Stimulus Miscuing, Electrodermal Activity, and the Allocation of Processing Resources

Packer, Jeanette S.; Siddle, David A.T.

doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1989.tb03155.x

Cited by 57 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results are also consistent with recent reports of interaction between elementally trained cues (e.g., Escobar, Arcediano, & Miller, 2001;Escobar, Matute, & Miller, 2001;Matute & Pineño, 1998a, 1998b, as well as with several reports that show interaction between cues that have received differential (i.e., elemental) inhibition training (e.g., Lipp et al, 1993;Packer & Siddle, 1989;Siddle, 1985;Siddle et al, 1990). Moreover, some of the comparisons of the elemental and compound inhibition procedures that have been reported in the literature are also consistent with the results of Experiment 1.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…For example, several researchers have reported attenuated responding to a target cue, X, if a series of X-O pairings intermixed with A-no-O trials are followed by one or more A-O trials (Lipp & Dal Santo, in press;Lipp, Siddle, & Dall, 1993;Packer & Siddle, 1989;Siddle, 1985;Siddle, Broekhuizen, & Packer, 1990). In these studies, the outcome is miscued during Phase 2 by the cue that predicts its absence (A).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparison between elemental and compound training of cues in retrospective revaluation

Escobar

Pineño

Matute

2002

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison between elemental and compound training of cues in retrospective revaluation

Escobar

Pineño

Matute

2002

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Nevertheless, there are some observations in the literature that could be interpreted as convergent and some that could be interpreted as inconsistent with the present findings. Convergent data can be found in the "miscuing effect" literature (e.g., Lipp, Siddle, & Dall, 1993;Packer & Siddle, 1989). The miscuing effect refers to impaired responding that occurs when the US is "miscued" by an inhibitory stimulus (i.e., A+ training experienced after X+/A -training produces impaired responding to X).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Stimulus competition in the absence of compound conditioning

Matute

Pineño

1998

Animal Learning & Behavior

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most associative theories have assumed that stimulus competition occurs only between conditioned stimuli (CSs) that are trained in compound. The present research investigated the possibility of competition between two CSs that were individually paired to the same unconditioned stimulus (US). We used human subjects in an anticipatory suppression analogue to Pavlovian conditioning. Experiment 1 showed that X+ training followed by A+ training resulted in impaired responding to X. This did not occur when A+ training preceded X+ training. Experiment 2 replicated the basic effect and showed that it did not occur when the Phase 2 training consisted of A-instead of A+ nor when the A+ pairings occurred in a second context. Experiment 3 showed that A+ pairings occurring in a second context could still produce the effect when X was tested in the context in which the A+ pairings had occurred, but not when X was tested in a context different from that used for A+ training. Collectively, these results suggest that individually trained CSs may compete with each other when one of those CSs is more strongly activated by the test context than the other one.One of the best known findings in conditioning research is that if a conditioned stimulus (CS) is a very good predictor of an unconditioned stimulus (US), the conditioned response elicited by other CSs that are trained in compound with the good predictor will be impaired. This effect is often called stimulus competition, or cue selection. A typical example is the forward-blocking effect (Kamin, 1968), in which a CS, A, is paired to the US during Phase I (i.e., A +),and then, in Phase 2, A is presented in compound with a novel CS, X, and followed by the US (i.e., AX +). This results in weaker responding to the target cue X in a subsequent test phase relative to responding by control subjects that were not exposed to the A+ pairings in Phase I. There are many other designs through which stimulus competition effects have been observed (e.g., Wagner, Logan, Haberlandt, & Price, 1968), but all of them have included compound training of the good predictor and the target cue. Consequently, despite many important discrepancies among the theories that attempt to explain these effects, all of them depend on the AX compound training as essential for A influencing responding

show abstract

“…Other researchers have examined the sensitivity of SCRs to variations in single-and dual-task difficulty and concluded that while nonspecific manifestations of EDA are sensitive to general levels of arousal, SCRs appear to provide a more specific index of human information processing. For instance, Packer and Siddle (1989;see also Siddle & Packer, 1987) found that deviations in a train of repeated stimuli elicited larger SCRs and increased secondary task probe RTs than repeated stimuli. Dawson, Schell, Beers, and Kelly (1982) found that reinforced classically conditioned stimuli (CS+) elicited larger SCRs and slower probe RTs than CS-stimuli and that miscued USC-CS pairs also resulted in delayed probe RTs and large SCRs.…”

Section: Sensitivity and Diagnosticitymentioning

confidence: 93%