1976
DOI: 10.1080/14640747608400572
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Acquisition of Conditioned Emotional Response as a Function of Intertrial Interval

Abstract: The effects of intertrial interval (ITI) and foreperiod duration on the acquisition of a conditioned emotional response were investigated using a four-trial conditioning procedure. The optimum IT1 was found to be 60 s with a bidirectional gradient for conditioned suppression above and below 60 s. Conditioned supression was found to be directly related to foreperiod duration.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

1978
1978
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the poor responding of Group MB-NE relative to Group SL-NE, F(l, 38) = 9.02, is analogous to what in many prior publications has been identified as a trial spacing effect (e.g., Kaplan, 1984;Kehoe & Gormezano, 1974;Yeo, 1976). It should be recognized, however, that any apparent trial spacing effect in our situation was actually a product of differential duration of exposure to the training context light during CS training.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, the poor responding of Group MB-NE relative to Group SL-NE, F(l, 38) = 9.02, is analogous to what in many prior publications has been identified as a trial spacing effect (e.g., Kaplan, 1984;Kehoe & Gormezano, 1974;Yeo, 1976). It should be recognized, however, that any apparent trial spacing effect in our situation was actually a product of differential duration of exposure to the training context light during CS training.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 81%
“…This effect is common in the Pavlovian conditioning literature, in which each presentation of Event A consists of the pairing of two associates such as a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US). The trial spacing effect has been reported in many preparations, including autoshaping with pigeons and rats (e.g., Atnip, 1983;Balsam, 1984;Jenkins, Barnes, & Barrera, 1981;Kaplan, 1984), the conditioned emotional response procedure with rats (e.g., Ewing, Larew, & Wagner, 1985;Yeo, 1976), nictitating membrane conditioning with rabbits Hua Yin, Robert C. Barnet, and Ralph R. Miller Thanks are due to Nicholas J. Grahame for contributing to the conceptual development of this research and to Robert Cole, Francisco Esmoris-Arranz, and Lisa M. Fiori for comments on an earlier version of this article.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They found optimal cue and context conditioning when the animals were trained with longer ITIs than with short ITIs. However, others have reported qualitatively different effects of trial spacing on fear conditioning to a cue CS (McNally & Westbrook, 2006;Yeo, 1976). For example, Yeo (1976) trained rats on a conditioned suppression paradigm using one of four different ITIs (30, 60, 180, and 360 seconds) and reported an inverted U-shaped ITI function with optimal cue conditioning at the 60-second ITI.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, others have reported qualitatively different effects of trial spacing on fear conditioning to a cue CS (McNally & Westbrook, 2006;Yeo, 1976). For example, Yeo (1976) trained rats on a conditioned suppression paradigm using one of four different ITIs (30, 60, 180, and 360 seconds) and reported an inverted U-shaped ITI function with optimal cue conditioning at the 60-second ITI. Likewise, McNally and Westbrook (2006) trained rats on a 2-trial delay fear conditioning paradigm using a short (2 min) or long (24 hr) ITI.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of the many variables that influence the acquisition of Pavlovian conditioned responses (CRs) one of the most thoroughly investigated is that of trial spacing. It is well established that lengthening the interval between pairings of a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US) facilitates the acquisition of CRs in a variety of conditioning procedures (e.g., Domjan, 1980; Gibbon, Baldock, Locurto, Gold, & Terrace, 1977; Gormezano & Moore, 1969; Kaplan, 1984; Prokasy, Grant, & Meyers, 1958; Salafia, Mis, Terry, Bartosiak, & Daston, 1973; Spence & Norris, 1950; Terrace, Gibbon, Farrell, & Baldock, 1975; Yeo, 1976; see also Durlach, 1989). The impression left by this body of evidence is that a general principle of learning has been established—namely, that learning proceeds more readily when training trials are spaced than when they are massed.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%