Eyelid conditioning performance when the mode of reinforcement is changed from classical to instrumental avoidance and vice versa.

Hellige, Joseph B.; Grant, David A.

doi:10.1037/h0036341

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Avoidance is assessed in comparison to those given the same pattern of CS and US exposures but without control over US delivery (yoked comparisons). There is evidence avoidance responses may be acquired in both humans (without the complication of special instructions) [32,18,19,30,45,28,13,30,22,21] and rabbits [40,17,9]. In general, avoidance is apparent as greater responding in comparison to yoked subjects, however arguments may be made to the stability and suitability of yoked schedules [8,26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classical and instrumental conditioning of eyeblink responses in Wistar–Kyoto and Sprague–Dawley rats

Ricart

Jiao

Pang

et al. 2011

Behavioural Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wistar Kyoto (WKY) rats, an animal model of anxiety vulnerability, acquire lever-press avoidance faster than outbred Sprague Dawley (SD) rats. Faster avoidance acquisition may reflect an inherent ability to acquire cue-outcome associations, response-outcome associations or both. To evaluate cue-outcome learning, acquisition of classically conditioned eyeblink response was compared in SD and WKY rats using a delay-type paradigm (500-ms conditioned stimulus (CS) coterminating with a 10-ms unconditional stimulus (US)). WKY rats demonstrated enhanced classical conditioning, with both faster acquisition and greater asymptotic performance in delaytype training than SD rats. To evaluate response-outcome learning, separate SD and WKY rats were given control over US delivery through imposition of an omission contingency into delaytype training (emitting a conditioned response (CR) prevented delivery of the US). The schedule of US delivery derived by these rats became the training regimen for a separate group of SD and WKY rats, yoked within strain. In SD rats, no differences in acquisition were detected between those given control over US delivery and those trained with the same partial reinforcement schedule. Acquisition rates of those WKY rats with control exceeded those trained with a yokedschedule of US presentation. Collectively, WKY rats exhibit enhanced classical conditioning and sensitivity to schedules of reinforcement compared to outbred SD rats. Anxiety vulnerability, in particular inhibited temperament, may be traced to active processes in the prediction and control of aversive events.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classical and instrumental conditioning of eyeblink responses in Wistar–Kyoto and Sprague–Dawley rats

Ricart

Jiao

Pang

et al. 2011

Behavioural Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recurrent concern in learning and memory research, therefore, has been the question of whether for operant and classical conditioning a common formalism can be derived or whether they constitute two basically different processes (Gormezano and Tait 1976). Both one-(e.g., Guthrie 1952;Hebb 1956;Sheffield 1965) and two-process (e.g., Skinner 1935Skinner , 1937Konorski and Miller 1937a,b;Rescorla and Solomon 1967;Trapold and Overmier 1972) theories have been proposed from early on, yet the issue remains unsolved, despite further insights and approaches (e.g., Trapold and Winokur 1967;Trapold et al 1968;Hellige and Grant 1974;Gormezano and Tait 1976;Donahoe et al 1993Donahoe et al , 1997Hoffmann 1993;Balleine 1994;Rescorla 1994;Donahoe 1997). In a recent study, Rescorla (1994) notes: ".…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Operant and the Classical in Conditioned Orientation of Drosophila melanogaster at the Flight Simulator

Brembs¹,

Heisenberg²

2000

Learn. Mem.

110

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ever since learning and memory have been studied experimentally, the relationship between operant and classical conditioning has been controversial. Operant conditioning is any form of conditioning that essentially depends on the animal's behavior. It relies on operant behavior. A motor output is called operant if it controls a sensory variable. The Drosophila flight simulator, in which the relevant behavior is a single motor variable (yaw torque), fully separates the operant and classical components of a complex conditioning task. In this paradigm a tethered fly learns, operantly or classically, to prefer and avoid certain flight orientations in relation to the surrounding panorama. Yaw torque is recorded and, in the operant mode, controls the panorama. Using a yoked control, we show that classical pattern learning necessitates more extensive training than operant pattern learning. We compare in detail the microstructure of yaw torque after classical and operant training but find no evidence for acquired behavioral traits after operant conditioning that might explain this difference. We therefore conclude that the operant behavior has a facilitating effect on the classical training. In addition, we show that an operantly learned stimulus is successfully transferred from the behavior of the training to a different behavior. This result unequivocally demonstrates that during operant conditioning classical associations can be formed.

show abstract

“…However, as the scholars at the time were well aware, the levers in Skinner's boxes signaled food for the rats pressing them just as accurately as Pavlov's bell signaled food for his dogs. Therefore, a recurrent concern in learning and memory research has been the question whether a common formalism can be derived for operant and classical conditioning or whether they constitute an amalgamation of fundamentally different processes (Skinner, 1935(Skinner, , 1937Konorski and Miller, 1937a,b;Guthrie, 1952;Sheffield, 1965;Rescorla and Solomon, 1967;Trapold and Winokur, 1967;Trapold and Overmier, 1972;Hellige and Grant, 1974;Gormezano and Tait, 1976;Donahoe et al, 1993;Donahoe, 1997;Brembs and Heisenberg, 2000;Brembs et al, 2002;Balleine and Ostlund, 2007).…”

Section: Introduction: Operant and Classical Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spontaneous decisions and operant conditioning in fruit flies

Brembs

2011

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tAlready in the 1930s Skinner, Konorskiand colleagues debated the commonalities, differences and interactions among the processes underlying what was then known as "conditioned reflexes type I and II", but which is today more well-known as classical (Pavlovian) and operant (instrumental) conditioning. Subsequent decades of research have confirmed that the interactions between the various learning systems engaged during operant conditioning are complex and difficult to disentangle. Today, modern neurobiological tools allow us to dissect the biological processes underlying operant conditioning and study their interactions. These processes include initiating spontaneous behavioral variability, world-learning and self-learning. The data suggest that behavioral variability is generated actively by the brain, rather than as a by-product of a complex, noisy input-output system. The function of this variability, in part, is to detect how the environment responds to such actions. World-learning denotes the biological process by which value is assigned to environmental stimuli. Self-learning is the biological process which assigns value to a specific action or movement. In an operant learning situation using visual stimuli for flies, world-learning inhibits self-learning via a prominent neuropil region, the mushroom-bodies. Only extended training can overcome this inhibition and lead to habit formation by engaging the self-learning mechanism. Self-learning transforms spontaneous, flexible actions into stereotyped, habitual responses.

show abstract

Eyelid conditioning performance when the mode of reinforcement is changed from classical to instrumental avoidance and vice versa.

Cited by 14 publications

References 12 publications

Classical and instrumental conditioning of eyeblink responses in Wistar–Kyoto and Sprague–Dawley rats

Classical and instrumental conditioning of eyeblink responses in Wistar–Kyoto and Sprague–Dawley rats

The Operant and the Classical in Conditioned Orientation of Drosophila melanogaster at the Flight Simulator

Spontaneous decisions and operant conditioning in fruit flies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About