CS Intensity effects on rabbit nictitating membrane conditioning, extinction and generalization

One purpose of the present experiments was to determine if the Grice and Hunter (1964) observation of augmented within-versus between-Ss CS intensity effects in human eyelid conditioning would be obtained in conditioning of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response under two (Experiment 1) and four (Experiment 2) CS intensity values. In addition, a determination was made of the effects of CS intensity upon extinction and stimulus intensity generalization gradients. The studies revealed that: (a) while acquisition performance was positively related to CS intensity, the effect was independent of the between and within-S manipulation of CS intensity; (b) rate of response decrement in extinction was an inverse function of CS intensity; and (c) a positively sloped intensity generalization gradient was obtained when the training stimulus was the low-intensity one. Overall, these results are most consistent with Hull’s (1949) stimulus intensity dynamism account of CS intensity effects in conditioning.

[1]  W. Gantt,et al.  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STRENGTH OF THE CONDITIONED STIMULUS AND THE SIZE OF THE RESULTING CONDITIONED REFLEX , 1927 .

[2]  C. I. Hovland.  The Generalization of Conditioned Responses: II. The Sensory Generalization of Conditioned Responses with Varying Intensities of Tone , 1937 .

[3]  L. Carter.  Intensity of conditioned stimulus and rate of conditioning. , 1941 .

[4]  B. Skinner,et al.  Principles of Behavior , 1944 .

[5]  D. A. Grant,et al.  Intensity of the conditioned stimulus and strength of conditioning; the conditioned eyelid response to light. , 1948, Journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  C. L. Hull,et al.  Stimulus intensity dynamism (V) and stimulus generalization. , 1949, Psychological review.

[7]  D. A. Grant,et al.  Intensity of the conditioned stimulus and strength of conditioning; the conditioned galvanic skin response to an auditory stimulus. , 1949, Journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  C. C. Perkins.  The relation between conditioned stimulus intensity and response strength. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  C. L. Hull,et al.  A Behavior System , 1954 .

[10]  F. Logan.  A note on stimulus intensity dynamism. V. , 1954, Psychological review.

[11]  G. Barnes.  Conditioned stimulus intensity and temporal factors in spaced-trial classical conditioning. , 1956, Journal of experimental psychology.

[12]  F. Logan.  A micromolar approach to behavior theory. , 1956, Psychological review.

[13]  G. Razran.  The dominance-contiguity theory of the acquisition of classical conditioning. , 1957, Psychological bulletin.

[14]  I. Gormezano,et al.  Nictitating Membrane: Classical Conditioning and Extinction in the Albino Rabbit , 1962, Science.

[15]  N. Anderson.  Comparison of different populations: resistance to extinction and transfer. , 1963, Psychological review.

[16]  INTERTRIAL RESPONDING AND CS INTENSITY IN CLASSICAL EYELID CONDITIONING. , 1964, Journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  G. Grice,et al.  STIMULUS INTENSITY EFFECTS DEPEND UPON THE TYPE OF EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN. , 1964, Psychological review.

[18]  J. W. Moore,et al.  Eyelid trace conditioning, CS intensity, CS-UCS interval, and a correction for "spontaneous" blinking. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[19]  Grice Gr,et al.  Stimulus intensity and response evocation. , 1968 .

[20]  P. Frey.  Within- and between-session CS intensity performance effects in rabbit eyelid conditioning , 1969 .