2005
DOI: 10.3758/bf03192863
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stimulus specificity of concurrent recovery in the rabbit nictitating membrane response

Abstract: Three experiments demonstrated that, following the extinction of an established conditioned stimulus (CS; e.g., tone), the pairing of an orthogonal stimulus from another modality (e.g., light) with the unconditioned stimulus (US) results in strong recovery of responding to the extinguished CS. This recovery occurred to about an equal degree regardless of whether or not initial training contained unambiguous stimulus-reinforcer relationships-that is, consistent CS-US pairings-or some degree of ambiguity, includ… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

2
20
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
2
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It may be instructive to compare our results with Kehoe and colleagues’ demonstrations of concurrent recovery in rabbit eyeblink conditioning (Macrae & Kehoe, 1999, Weidemann & Kehoe, 2003, 2004, 2005). As described previously, concurrent recovery refers to the recovery of responding to an extinguished CS after pairings of a new CS with the US.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 54%
“…It may be instructive to compare our results with Kehoe and colleagues’ demonstrations of concurrent recovery in rabbit eyeblink conditioning (Macrae & Kehoe, 1999, Weidemann & Kehoe, 2003, 2004, 2005). As described previously, concurrent recovery refers to the recovery of responding to an extinguished CS after pairings of a new CS with the US.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 54%
“…The present experiments avoided this problem by conducting summation tests with different modality stimuli. Importantly, previous experiments have reported little immediate cross-modal generalization in eyeblink in rats and NM conditioning in rabbits (Campolattaro & Freeman, 2006;Kehoe, 1988;Kehoe, Morrow, & Holt, 1984;Schreurs & Kehoe, 1987;Weidemann & Kehoe, 2005). The summation tests used in the present experiments were, therefore, more suitable for comparing Pavlovian conditioning inhibition and differential inhibition.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…Such changes are apparent, but have not been systematically analyzed, in previously published eyelid conditioning studies in rat [Stanton et al, 1992 (Figs. 2, 3, and 5)] and rabbit [Weidemann and Kehoe, 2005 (Fig. 3); Kehoe et al, 2004 (Figs.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%