Subcortical conditioning, generalization, and transfer.

Nielson, Harold C.; Knight, J. M.; Porter, Paul B.

doi:10.1037/h0043129

Cited by 50 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dory, Rutledge , and Larse n (1956) success fully conditioned the cat foreleg flexion response using seve ral stimulation sites in the cerebral co rtex (e .g ., the ec tosy lvian , middle suprasy lvian, postlateral , and marginal gyri ). Neilson, Knight , and Porter (1962) delivered a stimulation CS to a variety of subcortical structures (e .g . , caudat e nucleus, reticular nucleu s, and superi or colliculus) and effectively co nditioned a forep aw shoc k avoidance respon se .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classical conditioning of the rabbit eyelid response with mossy fiber stimulation as the conditioned stimulus

Steinmetz

Lavond

Thompson

1985

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nictitating membrane responses of 12 rabbits were classically conditioned using mossy fiber stimulation as a conditioned stimulus (CS) and airpuff as an unconditioned stimulus. The dorsolateral pontine nucleus and the lateral reticular nucleus were effective stimulation-CS sites for learning. Robust conditioned responses were obtained with relatively few paired trials and extinguished with subsequent CS-alone presentations. In addition, explicitly unpaired presentations of stimulation and airpufffailed to produce response increments. These results support previous theories of cerebellar function that have proposed that mossy fibers supply " learning" input to the cerebellum for motor learning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classical conditioning of the rabbit eyelid response with mossy fiber stimulation as the conditioned stimulus

Steinmetz

Lavond

Thompson

1985

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conversely, stimulation of small areas, termed microstimulation, can evoke motor and sensory effects that mimic the functional contribution of the stimulated area (Tehovnik, 1996;Graziano et al, 2002;Cohen and Newsome, 2004;DeAngelis and Newsome, 2004;Tehovnik et al, 2006). In the 1950s, neurobiologists began operantly conditioning animal behavior using electrical stimulation of the brain as a conditioned stimulus (Doty et al, 1956;Nielson et al, 1962;Doty, 1965Doty, , 1969 or a reinforcement (Olds and Milner, 1954). More recently, microstimulation of sensory areas has been shown to produce perceptual effects such as visual sensation (Bartlett et al, 2005), biasing the perception of visual motion (Salzman et al, 1990(Salzman et al, , 1992Britten and van Wezel, 1998) or face recognition (Afraz et al, 2006), and mimicking the somatosensory perception of flutter (Romo et al, 1998(Romo et al, , 2000de Lafuente and Romo, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primate Reaching Cued by Multichannel Spatiotemporal Cortical Microstimulation

Fitzsimmons¹,

Drake²,

Hanson³

et al. 2007

J. Neurosci.

143

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both humans and animals can discriminate signals delivered to sensory areas of their brains using electrical microstimulation. This opens the possibility of creating an artificial sensory channel that could be implemented in neuroprosthetic devices. Although microstimulation delivered through multiple implanted electrodes could be beneficial for this purpose, appropriate microstimulation protocols have not been developed. Here, we report a series of experiments in which owl monkeys performed reaching movements guided by spatiotemporal patterns of cortical microstimulation delivered to primary somatosensory cortex through chronically implanted multielectrode arrays. The monkeys learned to discriminate microstimulation patterns, and their ability to learn new patterns and new behavioral rules improved during several months of testing. Significantly, information was conveyed to the brain through the interplay of microstimulation patterns delivered to multiple electrodes and the temporal order in which these electrodes were stimulated. This suggests multichannel microstimulation as a viable means of sensorizing neural prostheses.

show abstract

“…Such equivalence has been reported in the auditory modality by Doty & Rutledge (1959) , Nieder & Neff (1961) , and Nielson , Knight , & Porter (1962), and in the visual modality by Kitai (1965Kitai ( , 1966 and Miller & Glickstein (1961) . For the most part, these experiments have involved training an animal to make some behavioral response in the presence of an auditory or visual stimulus, and then measuring the animal's tendency to perform the response when electrical stimulation of auditory or visual brain regions is substituted for the original training stimulus.…”

mentioning

confidence: 76%

Transfer of learned discrimination from peripheral to central auditory stimulation in cats

Colavita

1973

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subcortical conditioning, generalization, and transfer.

Cited by 50 publications

References 10 publications

Classical conditioning of the rabbit eyelid response with mossy fiber stimulation as the conditioned stimulus

Classical conditioning of the rabbit eyelid response with mossy fiber stimulation as the conditioned stimulus

Primate Reaching Cued by Multichannel Spatiotemporal Cortical Microstimulation

Transfer of learned discrimination from peripheral to central auditory stimulation in cats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About