The Inverse Relationship Between Shock Intensity and Shuttlebox Avoidance Learning: A Reinforcement Explanation Based on Fear

McAllister, Wallace R.; McAllister, Dorothy E.; Douglass, W. Keith

doi:10.1037/e666672011-062

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Shock intensity and other related effects have generally been explained either by response competition models (Moyer & Korn, 1964;Theios et al, 1966) or by reinforcement models (Dieter, 1977;McAllister et al, 1971;McAllister, McAllister, Dieter, & James, 1979). However, the controversy on this point does not need to be considered for the purposes of the present work.…”

Section: Experiments La-iementioning

confidence: 77%

“…Proposed explanations include response competition and reinforcement models (Archeret al, 1984;Bignami et al, 1971;Brush, 1962;Denny, Zerbolio, & Weisman, . 1969;Kurtz & Shafer, 1967;Levine & England, 1960;McAllister et al, 1971;Murphy & Miller, 1956). An effect of intertrial interval has been reported in mice (Bovet, Bovet-Nitti, & Oliverio, 1968).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such conditions include punishment of intertrial crossings (Bignami, Amorico, FrontaIi, & Rosie, 1971;Schwartzbaum, Green, Beatty, & Thompson, 1967; for a similar effect of intertrial response prevention, see Moot, Nelson, & Bolles, 1974) and increases in shock intensity (Anisman & Waller, 1972;Archer, Ogren, & Johansson, 1984;Bauer, 1972;Bignamiet al, 1971;Cicala, Owen, & Hill, 1976;Henderson, 1970;Johnson & Church, 1965;Levine, 1966;McAllister, McAllister, & Douglass, 1971;Moyer & Korn, 1964;Schwartzbaum et al, 1967;Theios, Lynch, & Lowe, 1966). A similar assertion can tentatively be made with regard to the impairment of rat avoidance obtained by the use of a central partition with an opening of limited size at floor level (Bignami et al, 1971;Dalby & Shuttlesworth, 1978;Henderson, 1970; for preexposure conditions modifying this effect, see Alleva, De Acetis, Amorico, & Bignarni, 1983).…”

Section: Experiments La-iementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bidirectional avoidance by mice as a function of CS, US, and apparatus variables

Bignami

Alleva

Amorico

et al. 1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acquisition of two-way avoidance by mice was slower with a light CS than with a buzzer CS, with punishment of intertrial responses than without punishment, and with a short CS-CS interval than with a long CS-CS interval (30 vs. 60 sec). Light-cued avoidance was little affected by shock level (.35-1.5 mA), whereas mice trained with the buzzer CS learned faster at 1.5 mA. Animals required to move away from light or toward light showed comparable rates of acquisition. Other CS, US, and apparatus variables (directionality of cue, maximal shock duration, and presence vs. absence of a central partition in the shuttlebox) interacted in a complex fashion with those already mentioned. This resulted in widely differing performances in what may superficially appear to be different versions of the same task. The differences in mouse and rat responses to some of the variables can contribute to an understanding of the interactions between organismic and test factors and the relative explanatory value of alternative avoidance models.

show abstract

Section: Experiments La-iementioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experiments La-iementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bidirectional avoidance by mice as a function of CS, US, and apparatus variables

Bignami

Alleva

Amorico

et al. 1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, on the basis of the present evidence, it is not possible to choose between these two alternatives. Parenthetically, it should be noted that McAllister et al (1971) have developed a theory specifically to account for the relationship between avoidance learning and shock intensity. Although this differs from the accounts discussed above, it has not been applied to the present results, since it is not at all clear whether their theory is in fact appropriate for instances of passive avoidance behavior.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…and the rate of acquisition of a discrete-trial avoidance response has been demonstrated using both two-way avoidance procedures (Bauer, 1972;Cicala & Kremer, 1969;Levine, 1966;McAllister, McAllister, & Douglass, 1971;Moyer & Korn, 1964;Theios, Lynch, & Lowe, 1966) and leverpress avoidance (Bolles & Warren, 1965;D'Amato & Fazzaro, 1966). The overall concern of the present paper is to determine whether this relationship is unique to these two procedures, or whether it also extends to a rather different discrete-trial avoidance task, specifically, step-down passive avoidance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship between shock magnitude and passive avoidance learning

Pearce

1978

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments examined the relationship between shock magnitude and the rate of acquisition of a passive avoidance response. Experiment 1 indicated that the use of a relatively large magnitude of shock can disrupt learning to remain on a platform in the center of an open field to avoid shock. The inferior learning of the group trained with high shock was replicated in Experiment 2, which also demonstrated that avoidance learning can occur rapidly with this level of shock if the platform is located in the corner of the apparatus. To explain this, it was proposed that thigmotactic behavior is responsible for the disruption in avoidance behavior when training is conducted in the center with high-magnitude shock. Finally, Experiment 3, essentially a replication of Experiment 1 except that the platform was placed in the corner of the test compartment, demonstrated a direct relationship between shock magnitude and passive avoidance learning. The results are seen as being consistent with accounts which maintain that avoidance learning can be influenced by the occurrence of species-specific defense reactions.

show abstract

Time-limited involvement of caudal anterior cingulate cortex in trace eyeblink conditioning retrieval is dependent on conditioned stimulus intensity

Yao

et al. 2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) has been widely investigated for its roles in learning and memory. The present study investigated the time-limited involvement of the caudal anterior cingulate cortex (cACC) of the mPFC in the retrieval process for a simple associative motor learning, trace eyeblink conditioning (tEBC), using a 75 dB or 100 dB tone as the conditioned stimulus (CS). The GABAA receptor agonist muscimol was injected into the cACC of guinea pigs at 1 day or 4 weeks after tEBC acquisition. When muscimol was administered 1 day after tEBC acquisition, the conditioned response (CR) of the 75 dB group was severely impaired, whereas the CR of the 100 dB group exhibited no significant change relative to the control. When muscimol was administered 4 weeks after tEBC acquisition, the CR was impaired in both the 75 dB and 100 dB groups. This study indicate that the cACC of the mPFC is necessary for recent retrieval of tEBC with a low-intensity CS but not of tEBC with a high-intensity CS, whereas for remote retrieval of tEBC, the cACC of the mPFC is essential regardless of whether the CS intensity is high or low. These results support a conditional role for the mPFC in modulating recent retrieval of tEBC and a persistent role for its involvement in remote retrieval of tEBC.

show abstract

The Inverse Relationship Between Shock Intensity and Shuttlebox Avoidance Learning: A Reinforcement Explanation Based on Fear

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Bidirectional avoidance by mice as a function of CS, US, and apparatus variables

Bidirectional avoidance by mice as a function of CS, US, and apparatus variables

The relationship between shock magnitude and passive avoidance learning

Time-limited involvement of caudal anterior cingulate cortex in trace eyeblink conditioning retrieval is dependent on conditioned stimulus intensity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About