Abstract
The nictitating membrane response of rabbits was conditioned at a 200 msec interstimulus interval (ISI) with either circumorbital (C) or paraorbital (P) shock as the unconditional-stimulus locus. After 3 acquisition days half of each group was shifted to a 700 msec interstimulus interval. Results indicated: (1) more rapid acquisition for Group C, (2) postshift response decrements for both groups, (3) more rapid and stable, as well as complete return to preshift performance levels for Group C. Results were discussed in terms of the response-shaping hypothesis and the contiguity-substitution hypothesis in explaining both conditional response emergence and subsequent modifications of CR topography.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boneau, C. A.: The interstimulus interval and the latency of the conditioned eyelid response. J. Exp. Psychol.56, 464–471, 1958.
Coleman, S. R.: Consequences of response-contingent change in unconditioned stimulus intensity upon the rabbit(Oryctolagus cuniculus) nictitating membrane response. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol.88, 591–595, 1975.
Coleman, S. R. and Gormezano, I.: Classical conditioning of the rabbit’s(Oryctolagus cuniculus) nictitating membrane response under symmetrical CS-US interval shifts. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol.77, 447–455, 1971.
Ebel, H. C. and Prokasy, W. F.: Classical eyelid conditioning as a function of sustained and shifted interstimulus intervals. J. Exp. Psychol.65, 52–58, 1963.
Gormezano, I.: Yoked comparisons of classical and instrumental conditioning of the eyelid response; and an addendum on “voluntary responders.”In Prokasy, W. F. (ed.), Classical Conditioning, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965.
Gormezano, I. and Coleman, S. R.: The law of effect and CR contingent modification of the UCS. Cond. Reflex8, 41–56, 1973.
Gormezano, I. and Moore, J. W.: Classical conditioning.In Marx, M. H. (ed.), Learning: Processes. New York, Macmillan, 1969.
Logan, F. A.: A micromolar approach to behavior theory. Psychol. Rev.63, 63–73, 1956.
Logan, F. A.: Incentive. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1960.
Perkins, C. C., Jr.: The stimulus conditions which follow learned responses. Psychol. Rev.62, 341–348, 1955.
Perkins, C. C., Jr.: An analysis of the concept of reinforcement in classical conditioning.In Kendler H. H. and Spence, J. T. (eds.): Essays in Neobehaviorism. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971.
Prokasy, W. F.: Classical eyelid conditioning: Experimenter operations, task demands, and response shaping.In Prokasy, W. F. (ed.), Classical Conditioning. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965.
Prokasy, W. F., Ebel, H. C. and Thompson, D. D.: Response shaping at long interstimulus intervals in classical eyelid conditioning. J. Exp. Psychol.66, 138–141, 1963.
Prokasy, W. F. and Papsdorf, J. D.: Effects of increasing the interstimulus interval during classical conditioning of the albino rabbit. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol.60, 249–252, 1965.
Salaria, W. R., Daston, A. P., Bartosiak, R. S., Hur-ley, J., and Martino, L. J.: Classical nictitating membrane conditioning in the rabbit(Oryctolagus cuniculus) as a function of unconditioned stimulus locus. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol.86, 628–636, 1974.
Wagner, A. R., Thomas, E. and Norton, T.: Conditioning with electrical stimulation of motor cortex: evidence of a possible source of motivation. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol.64, 191–199, 1967.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Read in part at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis, Missouri, 1973.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Salafia, W.R., Martino, L.J., Cloutman, K. et al. Unconditional-stimulus locus and interstimulus-interval shift in rabbit(Oryctolagus cuniculus) nictitating membrane conditioning. Pav. J. Biol. Sci. 14, 64–71 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03001817
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03001817