GSR conditioning and sensitization as a function of intertrial interval.

Prokasy, William F.; Ebel, Harvey C.

doi:10.1037/h0040214

Cited by 24 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This view is indirectly supported by the so-called trial spacing effect. In trial spacing experiments, it is regularly found that training trials that are spaced in time are more effective than massed trials~e.g., Humphreys, 1940;McAllister, McAllister, Weldin, & Cohen, 1974;Prokasy & Ebel, 1964;Spence & Norris, 1950!. A typical trial spacing experiment includes only one CS that is repeatedly and consistently reinforced.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of reinforcement density on response differentiation in configural discrimination problems

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two human Pavlovian conditioning experiments investigated the impact of reinforcement density (the number of reinforced trials divided by the total number of trials) on discrimination learning. Experiment 1 used a negative patterning problem (A+, B+, AB-) and Experiment 2 used a positive patterning problem (A-, B-, AB+). In both experiments, reinforcement density varied across four levels. Response differentiation between reinforced and non-reinforced stimuli was linearly related to the decrease in reinforcement density. Responses to nonreinforced stimuli did not differ between the four groups in either experiment. In contrast to this, responses to reinforced stimuli were considerably more pronounced in conditions with lower reinforcement density. For negative patterning, this replicates and extends similar observations from other species. For positive patterning, this is a finding that has not yet been reported in other experiments. The results are in agreement with the comparator hypothesis (Miller & Matzel, 1988) and with Wagner's (1981) "standard operating procedures" (SOP) model.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of reinforcement density on response differentiation in configural discrimination problems

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even if the added USs were each signaled by CSs, so that CS-US contingency was unchanged, the increase in the US rate, which 0090-5054/81/030159-04$00.65/0 in this instance would amount to a decrease in the intertrial interval, would be expected to yield poorer conditioning. Such effects have been shown in autoshaping (e.g., Gibbon, Baldock, Locurto, Gold, & Terrace, 1977), in the CER (Stein, Sidman, & Brady, 1958), and in other varieties of classical conditioning (Mitchell, 1973;Prokasy & Ebel, 1964). Therefore, before concluding that the introduction of unsignaled USs reduces conditioning because it reduces CS-US contingency, it is necessary to show that the addition of unsignaled USs is more damaging to acquisition than is the addition of signaled USs (cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contingency in fear conditioning: A reexamination

Jenkins

Shattuck

1981

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects on classical fear conditioning of the rate of presentation of the unconditioned stimulus (US) and the contingency between the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the US were examined using the conditioned emotional response procedure with rats. Increases in US rate reduced suppression by the same amount whether the added USs were signaled by CS, thereby maintaining the CS-US contingency, or unsignaled, thereby weakening the CS-US contingency. Failure to control for the rate of US presentation in previous studies of the effect of CS-US contingency on fear conditioning has led to the unsubstantiated conclusion that CS-US contingency is fundamental to classical conditioning.It is now widely accepted that classical conditioning depends not only on the temporal contiguity of conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US), but also on the CS-US correlation or contingency. With the contiguity, or joint occurrence, of CS and US held constant, CS-US contingency is weakened either by presentations of CS alone or by presentations of US alone. A commonly used index of contingency is given by the difference between conditional probabilities: the probability of US given CS, or P(US/CS), and the probability of US in the absence of CS, P(US/no CS). The contingency is positive when P(US/CS) is greater than P(US/no CS), negative when the reverse is true, and zero when the probabilities are equal. Mackintosh (1974) expressed the prevailing view of the importance of contingency for conditioning when he wrote: "conditioning experiments can be operationally defined as arrangements of correlations or contingencies between events ... . The most natural interpretation ... is that animals detect these contingencies: exposed to these particular relationships they learn to associate these correlated events" (p. 244). The results of the present experiment question this conclusion.The idea that contingency is fundamental to conditioning owes much to the work of Rescorla. In an influential paper on the proper control for classical conditioning, Rescorla (1967) argued that only those behavioral changes that depend on CS-US contingency should be regarded as conditioned. Accordingly, a noncontingent CS-US sequence is the proper control for classical conditioning, even though that sequence will generally include some contiguous presentations of (1968) reported an experiment on fear conditioning in which he found a close relation between the degree of CS-US contingency and the strength of conditioning to the CS, as measured by response suppression in the conditioned emotional response (CER) procedure. Subsequently, a theory of classical conditioning presented by Rescorla and Wagner (1972) provided an explanation for the dependence of conditioning on contingency. Although the theory did not assume that contingency was necessary for conditioning, it nevertheless showed how a trial-by-trial conditioning process could produce the close relation between CS-US contingency and the asymptotic strength of conditioning that was found in Re...

show abstract

“…An experiment which gathered data during both acquisition and extinction with the same subjects would help to resolve this question. One study of this sort (Prokasy and Ebel, 1964) has indicated that pseudoconditioning effects in GSR can be distinguished from true conditioning effects on the basis of several measures in both acquisition and extinction. Kimmel (1959) has contributed an exceedingly interesting observation.…”

Section: Pseudoconditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%