Dissociation of the blocking of conditioned eyeblink and conditioned fear following a shift in US locus

Betts, Stephanie L.; Brandon, Susan E.; Wagner, Allan R.

doi:10.3758/bf03199017

Cited by 37 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The aforementioned selective PIT effect also provides evidence of encoding of more specific features of the US in the S-O association (Table 4). Moreover, that an animal given eyeblink conditioning displays the blink CR in only the eye on which the US was applied (Betts et al 1996) supports the encoding of specific location information by the CS.…”

Section: The Representation Of Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 71%

The Origins and Organization of Vertebrate Pavlovian Conditioning

Fanselow

Wassum

2015

Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pavlovian conditioning is the process by which we learn relationships between stimuli and thus constitutes a basic building block for how the brain constructs representations of the world. We first review the major concepts of Pavlovian conditioning and point out many of the pervasive misunderstandings about just what conditioning is. This brings us to a modern redefinition of conditioning as the process whereby experience with a conditional relationship between stimuli bestows these stimuli with the ability to promote adaptive behavior patterns that did not occur before the experience. Working from this framework, we provide an in-depth analysis of two examples, fear conditioning and food-based appetitive conditioning, which include a description of the only partially overlapping neural circuitry of each. We also describe how these circuits promote the basic characteristics that define Pavlovian conditioning, such as error-correction-driven regulation of learning.

show abstract

Section: The Representation Of Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 71%

The Origins and Organization of Vertebrate Pavlovian Conditioning

Fanselow

Wassum

2015

Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Considerable data now document the separability of conditioned eyeblink and conditioned fear during Pavlovian conditioning with an aversive paraorbital US. In addition to the aforementioned behavioral observations of Vandercar and Schneiderman (1967;see also Brandon, Betts, &Wagner, 1994, and showing differential variation as a function of the CS-US interval, there is substantial literature attesting to the differential speed ofacquisition ofthe two measures (see review by Lennartz & Weinberger, 1992; but see also Kehoe &Macrae, 1994, andWeinberger, 1994), and the report of Betts, Brandon, and Wagner (1996) showing that shift of the US from one eye to the other spares blocking ofconditioned fear but not blocking of conditioned eyeblink. These behavioral observations are supported by neurobiological investigations that suggest that the locus of neural convergence essential for eyeblink conditioning is different from that for fear conditioning (e.g., Thompson, 1986): Instructive is the fact that cerebellar damage that prevents eyeblink conditioning does not prevent fear conditioning (Thompson et a!., 1986), whereas amygdala lesions that interfere with fear conditioning do not preclude eyeblink conditioning (e.g., Weisz, Harden, & Xiang, 1992).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Divergence of conditioned eyeblink and conditioned fear in backward Pavlovian training

McNish

Betts

Brandon

et al. 1997

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments of Pavlovian conditioning with rabbits evaluated the effects of initiating or continuing a conditioned stimulus (CS) after a paraorbital unconditioned stimulus (US). In Experiment 1, backward pairings, in which a CS carne on after the US, produced a CS that appeared inhibitory on a measure of eyeblink conditioning but excitatory on a potentiated-startle measure of conditioned fear. In Experiment 2, extending the duration of a CS that carne on prior to the US,so that it continued after the US, decreased eyeblink conditioned responses, whereas it increased conditioned fear. The data from the two experiments confirm and extend those of Tait and Saladin (1986), supporting the suppositions of AESOP (Wagner & Brandon, 1989) that conditioned eyeblink and conditioned fear can be dissociated under various temporal relationships between the CS and US. Tait and Saladin (1986) reported that "backward" training, where an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US) was followed, rather than preceded, by a conditioned stimulus (CS), produced a CS that appeared concurrently excitatory and inhibitory, depending on the measure of associative learning employed. After 65 conditioning trials, where a 1,000-msec tone CS was administered 500 msec after a 1OO-msec paraorbital shock US, the tone appeared excitatory as indicated by its acquired ability to suppress drinking behavior, whereas it appeared inhibitory as evidenced by its retardation in subsequent acquisition ofeyeblink conditioned responses (CRs). Wagner and Brandon (1989) pointed to these data as providing especially clear evidence that CS-US pairings can produce an association between the CS and the emotive qualities of the US (as presumably reflected in common measures of conditioned fear) that is separable from the association between the CS and the remaining sensory-perceptual attributes ofthe US (as presumably seen in discrete CRs, such as the eyeblink). The separability is such that, under the conditioning parameters employed by Tait and Saladin, one association may be excitatory while the other is inhibitory.The data reported by Tait and Saladin (1986) might have been anticipated on the basis of the separate literatures on fear conditioning and on eyeblink conditioning concerned with the effects of backward US-CS pairings. Studies offear conditioning that have employed relatively short US-CS intervals have repeatedly reported an excitatory associative consequence

show abstract

“…However, one interpretive possibility would be to follow a suggestion made by Konorski (1967) and developed in more detail by Wagner (e.g., Betts, Brandon, & Wagner, 1996). Konorski argued that outcomes should be conceptualized as having some unique and some shared features, in the matter in which signals are routinely described.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Summation and overexpectation with qualitatively different outcomes

Rescorla

1999

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In five experiments, a Pavlovian appetitive conditioning preparation was used with rats to explore the interaction of associations with different, but equivalently valued, outcomes, Experiment 1demon-strated summation in magazine responding when two stimuli previously associated with different outcomes were combined, Experiments 2A and 2B found that pairing that stimulus compound with one of the outcomes led to a decrease in performance (overexpectation) for both of the stimulus elements. Experiments 3Aand 3B confirmed that result but demonstrated the continued presence of the original stimulus-outcome associations. The results are consonant with a view in which replacing one outcome with another leads to an associative structure containing both stimulus-outcome associations and an outcome-independent depressive process.

show abstract

Dissociation of the blocking of conditioned eyeblink and conditioned fear following a shift in US locus

Cited by 37 publications

References 15 publications

The Origins and Organization of Vertebrate Pavlovian Conditioning

The Origins and Organization of Vertebrate Pavlovian Conditioning

Divergence of conditioned eyeblink and conditioned fear in backward Pavlovian training

Summation and overexpectation with qualitatively different outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About