Conditioning autonomic responses of mentally subnormal individuals.

Additional support for the existence of skin conductance responses at unconditioned stimulus omission

“…Seminal works on the characteristics of the electrodermal system and SCRs (Boucsein, 1992(Boucsein, , 2012Prokasy and Kumpfer, 1973) suggest the answer is yes and cover this so-called "US-omission response" (also called "third interval omission response" or simply the "third interval response") in detail. As mentioned in our paper, initial evidence for this response comes from Grings et al (1962), who described this response in a sample of cognitively impaired subjects and observed that it became more frequent after classical conditioning. They replicated their initial findings in a sample of healthy students with a CS duration and a US latency of 5 s and observed a significant difference between the offset SCR (a deflection within a five-second interval following CS offset) to the CS+ with US omission and to the safety stimulus (CS−) (Lockhart and Grings, 1964).…”

The neural correlates of negative prediction error signaling in human fear conditioning

“…We further analyzed a second time-window of interest that lasted from 4.5 to 7.5 s, because of the robust SCR around the timing of the omitted shock (around stimulus-offset). This stimulus-offset SCR has been described in more detail by Grings et al (1962). The occurrence of both responses is in line with a temporal difference learning approach, where the two responses would relate to a positive prediction error at stimulus-onset and a negative prediction error (i.e.…”

“…Only the physiological responses at stimulusoffset revealed a significant difference between the CS+ and CS−, reflecting successful conditioning. The conceptualization of stimulusonset skin conductance responses comprising a strong orienting response component (Prokasy and Ebel, 1967) and stimulus-offset responses as a sensitive measure for conditioning strength (Grings et al, 1962) may be helpful to disentangle the overlapping brain activation effects in response to conditioned and safety stimuli. In general, analyzing the neural correlates of the different components of the skin conductance response (Cheng et al, 2007) constitutes a promising approach to human fear conditioning studies.…”

Anticipatory and Preparatory Electrodermal Behavior in Paired Stimulation Situations

“…Whether such learned multiple responding does occur is no longer in dispute. Early discussions were provided by Stewart, Stern, Winokur, andFredman in 1961 andDameron in 1962; more recent extensions have been made by Prokasy and Ebel (1967), and Baer and Fuhrer (1968).…”

“…The second experiment (Grings, Lockhart, Zeiner, & Uno, 1964) involved 40 mentally retarded Ss and contained a series of extensions of the interstimulus interval from an initial one of 5 sec to a final interval of 20 sec. For half of the ASS extensions were of delay (i.e., the first stimulus stayed on during the interstimulus interval) and for the other half the extensions were of trace (i.e., the first stimulus went off after 5 sec).…”