ch04 - Classical Conditioning Mechanisms and Theory...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–17. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Classical Conditioning: Mechanisms and Theory
Image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Eyeblink Class Study 60 conditioning trials (blocks of 20) 7 blocks of 4 probe trials C1, P1, C2, P2, C3, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7 Acquisition, extinction
Image of page 2
Results: Individual 100 75 50 25 1 3 2 5 4 6 7 % CR in Block Blocks (of 4 probe trials)
Image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Results: Averaged 100 75 50 25 1 3 2 5 4 6 7 % CR in Block Blocks (of 4 probe trials)
Image of page 4
Unconditional/Conditional US: elicits response without training Cs: elicits response due to training (association) Not quite so clear-cut
Image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Consider Aversive conditioning: tone (CS), mild shock (US) Pavlov: mild shock(CS), food (US) Sign tracking: light (CS), saccharin (US) Taste aversion: flavour of saccharin (CS), illness (US)
Image of page 6
Novelty Prior associations Familiar vs. unfamiliar stimuli Not “unlearning” of familiar stimuli, per se Basically, need to learn something different
Image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Latent Inhibition/CS Preexposure Highly familiar stimuli more difficult to associate with US than novel stimuli Preexposure group Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Exp. gr. “CS” alone CS-US test Cont. gr. nothing CS-US test Exp. Cont. CR magnitude
Image of page 8
Latent Inhibition Habituation function Typically we think of habituating to a US; ambiguity in CS/US designation Attentional processes CS- could also explain, but doesn’t suppress responding to other CS+
Image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
US Preexposure Subjects exposed to US before CS-US pairings slower to produce CR Associative interference (Hall 2008) Association of contextual CS with US during US preexposure In essence, need to extinguish context CS to associate novel CS with US Could this be habituation of US, too? Test methodology?
Image of page 10
Ayres, Moore & Vigorito (1984) Stimulus salience Stimulus novelty Conditioned suppression
Image of page 11

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Method Stimuli CS: tone, light US: shock Stage 1: pair CS with US; suppression ratio Stage 2: pair second CS (novel or familiar) with US; suppression ratio Stage 3: extinction of second CS
Image of page 12
Results T-T L-T L-L T-L Stage 1: 1st stim. & shock 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 Suppression Ratio 2 4 6 8 10 Day 1 2 3 1 2 Stage 2: 2nd stim. & shock Stage 3: 2nd stim. extinction Tone Light Familiar Novel Familiars (T-T & L-L) show less suppression than novels (L-T & T-L): preexposure
Image of page 13

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Salience and Intensity Salience: significance, noticeability, detectability Salience and intensity often used synonymously Low to moderate levels, probably interchangable Consider high level stimulus Physiological damage Not salient, but definitely intense Better to treat intensity as a component of salience
Image of page 14
Salience Increase via: Intensity Relevance Physiological needs Similarity of environmental stimuli (e.g., naturalistic CS”)
Image of page 15

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Belongingness: Stimuli Relevance Equipotentiality principle Pavlov Any stimulus should, relatively, be equally conditionable with any other stimulus E.g., CS1 easily associated with US1, should also be easily associated with US2 Easy-to-easy, hard-to-hard But doesn’t always work this way Garcia & Koelling’s work on taste aversion
Image of page 16
Image of page 17
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern