Classically conditioned tail flexion in rats: CR-contingent modification of US intensity as a test of the preparatory response hypothesis

Abstract

A classically conditioned tail flexionin rats with a white noise as the conditioned stimulus and a tailshock as the unconditioned stimulus is shown to arise as a result of contingent presentation of the two stimuli rather than from sensitization or pseudoconditioning. After achieving an asymptote for conditioned tail flexion, different groups received response-contingent tailshock increment, decrement, or omission. None of these treatments appreciably altered the probability of a conditioned response. Evidence is presented demonstrating that the response was sensitive to changes in the relationship between the stimuli and that the subjects could differentiate the various shock levels. The present data are viewed as inconsistent with the preparatory response hypothesis, which posits that classically conditioned behavior depends upon intrinsic reinforcement of components of the conditioned response syndrome. The possibility is discussed that classically conditioned responses observed in the laboratory are often only part of a larger, perhaps more clearly instrumental, set of behaviors that would occur in the unrestrained animal.

Beyond Rescorla–Wagner: the Ups and Downs of Learning

“…6 of Ghirlanda and Ibadullaiev (2015), which reproduces, among others, results of Miller et al (1981) and Zelikowsky and Fanselow (2010). In particular, the data from Miller et al (1981) show fluctuations in response rates above and below the idealized acquisition curve, while the data from Zelikowsky and Fanselow (2010) show a clear overshoot in initial responding that is corrected in later trials. Other examples of long-range response fluctuations, taken from the experiments we will discuss in this paper, are shown in Fig.…”

Eyeblink classical conditioning and post-traumatic stress disorder – a model systems approach

“…Coleman has reviewed the literature on the “law of effect” and conducted an experiment showing quite clearly that, at least in rabbit EBCC, the imposition of a contingency between the occurrence of a CR and a reduction in the intensity of a shock US results in less rather than more responding – a finding that completely contradicts a “law of effect” prediction ( 156 ). In other experiments, including tail flexion in the rat ( 159 ), appetitive jaw movement conditioning in rabbits ( 160 ) and human EBCC ( 157 ), the lack of significant effect and even inferior conditioning of subjects explicitly designed to benefit from the “law of effect” is clear ( 157 , 159 , 160 ). In contrast, early experiments by Schlosberg were interpreted as “successful” only if CRs modified the US ( 60 , 161 ).…”

Determinants of cue interactions

“…Extensive CS-US pairings that are administered after stimulus control of behavior has reached an asymptotic level can actually result in a reduction in conditioned responding. This overtraining effect has often been observed in situations that involve elemental training (e.g., Kamin, 1961;Millenson and Hendry, 1967;Miller et al, 1981). In contrast, in a compound conditioning situation Stout et al (2003a;also see Bellingham and Gillette, 1981) showed that extensive training can attenuate overshadowing, in that it results in increased responding to a target CS trained in compound relative to a target CS given fewer compound conditioning trials.…”