Introduction of acoustic stimulation during acquisition and resistance to extinction in the normal and hippocampally damaged rat.

Amsel, Abram; Glazer, Howard I.; Lakey,; T, McCuller; Pt, Wong

doi:10.1037/h0035013

Cited by 24 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is in these experiments transfer of persistence across the goal events offrustration and punishment. This same kind of transfer effect can be shown when the disruptive event in acquisition is a loud tone, rather than anticipatory frustration or shock (Amsel, Glazer, Lakey, McCuller, & Wong, 1973).…”

Section: Transfer Of Persistence: How General?mentioning

confidence: 70%

Précis ofFrustration Theory: An Analysis of Dispositional Learning and Memory

Amsel

1994

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a precis of a book on frustration theory, whose explanatory domain includes a family of phenom~na that have been summarized by the terms dispositional learning and memory-systems that ordmarily have a long-term historical etiology, and in which the learning is relatively reflexive and the memo~implicit and not strongly episodic. The book is an attempt, in the context of stimulusre~ponse l~a~mng theOI'~' to present in some detail an animal-based model of frustration as it is appIled to a Ilmlted-but stIll large-number of these experimentally established phenomena (perhaps the largest number organized by anyone such theory). These bear some resemblance to equivalent phen~mena in humans, to which the descriptive terms arousal, suppression, persistence, and regre~sIOn have been applied. An explicit caveat is that this is a book on one particular theory of frustratIOn and not a book on frustration theories. Whereas it does address other theories of frustration its main purpose is to review a line of theorizing and experimental research that has evolved ove; some 40 years: an analysis of the status of the concept of frustration in learning theory.In the history of the scientific study of learning and memory, a number of terms have been used to describe abstract experimental paradigms that purport to represent different mechanisms of learning. In the book discussed here, I refer to several of these, the most fundamental being classical (Pavlovian) conditioning and instrumental (Thorndikian) learning. These two are central to understanding the phenomena I will call the rewardschedule effects. These phenomena depend on a variety of interactions between reward and nonreward, and they are the basis for a family of generalizations known as frustration theory.My major thesis, in general terms, is that there is inherent in such reward schedules the buildup of primary frustration, defined simply as a temporary state that results when a response is nonreinforced (or nonrewarded, in more neutral language, in the appetitive case) in the presence of a reward expectancy; that a learned or anticipatory form of this temporally labile state, based on classical conditioning, can be elicited by an originally indifferent or neutral cue; that this conditional form of frustration, like other learned states, is permanent, at least for a given situation; and that, together, the primary (unlearned) and the secondary (learned) forms can account for a number of important processes in the dynamics of instrumental behavior, summarized by four familiar behavioral concepts: arousal, suppression, persistence, and regression. These four concepts define I am greatly indebted to Elizabeth Capaldi and Michael Rashotte for their valuable suggestions for revision of an earlier draft of this precis.

show abstract

Section: Transfer Of Persistence: How General?mentioning

confidence: 70%

Précis ofFrustration Theory: An Analysis of Dispositional Learning and Memory

Amsel

1994

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the extensive theoretical debate for and against the spatial (cognitive) mapping position on hippocampal function, there is a tradition of experimental research leading to a class of theories that have been more or less set aside. These are conceptualizations of hippocampal function in terms such as novelty, discrepancy, and habituation (e.g., Simonov, 1974;Vinogradova, 1975); suppression and inhibition (e.g., Douglas, 1967;Kimble, 1968;Altman et al, 1973); neuromodulatory effects (Isaacson, 1980); and, in the spirit of Vinogradova and Simonov, frustration, suppression, and persistence (e.g., Gray, 1970;Amsel et al, 1973;Glazer, 1974aGlazer, , 1974b, and the behavioral inhibition system (Gray, 1982). Angevine and Cotman (1981), in what could stand as a summary of this general kind of characterization of hippocampal function, wrote that "[Tlhe hippocampus holds the secret to limbic system function, or at least a large part of it.…”

Section: Neglected Theories Of Hippocampal Function: Their Relation Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hippocampal function in the rat: Cognitive mapping or vicarious trial and error?

Amsel

1993

Hippocampus

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The most prominent hypothesis of hippocampal function likens the hippocampus to a "cognitive map," a term used by a famous learning theorist, E. C. Tolman, to explain maze learning. The usual application of this concept of cognitive map, as it applies to the hippocampus, is to what is called spatial learning, mainly in the radial-arm maze of Olton and the Morris water maze. In a recent Hippocampus Forum, evidence for the cognitive map hypothesis was reviewed in a lead article by Nadel, followed by a series of commentaries by leading investigators of hippocampal function. This speculative commentary offers an alternative not represented in the forum--that the function of the hippocampus in spatial learning is not as a cognitive map, but that it subserves another function proposed by Tolman in his work on simple discrimination learning, vicarious trial and error, based on incipient, conflicting dispositions to approach and avoid.

show abstract

“…An important assumption of Amsel's model is that counterconditioning to a particular disruptive stimulus generalizes to apply to other stimuli in a potentially broad class of such stimulus events. Thus, for example, Amsel, Glazer, Lakey, and McCuller (1973) obtained increased resistance to extinction by using a behaviorally disruptive tone that was presented either during or at the end of an instrumental response chain.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%