1983
DOI: 10.3758/bf03212308
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Attenuation of blocking by a change in US locus

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

3
32
0

Year Published

1991
1991
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
3
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Several authors have reported that conditioning of a stimulus will not be reduced or blocked by the presence of a pretrained CS if the outcome used for conditioning is altered in either quantity (Dickinson & Mackintosh, 1979;Holland, 1984) or quality (Holland, 1988;Stickney & Donahoe, 1983) from that used for pretraining. However, such outcome manipulations do not inevitably produce unblocking (e.g., Bakal, Johnson, & Rescorla, 1974;Ganesan & Pearce, 1988).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several authors have reported that conditioning of a stimulus will not be reduced or blocked by the presence of a pretrained CS if the outcome used for conditioning is altered in either quantity (Dickinson & Mackintosh, 1979;Holland, 1984) or quality (Holland, 1988;Stickney & Donahoe, 1983) from that used for pretraining. However, such outcome manipulations do not inevitably produce unblocking (e.g., Bakal, Johnson, & Rescorla, 1974;Ganesan & Pearce, 1988).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The aim of Experiment I was to attempt to replicate the differential blocking effects reported by Stickney and Donahoe (1983), with the inclusion ofa measure of the CER as well as conditioned eyeblink. However, it was deemed prudent to employ experimental comparisons from which it is safer to conclude that blocking has occurred than the specific comparisons employed by Stickney and Donahoe.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They argued on the basis of these and other available data involving the CER that blocking will occur with a change in the US, as long as it does not involve a change in the affective properties ofthe US. To explain the aforementioned findings of Stickney and Donahoe (1983), who observed unblocking when the US was shifted from one eye to the other, they suggested that the shift may have involved an increase in the subjective intensity ofthe USthe argument being that the animals may have habituated to the US in its initial location and found the same shock in the alternate location transiently more aversive. A variant on this argument might suppose an increase in objective US intensity due to the development of electrode resistance at the pretraining site as compared with the compound training site.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations