The CS-UCS interval in conditioning short- and long-latency responses.

Abstract

The author has outlined a twoprinciple theory which predicts the effects of the CS-UCS interval in classical aversive conditioning (Jones, 1962). In brief, this theory is based upon the observation that variation in the CS-UCS interval affects the temporal relationship between (a) the CS and the UCR, and (b) the CR and the onset of the UCS. With the tentative assumption that UCS-onset is the reinforcing event, the effects of variations in the CS-UCS interval are treated in terms of the joint action of the principles of contiguity (CS-UCR) and of reinforcement (CR-UCS). In both cases a bidirectional gradient is assumed to operate such that the greater the time interval between CS and UCR or CR and UCS the less effective the learning. It is assumed that the efficacy of conditioning at a given CS-UCS interval reflects the additive combination of the overlapping gradients of contiguity and reinforcement.From this analysis it follows that any variation in experimental procedure which affects either or both of these temporal relationships will affect the function relating the CS-UCS interval to response strength.

Classical eyelid conditioning as a function of sustained and shifted interstimulus intervals.

“…The temporally appropriate location of the CR with respect to UCS onset and the increased density of individual latency distributions resulting with extensive training strongly suggest a kind of instrumental shaping in which the kinesthetic and tactual feedback from each CR-UCS outcome plays an important role. Such an interpretation, it should be noted, is consistent with the theoretical interpretations of conditioning provided by Birch and Bitterman (1949), Perkins (1955), andJones (1961).…”

SIGNALLED FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE OF SHOCK BY PIGEONS PECKING A KEY1

“…The warning signal was a sufficiently strong conditioned aversive stimulus to maintain both escape (responding during the warning signal) and avoidance (responding during the safe period). The direct relationship between response latency and duration of the warning signal agrees with results reported by Hyman (1969;1971) and studies of classical (discriminated) avoidance (Berger and Brush, 1975;Jones, 1961;Weisman, Zerbolio, and Denny, 1965). The similar response latencies in the presence of the warning signal in both procedures, combined with changes in responding during the safe period, relates to the role of the warning stimulus in signalled avoidance.…”

Effects of instructions and subject's need for approval on the conditioned galvanic skin response.

“…The fact that there was not a significant main effect of CS-UCS time interval indicates that associations were formed equally well at the two intervals. This may have been a function of the particular intervals employed, since several recent investigators (Jones, 1961;Vattano, 1962;Wickens, Gehman, & Sullivan, 1959) have presented evidence for a second peak of conditioning strength at the longer time intervals. It may also be, of course, that this result is due to the specific procedures employed in the present study.…”