Extending conditioned stimuli before vs after unconditioned stimuli: Convergence of effect over trials

Ayres, John J. B.; Albert, Melody

doi:10.1016/0023-9690(90)90023-h

Cited by 9 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, the asymmetrical effects of B versus A extensions were much more robust in Experiment 1B, which used a 0.8-mA shock, than in Experiment 1A, which used a 0.6-mA shock. Similar results have been reported in betweengroups designs by Ayres and Albert (1990).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

“…This weakening is especially remarkable in the B treatments because it is just the opposite of inhibition of delay. Here and elsewhere (Ayres & Albert, 1990;Ayres et al, 1987), we have been concerned that rats in the B condition might learn that the fi rst 2-min part of the CS ,was nonreinforced and therefore might show inhibition of delay. If so, such learning might explain why B evoked weaker suppression in that period than did A.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Relative to the baseline condition in Panel 0, the 0 (zero) condition, the A and B extensions weaken conditioning. However, of special interest is the fi nding that the B extension weakens conditioning more (Ayres & Albert, 1990;Ayres et al, 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Extending continuous versus discontinuous conditioned stimuli before versus after unconditioned stimuli.

Albert¹,

Ricker²,

Bevins³

et al. 1993

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conditioned suppression was used with rats to study the effects of extending conditioned stimuli (CSs) before versus after the delivery of unconditioned stimuli. These extensions are termed B and A extensions, respectively. Within-group designs were used to compare the effects of extending CSs when 2-min parts of those CSs were separated by temporal gaps of 6 min versus a separation of no gap. The results were as follows: (a) B extensions weakened conditioning more than did A extensions, with or without gaps; (b) under some conditions, this asymmetrical effect persisted with extended training; (c) gaps between 2-min parts of a B extension had no detectable effect; and (d) under some parameter values, gaps between 2-min parts of an A extension weakened conditioning significantly. These results are better predicted by the Sometimes Opponent-Process model (SOP;

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Extending continuous versus discontinuous conditioned stimuli before versus after unconditioned stimuli.

Albert¹,

Ricker²,

Bevins³

et al. 1993

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, the decremental effects on conditioned fear in the rat reported by Ayres and Albert (1990) and Ayres, Albert, and Bombace (1987) resulted from a 10-min extension of the CS. Notably, Larew (1986), in separate experiments, observed a decremental effect on conditioned fear of a 60-sec extension of the CS, but not of a 30-sec extension.…”

Section: Divergence Of Response Measures 47mentioning

confidence: 69%

“…Previous studies that have investigated the effects of continuing a CS beyond the time of US occurrence, as compared with the more conventional practice ofterminating the CS contemporaneous with US presentation, frequently have reported a decrement in the conditioning of either discrete conditioned reflexes (e.g., Barnes, 1956;Schneiderman, 1966) or CERs (e.g., Ayres & Albert, 1990;Ayres, Albert, & Bombace, 1987;Larew, 1986).2 However, the studies concerned with discrete CRs have employed post-US durations quite different from those concerned with presumptive measures of conditioned fear. Schneiderman (1966) reported a decremental effect on eyeblink conditioning in the rabbit of continuing the CS 2 sec beyond the US.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Divergence of conditioned eyeblink and conditioned fear in backward Pavlovian training

McNish

Betts

Brandon

et al. 1997

Animal Learning & Behavior

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

Some parameters of latent inhibition

Ayres

Philbin

Cassidy

et al. 1992

Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extending conditioned stimuli before vs after unconditioned stimuli: Convergence of effect over trials

Cited by 9 publications

References 11 publications

Extending continuous versus discontinuous conditioned stimuli before versus after unconditioned stimuli.

Extending continuous versus discontinuous conditioned stimuli before versus after unconditioned stimuli.

Divergence of conditioned eyeblink and conditioned fear in backward Pavlovian training

Some parameters of latent inhibition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About