The CS-US interval function in rabbit nictitating membrane response conditioning: Single vs multiple trials per conditioning session

Abstract

This report is based upon a dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Michigan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree.

The CS-US interval (ISI) function in rabbit nictitating membrane response conditioning with very long intertriai intervals

“…Note-Maximum score per subject was 13. GENERAL DISCUSSION a 24-48-h ITI, although the superiority of all E groups to C groups confirms the earlier conclusion (Levinthal, 1973) that the results could not be attributed to pseudoconditioning. .---.…”

“…Administering 3 trials per day, Ferrara and Guisto (1973) found no significant lSI effect with values of 200, 700, or 1,200 msec. Moreover, with 1 trial per day (intertrial interval-ITIof 24 h), a 1,250-msec group shows faster CR acquisition than a 250-msec group (Levinthal, 1973;Levinthal & Papsdorf, 1970), just the opposite of the traditional lSI function reported with massed-trial training. Data from control groups for pseudoconditioning or sensitization in the Levinthal (1973) CR performance to be due to genuine conditioning processes rather than to procedural artifacts.…”

Retardation of rabbit nictitating membrane conditioning following US preexposures depends on the distribution and number of US presentations

“…In Experiment 1, retarded CR acquisition occurred with multiple sessions, but not with a single session of US preexposures. This observation parallels the observation that discrete cue conditioning is superior when a fixed number of trials are distributed over sessions of conditioning relative to their occurrence in a single session (Kehoe & Gormezano, 1974;Leventhal, 1973). In Experiment 2, retarded CR acquisition was relatively insensitive to the number of US preexposures presented within each session.…”

Effects of trials per session on conditioning of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response

“…In the few reported instances where the efficacy of single-trial sessions have been assessed directly against multiple-trial sessions, singletrial sessions appear to have produced more rapid response acquisition (Brimer & Dockrill, 1966;Holland, 1953a;Levinthal, 1973). However, while the observation of Brimer and Dockrill (1966) was statistically reliable, the observations of Holland (1953a) and Levinthal (1973) were not accompanied by appropriate statistical documentation of differences in rate of acquisition across trials. Accordingly, in order to further assess and document the effects of one trial per sessions, single trial sessions appear to have produced more rapid response acquisition (Brimer & Dockrill,50 conditioning trials per session on conditioning of the rabbit's nictitating membrane response.…”