced resistance to extinction and spontaneous recovery, and substantial increments in responding occurred upon reinstatement of the transportational and contextual stimuli associated with baseline training. Evidence for summation of the two sources of stimulus change was obtained. Changes in transportational and contextual stimuli produced only a brief disruption in responding when reinforcement of leverpressing was continued.Conditioned responses that have been reduced to a near-zero level during extinction often "spontaneously" recover at the beginning of subsequent sessions of extinction (e.g., Burstein

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reductions in resistance to extinction and spontaneous recovery as a function of changes in transportational and contextual stimuli

Welker

McAuley

1978

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Robbins (1990) compared predictions of different theories of extinction in light of his results. In his view, the suggestion that recovery reflects the incomplete elimination of early-session cues such as handling (e.g., Burstein, 1967;Skinner, 1950) has difficulties explaining his data showing spontaneous recovery in the middle of a test session. Also in Robbins's view, Capaldi's (1967) generalization decrement model and memory retrieval accounts of recovery (e.g., Gleitman, 1971;Konorski, 1967;Spear, 1971) have problems explaining the occurrence of recovery when the conditions of recovery testing are more similar to those of extinction than those of acquisition (Experiment 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attentional, associative, and configural mechanisms in extinction.

Larrauri

Schmajuk

2008

Psychological Review

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The participation of attentional and associative mechanisms in extinction, spontaneous recovery, external disinhibition, renewal, reinstatement, and reacquisition was evaluated through computer simulations with an extant computational model of classical conditioning (N. A. Schmajuk, Y. Lam, & J. A. Gray, 1996; N. A. Schmajuk & J. A. Larrauri, 2006). The model assumes that attention to stimuli (controlled by environmental novelty) and associations between stimuli interact during memory storage (learning) and retrieval (performance). Computer simulations indicated that a combination of attentional and associative mechanisms might be sufficient to describe most of the properties of extinction. However, configural mechanisms seem necessary to describe the properties of cues that precede the target stimulus during extinction (extinction cues) and might improve the description of some experimental results regarding the associative properties of the extinction context. These configural mechanisms can be easily integrated into the present version of the model.

show abstract

“…Since Pavlov's time, a number of different theories of extinction have been advanced, all of which attempt in some way to provide an account of spontaneous recovery. Some see recovery as reflecting central properties of the extinction mechanism (e.g., Gleitman, 1971;Hull, 1943;Konorski, 1948;Rescorla & Cunningham, 1978), whereas others view the phenomenon as a procedural artifact revealing little about the essential nature of extinction (e.g., Burstein, 1967;Skinner, 1950). However, all of them make some specific predictions about the conditions that should promote or prevent the occurrence of spontaneous recovery.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%