Evaluation of informational control and preparatory response factors in classical aversive conditioning

Abstract

Subjects performed in a differential eyelid conditioning paradigm with either airpuff or infraorbital shock as the UCS. The trial series included interpolated UeS-alone presentations, and subjects rated UCS aversiveness on all trials. Ratings of the airpuff, but not the shock UCS, were negatively correlated with the magnitude of anticipatory eyelid CRs, as predicted by preparatory response or law-of-effect models of classical conditioning. However, subjects showed no tendency to rate signaled (CS-UCS) trials as less aversive than unsignaled (UCS-alone) trials, and showed no significant preference for the signaled UCS. These results suggest that the operation of informational control and preparatory response factors is more complex than is assumed by available theories. Also, instrumental shaping and preparatory response mechanisms may not be involved in the acquisition of CRs.

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

“…[For psychophysical approaches to the PR hypothesis, see the extensive work of Furedy and his associates with humans (e.g., Furedy & Murray, 1976) and the recent research of Miller, Greco, Vigorito, and Marlin with rats, Note 1.] The PSS phenomenon consists of an animal's electing to be forewarned of an impending shock that is unavoidable and ostensibly unmodifiable.…”