Interstimulus interval and time estimation in ratings of signaled shock aversiveness.

Auditory and autonomic tests of the preparatory-adaptive-response interpretation of classical aversive conditioning.

“…On the other hand, the question whether reliable autonomic • conditioning has been achieved has obvious relevance for the adequacy of any tests of the autonomic consequence of the PAR interpretation. However, contrary to the position of Suboski et al (1972), there was adequate evidence for reliable autonomic conditioning in that reliable differentiation was obtained in the studies by Furedy (1970), Furedy and Doob (1971a, Experiment III), Furedy and Doob (1971b), and in the present study in the case of the FIR GSR and the VPC. The dismissal of this evidence as reflecting merely "sensitization rather than conditioning [Suboski et al, 1972, p. 414]" is seen to be untenable once it is recognized that the differential-conditioning paradigm is designed to control for sensitization, so that "conditioning [is] demonstrated by a difference in responding [Gormezano, 1966, p. 389]" between CS+ and CS -.…”

“…The PAR interpretation was neither confirmed by the auditory test nor by the autonomic tests employed in the present experiment. More generally, there has recently been some criticism of the methodology used for testing the PAR interpretation in the Toronto laboratory by Suboski, Brace, Jarrold, Teller, and Dieter (1972). These investigators have suggested "that classical CRs were not acquired in the experiments by Furedy and his associates [p. 414]," and their extensive comments (pp.…”

Veridicality of cognitive mapping of stressor effects: Sex differences1

“…Others (cf. Suboski, Brace, Jarrold, Teller, & Dieter, 1972) have suggested that it may be a correlate of general coping activity directed toward reducing the affective valence of noxious stimulation. It is noteworthy that commensurate with greater heart-rate acceleration dinring each of the latter two scenes, subjective stress among females was no greater than that of males.…”

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

“…The reasons for the discrepancy between Furedy's results and those of the present study are not clear. Suboski et al (1972) reported data consistent with preparatory-response theory and attributed Furedy's negative results to the use of non-optimal conditioning parameters. An alternative interpretation is that a law-of-effeot mechanism operates in classical eyelid conditioning but not in the conditioning of autonomic responses such as the GSR.…”