Pavlovian conditioning in human skilled motor behavior

  • Hartmut Rübeling
Article

Abstract

The role of Pavlovian contingencies in human skilled motor behavior was investigated in three experiments by means of a new conditioning preparation. In Experiment 1 the present method was shown to be appropriate for the study of associative learning. Subjects who experienced a standard delay configuration performed significantly more conditioned responses than subjects who received either backward conditioning or random pairings. Stimulus generalization was shown to be slight in two additional groups. Subsequent experiments examined conditioning with multiple conditioned stimuli (CSs). In particular, in Experiment 2 some reciprocal overshadowing was demonstrated when two conditional stimuli (tone and vibration) were compounded. Experiment 3 investigated blocking. Blocking was less than expected, however. Subjects’ perceptions of the stimuli and reaction time data suggest that a certain proportion had shifted their attention to the added element of the CS compound. Results are discussed in relation to other studies on Pavlovian learning in humans and animals, which are concerned with “stimulus selection.”

Key Words

Conditioning human motor behavior overshadowing blocking 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baer, P.E., & Fuhrer, M.J. (1969). Cognitive factors in differential conditioning of the GSR: Use of a reaction time task as the UCS with normals and schizophrenics.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74, 544–552.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blanchard, R., & Honig, W.K. (1976). Surprise value of food determines its effectiveness as a reinforcer.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, (2), 67–74.Google Scholar
  3. Bond, N.W. (1983). Reciprocal overshadowing in flavour-aversion learning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35(B), 265–274.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Davey, G.C.L. (1987). An integration of human and animal models of Pavlovian conditioning: Associations, cognitions, and attributions. In G. Davey (Ed.),Cognitive processes and pavlovian conditioning in humans (pp. 83–114). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Dawson, M.E., & Schell, A.M. (1987). Human autonomic and skeletal classical conditioning: The role of conscious factors. In G. Davey (Ed.),Cognitive processes and pavlovian conditioning in humans (pp. 27–55). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Dmitriev, A.S. (1962). On a motor technique with verbal reinforcement.Soviet Psychology and Psychiatry, 1, 8–15.Google Scholar
  7. Feldman, J.M. (1971). Added cue control as a function of reinforcement predictability.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 91, 318–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fleiss, J.L. (1981).Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Furedy, J.J. (1991). Some recalcitrant views on the role of non-cognitive S-R factors in human autonomic conditioning.Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 26(1), 21–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gormezano, I., & Kehoe, E.J. (1975). Classical conditioning: Some methodological-conceptual issues. In W.K. Estes (Ed.),Handbook of learning and cognitive processes, Vol. 2 (pp. 143–179). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Hull, C.L. (1943).Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
  12. Ivanov-Smolenski, A.G. (1927). On the methods of examining the conditioned food reflexes in children and in mental disorders.Brain, 50, 138–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. James, J.H., & Wagner, A.R. (1980). One-trial overshadowing: Evidence of distributive processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 6(2), 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kamin, L.J. (1968). “Attention-like” processes in classical conditioning. In M.R. Jones (Ed.),Miami Symposion on the prediction of behavior: Aversive stimulation (pp. 9–33). Miami: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kaufman, M.A., & Bolles, R.C. (1981). A nonassociative aspect of overshadowing.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 18(b), 318–320.Google Scholar
  16. Lipp, O.V., & Vaitl, D. (1988). Reaction time task as unconditioned stimulus: On conditioning skin conductance responses and heart rate using a nonaversive unconditional stimulus.Pavlovian Journal of Biological Science, 23, 165–172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lovibond, P.F., Siddle, D.A.T., & Bond, N. (1988). Insensitivity to stimulus validity in human Pavlovian conditioning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40B(4), 377–410.Google Scholar
  18. Mackintosh, N.J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review, 82, 276–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin, I., & Levey, A.B. (1987). Learning what will happen next: Conditioning, evaluation, and cognitive processes. In G. Davey (Ed.),Cognitive processes and pavlovian conditioning in humans (pp. 57–82). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Martin, I., & Levey, A.B. (1991). Blocking observed in human subjects.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43B(3), 233–256.Google Scholar
  21. Mis, F.W., & Moore, J.W. (1973). Effects of preacquisition UCS exposure on classical conditioning of the rabbits’ nictitating membrane response.Learning and Motivation, 4, 108–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Papini, M.R., & Bitterman, M.E. (1990). The role of contingency in classical conditioning.Psychological Review, 97(3), 396–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pavlov, I.P. (1927).Conditioned reflexes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Rescorla, R.A., & Wagner, A.R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A.H. Black & B.F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning, Vol. 2 (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  25. Spence, K.W. (1966). Cognitive and drive factors in the extinction of the conditioned eyelid response in human subjects.Psychological Review, 73, 445–458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Staddon, J.E.R. (1983).Adaptive behavior and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Tomie, A. (1980). Effects of unpredictable food upon the subsequent acquisition of autoshaping: Analysis of the context blocking hypothesis. In C.M. Locurto, H.S. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.),Autoshaping and conditioning theory (pp. 181–215). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Trabasso, T., & Bower, G.H. (1968).Attention and Learning. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hartmut Rübeling
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OsnabrückOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations