Decrement in distress to an aversive event during a conditioned positive opponent-process

During Phase 1, 24 rats received CS₁ (light)-shock trials while the remaining 24 rats received CS₁ and shock on a random control schedule. During Phase 2, all subjects were presented trials of CS₂ (tone)-shock. When CS₂ was subsequently presented immediately after CS, while subjects licked for water, it was found that subjects that had received CS₁-shock pairings during Phase 1 exhibited less suppression of licking to CS₂, indicating less distress, than control subjects. The results are compatible with the opponent-process theory and suggest the presence of a positive hedonic afterreaction to an aversive event which reduced distress to a following aversive event.     

Second-order conditioning using a contextual stimulus as S1

Three experiments investigated the question of whether a spatial stimulus, a context, could function as S₁ in a second-order conditioning procedure. In each experiment, rat subjects were presented with S₁-US pairings by being given footshocks in one of two contexts. Forty-eight hours later, the experimental groups received S₂-S₁ pairings, during which a tone was presented in the training context. As measured by a lick-suppression test administered in a third context, rats were more fearful of the tone if it occurred in the context in which they had previously been shocked. The training context in each experiment apparently served to establish second-order fear conditioning to the tone.     

Associative learning phenomena in the snail (Helix aspersa): conditioned inhibition

Two experiments using garden snails (Helix aspersa) showed conditioned inhibition using both retardation and summation tests. Conditioned inhibition is a procedure by which a stimulus becomes a predictor of the absence of a relevant event—the unconditioned stimulus (US). Typically, conditioned inhibition consists of pairings between an initially neutral conditioned stimulus, CS₂, and an effective excitatory conditioned stimulus, CS₁, in the absence of the US. Retardation and summation tests are required in order to confirm that CS₂ has acquired inhibitory properties. Conditioned inhibition has previously been found in invertebrates; however, these demonstrations did not use the retardation and summation tests required for an unambiguous demonstration of inhibition, allowing for alternative explanations. The implications of our results for the fields of comparative cognition and invertebrate physiological models of learning are discussed.     

Second-order sexual conditioning in male Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica)

Second-order conditioning of social approach to a female conspecific in male Japanese quail was investigated in four experiments. Subjects that received paired first- and second-order trials acquired second-order conditioning in both Experiments 1 and 2. In contrast, subjects that received paired first-order but unpaired second-order trials, and subjects that received unpaired first-order but paired second-order trials, did not acquire second-order conditioning. In Experiment 3, subjects for whom the first-order conditioned stimulus was presented in extinction showed second-order conditioning comparable to that shown by subjects in a control group that did not receive the extinction procedure. In Experiment 4, subjects approached a second-order stimulus less when sexually satiated than when sexually deprived. These findings suggest that second-order sexual conditioning in quail is mediated by an association of the second-order stimulus with a representation of the unconditioned stimulus.     

A test of Rescorla and Wagner’s (1972) prediction of nonlinear effects in contingency learning

According to most theories, in a simple contingency learning situation, excitatory learning occurs when the probability of the unconditioned stimulus in the presence of the conditioned stimulus (p₁) is higher than the probability of the unconditioned stimulus in the absence of the conditioned stimulus (p₂). In Rescorla and Wagner??s (1972) model, this prediction varies, depending on the parameters used. In the following experiments, we evaluated whether the difference between p₁ and p₂ that is required to produce excitatory conditioning is the same, independent of the specific value of p₁, or whether this difference varies proportionally to p₁??s value. To do so, an appetitive procedure of Pavlovian conditioning with rats was used. In four experiments, we compared different levels of contingency (low, medium and high) and found that the difference between p₁ and p₂ that is required to produce excitatory conditioning increases when the value of p₁ is higher. The possibility of analyzing contingency learning as a discrimination between p₁ and p₂ is also discussed.     

Temporal integration in second-order conditioning and sensory preconditioning

Lick suppression experiments with rats revealed that the magnitude of both second-order conditioning (Experiment 1) and sensory preconditioning (Experiment 2) was superior when that conditioning was based on backward (US→CS) relative to forward (CS→US) first-order pairings of a CS and US. The superiority of backward relative to forward first-order conditioning on suppression to the higher order cues can be understood by assuming that the magnitude of higher order conditioning was determined by a memory representation of the higher order cues that provided information about the expected temporal location of the US. The results suggest that temporal information such as order between paired CSs and USs was encoded, preserved, and integrated with memory for the higher order stimuli. The relevance of these findings to memory integration in Pavlovian learning, the temporal coding hypothesis (Barnet, Arnold, & Miller, 1991; Matzel, Held, & Miller, 1988), backward excitatory conditioning, and the associative structure that underlies second-order Pavlovian fear conditioning are discussed.     

Differential second-order aversive conditioning using contextual stimuli

Two experiments were conducted to determine if contextual stimuli used as S₂ in a higher-order differential conditioning procedure would control the performance of rats. Discrete stimuli were first paired with footshock in a separate training context. During second-order training, a shock-associated discrete stimulus was presented in one of two discriminable observation chambers. Over 4 days of training, subjects engaged in more freezing in the context associated with an excitatory discrete S₁, relative to a context in which no discrete stimulus, or a stimulus that had been explicitly unpaired with shock delivery, was presented. After acquisition of the second-order discrimination, animals were returned to the original training context where they received a “signaled inflation” treatment designed to change the current value of S₁, and the US. This postconditioning manipulation did not selectively affect performance of defensive freezing or conditional analgesia in S₂.     

Blocking of conditioned suppression with 1 or 10 compound trials

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, if the 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 1-compound-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.     

A transfer of control test for contextual associations

A transfer of control experiment measured the associative properties of contextual stimuli from three standard classical conditioning paradigms. After baseline training on a Sidman avoidance schedule, dogs received aversive conditioning using excitatory, inhibitory, or truly random conditioning procedures in the presence of a manipulable background stimulus. As predicted by current theory (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972; Wagner & Rescorla, 1972), the contextual stimulus was excitatory after serving as the background during conditioning of a CS? and was neutral when it had been part of the background for conditioning of a CS+. The background to the truly random procedure was also neutral. This last result contrasts with Rescorla and Wagner’s theory.     

Blocking with serial and simultaneous compounds in a trace conditioning procedure

Blocking of conditioned suppression in rats was studied in three experiments using serial and simultaneous compounds in Pavlovian trace conditioning procedures. Experimental groups were first given trace conditioning trials with a 2-sec stimulus (A) presented at least 60 sec before an electric grid shock US. Next, both experimental and control groups received reinforced trials with a compound stimulus (AB). Both A and B were 2 sec in duration and were presented at least 60 sec before the US. For some groups during AB training, the A stimulus preceded the B stimulus; for others, B preceded A; for still others, A and B occurred simultaneously. Conditioning was subsequently assessed separately to both A and B. The results were as follows: First, varying the interval between the onset of A and the US during A training appeared to produce significantly different levels of conditioning to A but did not detectably affect A’s ability to block conditioning to B. Second, blocking was observed in both simultaneous and serial procedures. Third, in the serial procedure, A blocked conditioning to B whether it preceded B or followed B in the AB compound. Fourth, in tests given after AB conditioning, the experimental and control groups suppressed similarly to A. The relevance of these results to the conditioning model of Rescorla and Wagner (1972) and to Mackintosh’s (1975b) theory of attention are discussed.     

Cross-modal transfer as a function of initial training level in classical conditioning with the rabbit

Initial reinforced training with a conditioned stimulus (CSA) from one sensory modality subsequently facilitates the rate of acquisition of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response to a second conditioned stimulus (CSB) from a different sensory modality. In Experiment 1, the level of transfer was a direct function of the number of CSA-US pairings (0, 15, 30, 60, and 120). In Experiment 2, cross-modal transfer appeared to be maximal after initial training was conducted to a performance criterion as small as two CRs to CSA. The results are discussed with respect to theories of transfer, particularly a layered network model of conditioning that suggests that CR acquisition to each CS depends on two sequentially organized associations, one unique to the CS and one that is common to all associations involving the target response system.     

Serial overshadowing of taste aversion learning by stimuli preceding the target taste

Three experiments tested whether events taking place before a rat has access to a target taste, sucrose, can proactively interfere with the acquisition of a sucrose aversion when sucrose is followed by a lithium chloride injection. Using a serial overshadowing procedure with various delays before lithium injection, proactive interference by a taste (Experiments 1 and 3) and by a novel context (Experiment 2) was found following two conditioning sessions, but not after a single conditioning session. Conversely, overshadowing by a taste given after the target was detectable after a single conditioning trial (Experiment 3) and, thus, indicated that retroactive interference involves a process different from that producing proactive interference. A simulation confirmed that the results are consistent with a modified Rescorla and Wagner (1972) interpretation of Revusky??s (1971) concurrent interference theory of delay learning.     

A feature positive effect in conditioned suppression

A conditioned suppression experiment with rats studied the development of two discriminations involving two conditioned stimuli, A and X. In one discrimination (AX+/A?), compound presentations of A and X signaled shock and presentations of A alone signaled no-shock. In the other discrimination (A+/AX?), A alone signaled shock and AX signaled no-shock. AX+/A? discriminations were learned more rapidly than their A+/AX? counterparts. These results, which resemble the feature-positive effect of Jenkins and Sainsbury (1969, 1970), are discussed in terms of Rescorla and Wagner’s (1972) theory of conditioning and also in terms of stimulus intensity mechanisms.     

Second-order conditioning: Different outcomes in fear and eyelid conditioning

Second-order conditioning has been frequently observed with the fear response but not with the eyelid response. The present experiments manipulated the temporal relationship between the second-order and first-order stimulus on second-order conditioning trials. Our results indicated that a trace second-order procedure is not effective with either response system. Second-order fear conditioning was most prominent when the second-order CS terminated at the onset of the first-order CS. This arrangement, however, did not produce second-order eyelid CRs. In eyelid conditioning, the second-order CS appears to inhibit responding to the first-order CS which immediately follows it.     

Effects of component training and subsequent sequencing of stimuli on shuttlebox avoidance responding of rats

The serial presentation of two different CSs, with each stimulus having an 8-sec duration (S1₈/S2₈), consistently has resulted in most of the shuttlebox avoidance responses being recorded to the S2 component. Experiment 1 attempted to attenuate this serial CS, delayed-response effect by conditioning the separate components of a serial CS prior to ordering them sequentially. Ten component-training trials were administered, with subjects receiving CS-US pairing to S1 only, S2 only, or to both S1 and S2 presented on separate trials. Two CS durations (8 or 16 sec) during this phase also were compared. Subjects were then given 100 avoidance test trials using the standard serial procedure. The 10 best avoidance responders in each group were selected for analysis. Shorter avoidance latencies were obtained only for subjects receiving component conditioning to S1. CS duration was not a factor in establishing the shorter latencies. Component conditioning to S2 resulted in increasing the total avoidances. Experiment 2 increased the number of component-training trials and the generality of the findings by using a different strain of rats and by extending the testing phase of the study so that all subjects could be included in the analysis. Comparable results were obtained. The theoretical implications of these data were discussed.     

Temporal encoding in trace conditioning

Conditioned lick suppression in rats was used to explore the role of timing in trace conditioning. In Experiment 1, two groups of rats were exposed to pairings of a CS (CS1) with a US, under conditions in which the interstimulus interval (ISI) that separated CS1 offset and US onset was either 0 or 5 sec. Two additional groups were also exposed to the same CS1→US pairings with either a 0 or a 5-sec ISI, and then received “backward” second-order conditioning in which CS1 was immediately followed by a novel CS2 (i.e., CS1→CS2). A trace conditioning deficit was observed in that the CS1 conditioned with the 5-sec gap supported less excitatory responding than the CS1 conditioned with the 0-sec gap. However, CS2 elicited more conditioned responding in the group trained with the 5-sec CS1-US gap than in the group trained with the 0-sec CS1-US gap. Thus, the CS1-US interval had inverse effects on first- and second-order conditioned responding. Experiment 2 was conducted as a sensory preconditioning analogue to Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, rats received the CS1?CS2 pairings prior to the CS1→US pairings (in which CS1 was again conditioned with either a 0 or a 5-sec ISI). Experiment 2 showed a dissociation between first- and second-order conditioned responding similar to that observed in Experiment 1. These outcomes are not compatible with the view that differences in responding to CSs conditioned with different ISIs are mediated exclusively by differences in associative value. The results are discussed in the framework of the temporal coding hypothesis, according to which temporal relationships between events are encoded in elementary associations.     

Disruption of latent inhibition by interpolation of task-irrelevant stimulation between preexposure and conditioning

Latent inhibition refers to attenuated responding to a conditioned stimulus (CS) that was repeatedly presented without reinforcement prior to the CS-unconditioned stimulus (US) pairings. Using water-deprived rats as subjects, we observed that interpolating task-irrelevant stimulation between the preexposure and conditioning phases of a latent inhibition procedure attenuated latent inhibition (Experiments 1A, 1B, and 2). Apparently, interpolated stimulation segments the preexposure and conditioning treatments into two separate experiences, much in the same way that a change of context would. Consistent with this view, the interpolated stimulation did not disrupt latent inhibition if it was also presented during both preexposure and conditioning (Experiment 3). We view these results as analogous to those of Escobar, Arcediano, and Miller (2003), who suggested that the difficulty in observing latent inhibition in human adults is related to the segmentation between preexposure and conditioning caused by the usual interpolation of instructions in preparations with humans.     

Classical conditioning in paramecia

SingleParamecium caudatum were conditioned by pairing ac-generated electric shock (US) with a vibratory stimulus (CS) produced by an auditory speaker. Naive paramecia subjected to shock reliably exhibited a backwards jerk and axial spinning similar to the avoiding reaction described by Jennings in 1904. Such responses did not occur initially to CS alone, but increasingly appeared during the CS period preceding shock pairing (delayed conditioning paradigm). Control subjects given the CS and UCS at the same intervals, but explicitly unpaired, did not show a sustained increase of responses to the CS alone. Short-term memory was demonstrated by subjects first conditioned and then presented CS alone during extinction. These subjects were readily reconditioned. Paramecia trained and stored for 24 h showed reliable memory savings as compared to stored control subjects. Other paramecia were differentially conditioned by training with two CSs. Following the recommendations of Rescorla (1967), a procedure was designed for truly random presentation of the CS and UCS as an additional control for pseudoconditioning. Single paramecia were conditioned with intervals between CSs randomly ranging from 8 to 32 sec. Control subjects received the same number of CSs and UCSs, which were administered independently and randomly during the same total session duration. Thus, CS and UCS were occasionally paired for control subjects. The responses to CS in the conditioned group were anticipatory conditional responses due to the pairing contingency and not wholly due to pseudoconditioning.     

Appetitive-aversion interactions: Facilitation of aversive conditioning by prior appetitive training in the rat

In Experiment 1, four groups of rats received conditioned suppression training in which a tone was reinforced with shock. If the tone had been previously paired with response-independent food, aversive conditioning was slightly facilitated by comparison to control groups preexposed either to the tone randomly associated with food or to the tone and food unpaired. However, by comparison to a control which was not preexposed to the tone, animals receiving prior pairings of the tone and food showed retarded aversive conditioning. Experiment 2 replicated the facilitation in aversive conditioning after the tone had been paired with food relative to the random control condition and demonstrated that this difference occurred even if the tone and background stimuli continued to be associated with response-independent food during aversive conditioning. This result suggests that pairing a stimulus with an appetitive reinforcer reduces the retardation of aversive conditioning produced by stimulus preexposure.     

Signaling functions of the second-order CS: Partial reinforcement during second-order conditioning of the pigeon’s keypeck

The signaling function of the second-order CS (S2) was manipulated in second-order autoshaping by arranging a partial reinforcement schedule. S2 was paired with a well-conditioned first-order CS (SI) on a continuous reinforcement or a 25% reinforcement schedule in different groups. Schedule of reinforcement did not influence the number of S2-S1 pairings required to establish keypecking to S2. However, in the postacquisition sessions, responding to S2 was initially weaker but persisted for many more sessions on the 25% schedule than on the 100% schedule. The data indicate that S2-S1 pairings are responsible both for the acquisition of second-order keypecking to S2 and for the subsequent conversion of S2 into an inhibitory stimulus.