Effect of signaling intertrial unconditioned stimuli in autoshaping.

Context-unconditioned-stimulus (US) associations have been suggested as the mediator of the response decrement that occurs when extra USs are added to the intertrial intervals (ITIs) of an otherwise standard Pavlovian conditioning situation. The present autoshaping experiments were concerned with the effect of signaling those extra USs, since such signaling might be expected to lessen their ability to condition the context. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that signaling the ITI USs did reduce their detrimental effects on responding to the conditioned stimulus (CS). To determine whether that reduction was due to an impact of signaling on the target-CS-US association or on performance to the target-CS, Experiment 3 examined responding to differentially trained CSs in a common context, as well as responding to identically trained CSs in differentially trained contexts. Whether the CS was tested in a context of relatively high or low associative strength, more responding occurred to the CS trained with signaled, as compared with unsignaled, ITI USs; further, there was more responding to that CS in the more highly valued context. The pattern of results suggests that contextual value does interact with CS-US learning and may also affect performance to the CS.

[1]  L. Kamin Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning , 1967 .

[2]  J. Konorski Integrative activity of the brain , 1967 .

[3]  R. Rescorla Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. , 1968, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[4]  A. R. Wagner,et al.  Situational cues and correlation between CS and US as determinants of the conditioned emotional response , 1970 .

[5]  N. Mackintosh,et al.  Mechanisms of animal discrimination learning , 1971 .

[6]  R. Rescorla Informational Variables in Pavlovian Conditioning , 1972 .

[7]  R. Rescorla,et al.  A theory of Pavlovian conditioning : Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement , 1972 .

[8]  D. R. Williams,et al.  Associative factors underlying the pigeon's key pecking in auto-shaping procedures. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[9]  W. K. Honig,et al.  Stimulus control after extradimensional training in pigeons: A comparison of response contingent and noncontingent training procedures. , 1974 .

[10]  James O. Benedict,et al.  Systematic manipulation of individual events in a truly random control in rats. , 1975 .

[11]  N. Mackintosh A Theory of Attention: Variations in the Associability of Stimuli with Reinforcement , 1975 .

[12]  J. Gibbon,et al.  Temporal factors influencing the acquisition and maintenance of an autoshaped keypeck , 1975 .

[13]  F. J. Odling-Smee The Role of Background Stimuli during Pavlovian Conditioning , 1975, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[14]  W. K. Honig,et al.  Surprise Value of Food Determines Its Effectiveness as a Reinforcer. , 1976 .

[15]  A. Tomie Interference with autoshaping by prior context conditioning. , 1976 .

[16]  F. J. Odling-Smee The overshadowing of background stimuli by an informative CS in aversive Pavlovian conditioning with rats , 1978 .

[17]  V. Lolordo,et al.  Associative and nonassociative theories of the UCS preexposure phenomenon: implications for Pavlovian conditioning. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[18]  A. G. Baker,et al.  Preexposure to the CS alone, US alone, or CS and US uncorrelated: Latent inhibition, blocking by context or learned irrelevance? , 1979 .

[19]  W. K. Honig,et al.  Cognitive Processes in Animal Behavior , 1979 .

[20]  V. Lolordo,et al.  Stimulus-reinforcer interactions in Pavlovian conditioning of pigeons: Implications for selective associations , 1980 .

[21]  Michael S. Fanselow,et al.  Signaled shock-free periods and preference for signaled shock. , 1980 .

[22]  G. Peterson,et al.  Enhancement of pigeons’ conditional discrimination performance by expectancies of reinforcement and nonreinforcement , 1980 .

[23]  J. Farley Automaintenance, contrast, and contingencies: Effects of local vs. overall and prior vs. impending reinforcement context , 1980 .

[24]  J. Pearce,et al.  A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. , 1980 .

[25]  A. G. Baker,et al.  Contextual conditioning and the US preexposure effect in conditioned fear. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[26]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  Contingency in fear conditioning: A reexamination , 1981 .

[27]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  Responses eliminated by noncontingent or negatively contingent reinforcement recover in extinction. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[28]  S. Brandon Key-light-specific associations and factors determining key pecking in noncontingent schedules. , 1981 .

[29]  A. Randich The US preexposure phenomenon in the conditioned suppression paradigm: A role for conditioned situational stimuli☆ , 1981 .

[30]  R. Hinson Effects of UCS preexposure on excitatory and inhibitory rabbit eyelid conditioning: an associative effect of conditioned contextual stimuli. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.