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

Levinthal, Charles F.; Tartell, Ross H.; Margolin, Carrie M.; Fishman, Howard

doi:10.3758/bf03200014

Cited by 25 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The best ISI for promoting CRs is not a fixed point in time; it differs with the response, the intensity and nature of CS and US, and the temporal distribution of CS-US pairings (Atkins et al 1994, Berk & Miller 1978, Lennartz & Weinberger 1992, Schneiderman 1972. Moreover, lengthening the intertrial interval (ITI) raises the optimal ISI (Gibbon et al 1977, Levinthal et al 1985, which suggests that the key variable is the ISI/ITI ratio.…”

Section: Simple Acquisition With a Single Cue Or Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

What's Elementary About Associative Learning?

Wasserman

Miller

1997

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

236

174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The scientific study of associative learning began nearly 100 years ago with the pioneering studies of Thorndike and Pavlov, and it continues today as an active area of research and theory. Associative learning should be the foundation for our understanding of other forms of behavior and cognition in human and nonhuman animals. The laws of associative learning are complex, and many modern theorists posit the involvement of attention, memory, and information processing in such basic conditioning phenomena as overshadowing and blocking, and the effects of stimulus preexposure on later conditioning. An unresolved problem for learning theory is distinguishing the formation of associations from their behavioral expression. This and other problems will occupy future generations of behavioral scientists interested in the experimental investigation of associative learning. Neuroscientists and cognitive scientists will both contribute to and benefit from that effort in the next 100 years of inquiry.

show abstract

Section: Simple Acquisition With a Single Cue Or Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

What's Elementary About Associative Learning?

Wasserman

Miller

1997

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

236

174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our analyses, presented above, show that shock level was stronger for Supp than for NM, particularly for the Levinthal et al (1985) studies. This is based on coulombs.…”

Section: Us Intensity: Higher Levels Of Shock Current In Nm Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 51%

“…Two ofthe seven (Salafia et al, 1976;Salafia et al, 1975) did not report trials to the 1st CR, but did report trials to the 20th CR, and therefore could not be used in the survey. Two of the remaining five (Kehoe et aI., 1991;Levinthal et al, 1985) were published either past our 1985 cutoff date, or in that very year; thus, our quota of 10-15 papers per response system (Lennartz & Weinberger, 1992, p. 97) had been attained. Of the remaining three, one (Kehoe & Gormezano, 1974) was included in the survey; we simply missed the two earliest papers (Levinthal &Papsdorf, 1970, andLevinthal, 1973).…”

Section: Averaging Across Trials Per Sessionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of nonspecific and nictitating membrane conditioned responses: Additional support for two-factor theories

Lennartz

Weinberger

1994

Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Experiments manipulating a much simpler factor than second-order conditioning have identified a further problem with the assumption that the typical ISI function found in eyeblink conditioning research provides a direct measure of stimulus trace decay. Almost all of the studies described earlier in this section, including those that have provided the main empirical basis for SOP, used massed procedures that involved from 20–100 trials per session and relatively short intertrial intervals, for example, in the range 15–300 s. In a series of studies using a delay conditioning procedure Levinthal and his colleagues showed that, if they gave only one trial per session, a very different ISI function was obtained (e.g., Levinthal, Tartell, Margolin, & Fishman, 1985). In one experiment rates of acquisition of the eyeblink were just as fast with an ISI of 1,100 msec as with one of 200 msec; in a follow up, acquisition was as fast with an ISI of 2,200 msec as with one of 1,200 msec (Levinthal et al, 1985).…”

Section: Eyeblink Conditioning and Wagner’s Sop Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal contiguity in associative learning: Interference and decay from an historical perspective.

Boakes

Costa

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The greater the separation in time between 2 events, A followed by B, the less likely they are to become associated. The dominant explanation of this temporal contiguity effect has been trace decay: During the interval between A and B, the trace left by A becomes too weak by the time B occurs for an association to be formed between them. Pavlov adopted this idea in the context of classical conditioning and Hull used it to account for the deleterious effect of delaying reinforcement on the acquisition of instrumental responses. By 1960 various studies supported the conclusion that animals could not learn to associate 2 events separated by more than around 45 s. Research on human skill acquisition with delayed feedback and later studies using causal or predictive judgment tasks indicated that explicit cognitive processing is generally involved when humans associate events separated by more than a few seconds. The discovery of long-delay taste aversion learning prompted Revusky's (1971) alternative analysis of contiguity effects in terms of interference: The greater the separation between A and B, the more likely that extraneous events compete for association with A and B. Although the analysis of overshadowing provided by associative learning theories provides a context for this account, none of these theories provide a satisfactory account of evidence on temporal contiguity from a wide range of animal studies. Alternative timing theories are arguably also unsatisfactory.

show abstract

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

Cited by 25 publications

References 23 publications

What's Elementary About Associative Learning?

What's Elementary About Associative Learning?

A comparison of nonspecific and nictitating membrane conditioned responses: Additional support for two-factor theories

Temporal contiguity in associative learning: Interference and decay from an historical perspective.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About