Effects of variable versus fixed CS-US interval schedules upon avoidance responding.

Low, Lorraine A.; Low, Howard I.

doi:10.1037/h0042095

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of Experiment 1 clearly indicate that an irregular CS-US interval facilitates shuttle-box avoidance learning in the guinea pig. This finding appears to be in contrast to the avoidance studies employing rats, where no differences are found between groups trained with variable and constant CS-US intervals (Kamin, 1960;Low & Low, 1962). The discrepancy might be explained, however, by the fact that rats displayed far higher levels of avoidance responding, and consequently received far less actual exposure to the variable CS-US pattern.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 78%

Effect of variable temporal parameters in avoidance conditioning of the guinea pig.

In¹,

Cj²

1967

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 78%

Effect of variable temporal parameters in avoidance conditioning of the guinea pig.

In¹,

Cj²

1967

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although studies have looked at the effects of fixed versus variable CS−US durations on conditioned response learning in aversive preparations, only a few have characterized acquisition. These studies have reported no effect of fixed versus variable CS−US durations on speed of acquisition of avoidance responding in a shuttle box paradigm by rats (Kamin, 1960; Low & Low, 1962), eye-blink conditioning in rabbits (Patterson,1970), or acquisition of a conditioned response in an aversive conditioning preparation in goldfish (Berger, Yarczower, & Bitterman,1965). Thus, the available evidence from these disparate paradigms suggests that there is no difference in speed of acquisition with fixed versus variable CS−US intervals in aversive conditioning protocols.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditioned stimulus informativeness governs conditioned stimulus−unconditioned stimulus associability.

Ward

Gallistel²,

Jensen³

et al. 2012

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a conditioning protocol, the onset of the conditioned stimulus (CS) provides information about when to expect reinforcement (the US). There are two sources of information from the CS in a delay conditioning paradigm in which the CS-US interval is fixed. The first depends on the informativeness, the degree to which CS onset reduces the average expected time to onset of the next US. The second depends only on how precisely a subject can represent a fixed-duration interval (the temporal Weber fraction). In three experiments with mice, we tested the differential impact of these two sources of information on rate of acquisition of conditioned responding (CS-US associability). In Experiment 1, we show that associability (the inverse of trials to acquisition) increases in proportion to informativeness. In Experiment 2, we show that fixing the duration of the US-US interval or the CS-US interval or both has no effect on associability. In Experiment 3, we equated the increase in information produced by varying the C̅/T̅ ratio with the increase produced by fixing the duration of the CS-US interval. Associability increased with increased informativeness, but, as in Experiment 2, fixing the CS-US duration had no effect on associability. These results are consistent with the view that CS-US associability depends on the increased rate of reward signaled by CS onset. The results also provide further evidence that conditioned responding is temporally controlled when it emerges.

show abstract

“…The apparatus was the modified Mowrer-Miller shuttle box previously described (Low & Low, 1962). The Ss in Groups 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 were run with the CS-US interval in seconds designated by their respective group numbers.…”

Section: Apparatus and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of CS-US interval length upon avoidance responding.

Low¹,

Low²

1962

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of variable versus fixed CS-US interval schedules upon avoidance responding.

Cited by 7 publications

References 11 publications

Effect of variable temporal parameters in avoidance conditioning of the guinea pig.

Effect of variable temporal parameters in avoidance conditioning of the guinea pig.

Conditioned stimulus informativeness governs conditioned stimulus−unconditioned stimulus associability.

Effects of CS-US interval length upon avoidance responding.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About