Human eyelid conditioning with airpuff vs infraorbital shock as the UCS.

Murray, Harry G.; Carruthers, Benjamin C.

doi:10.1037/h0081994

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a large body of rabbit NMR conditioning research in which AP is used as the US. In addition, with few exceptions, AP is used for human eyelid conditioning (Glocker et al, 1999; Gormezano & Fernald, 1971; Murray & Carruthers, 1974). Nevertheless, there has only been one rabbit NMR and one human study in which URs to AP were examined before and after conditioning (Flaten & Powell, 1998; Steinmetz, Lavond, Ivkovich, Logan, & Thompson, 1992).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditioning-specific reflex modification of the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) nictitating membrane response: Generality and nature of the phenomenon.

Buck¹,

Seager²,

Schreurs³

2001

Behavioral Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conditioning-specific reflex modification (CRM) occurs when classical conditioning modifies responding to an unconditioned stimulus in the absence of a conditioned stimulus. This form of reflex modification suggests that learning modifies the unconditioned reflex pathway. Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) nictitating membrane responses to 5 intensities and 3 durations of airpuff (AP) or periorbital electrical stimulation (ES) were monitored before and after conditioning. AP tests detected strong CRM after conditioning with ES and modest levels of CRM after conditioning with AP. After conditioning with AP, ES tests failed to detect CRM. After conditioning with a stronger AP, CRM was again detected by AP tests. CRM is a general phenomenon but is more readily detected after training with a relatively aversive stimulus; thus, it may be a function of level of arousal.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditioning-specific reflex modification of the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) nictitating membrane response: Generality and nature of the phenomenon.

Buck¹,

Seager²,

Schreurs³

2001

Behavioral Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a large body of rabbit NMR conditioning research in which AP is used as the US. In addition, AP is almost always used for human eyelid conditioning (Glocker et al, 1999;Murray & Carruthers, 1974). Nevertheless, there have been a limited number of rabbit NMR studies (Steinmetz et al, 1992;Wikgren & Korhonen, 2001;Wikgren et al, 2002) and only one human eyelid study (Flaten & Powell, 1998) in which URs to AP were examined before and after conditioning.…”

Section: Experimental Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fear circuitry. It is clear that both ES and AP support conditioning of the rabbit NMR (Berthier, 1992) and the human eyelid response (Murray & Carruthers, 1974), but there is evidence that their mode of action may be different. For example, ES supports heart rate conditioning in rabbits over a wide range of intensities, but AP will only induce heart rate conditioning at unusually high values (McEchron, McCabe, Green, Llabre, & Schneiderman, 1991;Powell et al, 1996).…”

Section: Neural Substratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classical Conditioning and Modification of the Rabbit's (Oryctolagus Cuniculus) Unconditioned Nictitating Membrane Response

Schreurs

2003

Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A fundamental tenet of behavior is that a reflex is automatic, unconscious, involuntary, and relatively invariant. However, we have discovered that a reflex can change dramatically as a function of classical conditioning, and this change can be demonstrated independently of the conditioned stimulus. We have termed this phenomenon conditioning-specific reflex modification (CRM). Although the behavioral laws and neural substrates of nonassociative reflex changes have been identified, the behavioral laws and neural substrates of CRM are only now being revealed. For example, CRM is similar to classical conditioning in that (a) it is a function of both the strength of conditioning and (b) the strength of the unconditioned stimulus, (c) it can be extinguished, and (d) it can be generalized from one unconditioned stimulus to another. Preliminary analysis suggests that CRM may have some features in common with post-traumatic stress disorder and may provide insights into treatment of the disorder.

show abstract

“…According to multiple meta‐analyses and reviews, electric shocks and white noise bursts are two of the most frequently used USs in human fear conditioning paradigms (Duits et al, ; Fullana et al, ; Hofmann, de Houwer, Perugini, Baeyens, & Crombez, ; Lissek, Powers et al, ; Mechias, Etkin, & Kalisch, ; Shechner, Hong, Britton, Pine, & Fox, ). While there have been various studies comparing different US types in animals and humans using fewer conditioning trials than would be required in typical EEG/MEG studies (Busch & Evans, ; Glenn, Lieberman, & Hajcak, ; McEchron, McCabe, Green, Llabre, & Schneiderman, ; Murray & Carruthers, ; Neumann & Waters, ), it remains unclear whether electric shocks or loud white noise bursts are more suitable for studying fear conditioning and extinction when the paradigm entails many conditioning trials. Accordingly, EEG and MEG researchers are often faced with the rather pragmatic question of which US they should use for their fear conditioning studies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A pragmatic comparison of noise burst and electric shock unconditioned stimuli for fear conditioning research with many trials

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several methods that are promising for studying the neurophysiology of fear conditioning (e.g., EEG, MEG) require a high number of trials to achieve an adequate signal‐to‐noise ratio. While electric shock and white noise burst are among the most commonly used unconditioned stimuli (US) in conventional fear conditioning studies with few trials, it is unknown whether these stimuli are equally well suited for paradigms with many trials. Here, N = 32 participants underwent a 260‐trial differential fear conditioning and extinction paradigm with a 240‐trial recall test 24 h later and neutral faces as conditioned stimuli. In a between‐subjects design, either white noise bursts (n = 16) or electric shocks (n = 16) served as US, and intensities were determined using the most common procedure for each US (i.e., a fixed 95 dB noise burst and a work‐up procedure for electric shocks, respectively). In addition to differing US types, groups also differed in closely linked US‐associated characteristics (e.g., calibration methods, stimulus intensities, timing). Subjective ratings (arousal/valence), skin conductance, and evoked heart period changes (i.e., fear bradycardia) indicated more reliable, extinction‐resistant, and stable conditioning in the white noise burst versus electric shock group. In fear conditioning experiments where many trials are presented, white noise burst should serve as US.

show abstract

Human eyelid conditioning with airpuff vs infraorbital shock as the UCS.

Cited by 9 publications

References 13 publications

Conditioning-specific reflex modification of the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) nictitating membrane response: Generality and nature of the phenomenon.

Conditioning-specific reflex modification of the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) nictitating membrane response: Generality and nature of the phenomenon.

Classical Conditioning and Modification of the Rabbit's (Oryctolagus Cuniculus) Unconditioned Nictitating Membrane Response

A pragmatic comparison of noise burst and electric shock unconditioned stimuli for fear conditioning research with many trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About