The description and analysis of conditioned suppression: A critique of the conventional suppression ratio

Hurwitz, Harry M. B.; Davis, Hank

doi:10.3758/bf03199791

Cited by 53 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, suppression was actually greater on the Period B (but not the SR) measure for Group RU than for one of the feartrained groups [Group US(lo)] for both of the extinction phases. These observations reaffirm the conclusions of Hurwitz and Davis (1983) that the outcomes of conditioned suppression studies can differ both in degree and in kind depending upon whether or not an adjustment is made for differences in baseline responding through application of Annau and Kamin's (1961) SR formula.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

“…These two partially related measures of suppression are reported because of the important arguments of Hurwitz and Davis (1983) regarding possible problems of interpretation of the standard SR. They found that this index could give rise to spurious outcomes because of the changes in baseline responding (i.e., Period As) that often occur during conditioned suppression procedures.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stepwise reductions in US density and intensity: Maintenance and extinction of conditioned suppression

Anderson

Crowell

Ramirez

1987

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information was sought on how the strength of fear, acquired and extinguished in a classical conditioning paradigm, might be affected by certain ofthe circumstances that normally are associated with the course of avoidance learning. Following preconditioning exposures to the conditioned stimulus, one group of rats (Group PRF) was given continuous conditioned stimulusunconditioned stimulus (CS-US) acquisition trials followed by stepwise reductions in US probability (given the CS) over three phases to about 11 % for the final phase. Another group, Group US(lo), was given continuous CS-US pairings throughout, but, following acquisition, received stepwise reductions in US intensity (to permit evaluation of a progressively changing feature of the US over a wide range without having to employ excessive shock) over the same phases. A third group, Group US(hi), received unchanging (from acquisition) CS-US pairings over these phases, and an explicitly unpaired control group (Group RU) was included. Although outcomes differed somewhat depending upon whether suppression ratios or absolute measures of responding were considered, the major findings were that suppression to the CS was complete by the end of acquisition and persisted thereafter throughout the three phases for all but control subjects. In contrast to Group US(lo), which showed relatively little resistance to extinction of suppression to subsequent CS-only exposures, Groups US(hi) and PRF displayed marked resistance over two separate, extended sets of extinction sessions. Suppression to context cues was pronounced only for Groups US(hi) and RU, and varied as a function of US parameters and not whether the shocks were or were not signaled. Theoretical reconciliation of these findings was most difficult for Group PRF.The concept of acquired fear, which is generally presumed to result from classical conditioning procedures (Brown, 1961;Kimble, 1961), has been widely invoked in accounts of signaled avoidance learning (Mowrer, 1947(Mowrer, , 1960Rescorla & Solomon, 1967). To many, the paradigmatic similarities of fear-conditioning and avoidance-learning procedures have been a sufficient basis for theoretical speculation involving common explanatory mechanisms. Thus, it has been postulated that fear becomes conditioned to the signaling stimulus early in avoidance training as a result of pairings with shock, and then serves motivationally to energize and reinforce avoidance responding.Clearly, such theorizing depends critically upon implicit assumptions about the course of fear acquisition and extinction during avoidance learning, not to mention suppositions regarding the possible interaction of fear and avoidance behavior. However, it is not commonly recognized that two-factor accounts of avoidance learning really rest upon two separate kinds of assumptions about fear acquisition and extinction. On the one hand, two-factor theory implies that fear would develop and be maintained in a classical conditioning paradigm in which parameters were fashioned after features of ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stepwise reductions in US density and intensity: Maintenance and extinction of conditioned suppression

Anderson

Crowell

Ramirez

1987

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their nonassociative control, used in part to check this possibility, was given a nonreinforced presentation of the tone which conceivably reduced its effectiveness. Second, although their measure of conditioning (log latency to emit 25 licks) may avoid some of the problems associated with the suppression ratio (see Hurwitz & Davis, 1983), it is not a common measure of conditioning in the blocking literature or the measure used in studies that failed to demonstrate one-compound-trial blocking.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blocking of conditioned suppression with 1 or 10 compound trials

Azorlosa

Cicala

1986

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is generally agreed that the Kamin blocking effect provides a differential test of the model of classical conditioning proposed by Rescorla and Wagner (1972), on the one hand, and the models proposed by Mackintosh (1975) and Pearce and Hall (1980), on the other. Specifically, ifthe blocking effect occurs with 1 compound trial, Rescorla and Wagner are supported. Experiment 1 showed that prior training with one element of a simultaneous compound stimulus prevented the added element from becoming conditioned with 10 compound trials when compared with a nonpretrained (Kamin) control. A pseudoconditioning control, which received no compound training, showed substantial suppression only on the first trial. A contextual conditioning control, which received unsignaled shock prior to compound training, was suppressed, suggesting a failure of conditioning to contextual cues. Experiment 2 demonstrated Lcompound-trial blocking using a simultaneous presentation of the compound elements. The importance of this support for the Rescorla-Wagner model is discussed in the light of other supportive studies and those which support alternative models of classical conditioning.One element, X, of a compound conditioned stimulus (CS) may fail to become conditioned because of prior pairings of the other element, A, with the unconditioned stimulus (US). That is, element A blocks conditioning to element X during AX US trials. This phenomenon, first described by Kamin (1969), has generated a considerable amount of research and inspired several theories of classical conditioning. Rescorla and Wagner (1972) proposed a model which describes the negatively accelerated learning curve typically obtained in conditioning experiments. Their model assumes that on a given trial associative strength accrues to a CS proportional to the asymptotic level of conditioning (determined by the US intensity) minus the associative strength gained on all previous trials. The largest increment in association occurs on the first trial, followed by successively smaller amounts on subsequent trials. Blocking occurs, according to Rescorla and Wagner, because prior conditioning to element A, if it is at asymptote, has acquired virtually all the conditioning available with the US in use; there is little or no conditioning left which might accrue to X, the element added during compound training. This model predicts that if the number of US presentations or US intensity is increased during compound training, allowing for more conditioning, X will acquire associative strength and blocking will be attenuated. This prediction was born out in the original experiments of Kamin (1969) and later in the experiments of Dickinson, Hall, and Mackintosh (1976) and Mackintosh, Bygrave, and Picton (1977).Requests for reprints should be directed to G. A. Cicala, Department of Psychology, 220 Wolf Hall, University of Delaware, Newark. DE 19716. The Rescorla-Wagner model emphasizes the processing of the US in establishing CS-US associations. Mackintosh (1975a) proposed an alternat...

show abstract

“…The goal of the third step was to establish a baseline of animal's activity before CS onset (Annau & Kamin, 1961). Therefore, latencies to reach 4 blocks of 25 activity counts (i.e., 100 activity counts) were recorded (Hurwitz & Davis, 1983). If during the latency to complete the last block of 25 counts, a difference was detected of more than 2 standard deviations from the average of the 3 previous baseline blocks latencies, latency to complete another 25 activity counts block was registered, and compared again with the average of the latencies of all the former blocks, and so forth, until the last block registered no more than 2 standard deviations from the previous average.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual fear conditioning differs for infant, adolescent, and adult rats

Esmoris-Arranz¹,

Méndez²,

Spear³

2008

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contextual fear conditioning was tested in infant, adolescent, and adult rats in terms of Pavlovian conditioned suppression. When a discrete auditory conditioned stimulus (CS) was paired with footshock (unconditioned stimulus, US) within the largely olfactory context, infants and adolescents conditioned to the context with substantial effectiveness but adult rats did not. When unpaired presentations of the CS and US occurred within the context, contextual fear conditioning was strong for adults, weak for infants, but about as strong for adolescents as when pairings of CS and US occurred in the context. Nonreinforced presentations of either the CS or context markedly reduced contextual fear conditioning in infants, but, in adolescents, CS extinction had no effect on contextual fear conditioning, although context extinction significantly reduced it. Neither CS extinction nor context extinction affected responding to the CS-context compound in infants, suggesting striking discrimination between the compound and its components. Female adolescents showed the same lack of effect of component extinction on response to the compound as infants, but CS extinction reduced responding to the compound in adolescent males, a sex difference seen also in adults. Theoretical implications are discussed for the development of perceptual-cognitive processing and hippocampus role. Keywordscontextual fear conditioning; fear extinction; learning; olfactory context; hippocampus; ontogeny Contextual fear conditioning has received a lot of attention from behavioral neuroscientists during the last decade (e.g., Anagnostaras, Gale, & Fanselow, 2001;Fanselow & Poulos, 2004;Phillips & LeDoux, 1992). The purpose of this report is to assess the effectiveness of contextual fear conditioning experiments by rats at each of three disparate periods of ontogeny: late infancy, adolescence and early adulthood. The ontogeny of contextual fear conditioning is of interest because --in relation to conditioning of other events within the context--it can Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. provide a window to the ontogeny of encoding and memory organization (e.g., Brasser & Spear, 2004;Lariviere, Chen, & Spear, 1990), and because it has been used as a marker for the development of brain function important for memory (e.g., Pugh & Rudy, 1996;Rudy & Morledge, 1994). NIH Public AccessSeveral experiments led to the conclusion that acquisition of an aversion to a particular context paired with footshock is less effective in rats during late infancy (postnatal days 17-20, P17-20) than in weaned juvenile ...

show abstract

The description and analysis of conditioned suppression: A critique of the conventional suppression ratio

Cited by 53 publications

References 36 publications

Stepwise reductions in US density and intensity: Maintenance and extinction of conditioned suppression

Stepwise reductions in US density and intensity: Maintenance and extinction of conditioned suppression

Blocking of conditioned suppression with 1 or 10 compound trials

Contextual fear conditioning differs for infant, adolescent, and adult rats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About