Consequences of response-contingent change in unconditioned stimulus intensity upon the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) nictitating membrane response.
S. R. Coleman
Abstract
S. R. Coleman
Abstract
In a between-groups design, an instrumental contingency was superimposed on classical conditioning of the rabbit nictitating membrane response. Subjects were exposed to a tonal conditioned stimulus (CS) and, if no conditioned response (CR) occurred, a 5.0-ma. paraorbital electric shock unconditioned stimulus (US). USs of 5.0, 3.3, 1.7, and 0.0 ma., respectively, were contingent on occurrence of a CR in the CS-US interval for subjects in the 4 groups of the experiment. The group exposed to contingent US omission differed from the other 3 groups in percentage CR, onset latency, amplitude, and 2 indices of CR form, and those 3 groups generally did not differ significantly among themselves on these dependent variables. Results were interpreted to be contrary to "law of effect" formulations of classical conditioning.
OpenAlex reports 50 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
In a between-groups design, an instrumental contingency was superimposed on classical conditioning of the rabbit nictitating membrane response. Subjects were exposed to a tonal conditioned stimulus (CS) and, if no conditioned response (CR) occurred, a 5.0-ma. paraorbital electric shock unconditioned stimulus (US). USs of 5.0, 3.3, 1.7, and 0.0 ma., respectively, were contingent on occurrence of a CR in the CS-US interval for subjects in the 4 groups of the experiment. The group exposed to contingent US omission differed from the other 3 groups in percentage CR, onset latency, amplitude, and 2 indices of CR form, and those 3 groups generally did not differ significantly among themselves on these dependent variables. Results were interpreted to be contrary to "law of effect" formulations of classical conditioning.
Key concepts: Nictitating membrane, Unconditioned stimulus, Classical conditioning, Stimulus (psychology), Conditioning, Conditioned response, Audiology, Psychology