Abstract
Retarded conditioned response (CR) acquisition produced by unconditioned stimulus (US) preexposures has been attributed either to interference resulting from contextual conditioning or to habituation of the US. Both perspectives assume that the amount of retardation is directly related to the number of US preexposures. This assumption was examined in two experiments. In Experiment 1, separate groups of rabbits received 200 paraorbital shock US preexposures either in one session or spread equally over 10 daily sessions. Subsequently, all subjects received 150 CS-US pairings. Acquisition of nictitating membrane CRs was retarded relative to a naive control group only in the group that received the preexposures over 10 sessions. Thus, the number of US preexposure sessions, rather than the number of US preexposures, determined whether or not retarded acquisition was observed. In Experiment 2, four groups of rabbits received 1, 5, 20, or 40 shock US preexposures in each of 10 sessions. Over the subsequent 150 CS-US pairings, similar levels of retarded CR acquisition were observed in groups that received 20 and 40 US preexposures per session, a weak retardation effect was observed with 5 preexposures per session, and no retardation was observed with 1 preexposure per session. Thus, Experiment 2 suggested that retarded CR development was not greatly influenced by increasing the number of US preexposures above some minimum threshold number of exposures per session. Implications for current theories were discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Desmond, J. E., Romano, A. G., &Moore, J. W. (1980). Amplitude of the rabbit’s unconditioned nictitating membrane response in the presence of a conditioned inhibitor.Animal Learning & Behavior,8, 225–230.
Donegan, N. H. (1981). Priming-produced facilitation or diminution of responding to a Pavlovian unconditioned stimulus.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,7, 295–312.
Gibbon, J., &Balsam, P. D. (1981). The spread of association in time. In C. M. Locurto, H. S. Terrace, & J. B. Gibbon (Eds.),Autoshaping and conditioning theory (pp. 219–253). New York: Academic Press.
Gormezano, I. (1966). Classical conditioning. In J. B. Sidowski (Ed.),Experimental methods and instrumentation in psychology (pp. 385–420). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hinson, R. E. (1982). Effects of UCS preexposure on excitatory and inhibitory rabbit eyelid conditioning. An associative effect of conditioned contextual stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,8, 49–61.
Hobson, G. N. (1968). Effects of US adaptation upon conditioning in low and high anxiety men and women.Journal of Experimental Psychology,76, 360–363.
Jenkins, H. M., Barnes, R. A., &Barrera, F. J. (1981). Why autoshaping depends on trial spacing. In C. M. Locurto & J. Gibbon (Eds.),Autoshaping and conditioning theory (pp. 255–284). New York: Academic Press.
Kamin, L. J. (1968) Attention-like processes in classical conditioning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.),Miami symposium on the prediction of behavior. Aversive stimulation (pp. 9–31). Miami: Universtiy of Miami Press.
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention and conditioning. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.),Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 279–296). New York: Appleton.
Kehoe, E. J., &Gormezano, I. (1974). Effects of trials per session on conditioning of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,4, 434–436.
Kimmel, H. D. (1966). Inhibition of the unconditioned response in classical conditioning.Psychological Review,73, 232–240.
Leventhal, L. F. (1973). The CS-US interval function in rabbit nictitating membrane response conditioning: Single vs. multiple trials per conditioning session.Learning & Motivation,4, 259–267.
LoLordo, V. M., &Randich, A. (1981). Effects of experience of electric shock upon subsequent conditioning of an emotional response: Associative and non-associative accounts. In P. Harzern & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.),Advances in analysis of behavior: Predictability, correlation, and contiguity (Vol. 2, pp. 247–285). New York: Wiley.
Mazur, J. E., &Wagner, A. R. (1984). An episodic model of associative learning. In M. L. Common, R. J. Herrnstein, & A. R. Wagner (Eds.),Quantitative analyses of behavior. Vol. 3. Acquisition (pp. 3–31). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
McAllister, W. R., &McAllister, D. E. (1971). Behavioral measurement of conditioned fear. In F. R. Brush (Ed.),Aversive conditioning and learning (pp. 105–179). New York: Academic Press.
Miller, R. A., &Schachtman, T. R. (1985). Conditioning context as an associative baseline: Implications for response generation and the nature of conditioned inhibition. In R. R. Miller & N. E. Spear (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition (pp. 51–88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mis, R. W., &Moore, J. W. (1973). Effects of preacquisition US exposure on classical conditioning of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response.Learning & Motivation,4, 108–114.
Moore, J. W., &Gormezano, I. (1977). Classical conditioning. In M. H. Marx & M. E. Busch (Eds.),Fundamentals and applications of learning (pp. 87–120). New York: Macmillan.
Randich, A., &LoLordo, V. M. (1979). Associative and nonassociative theories of the US preexposure phenomenon: Implications for Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Bulletin,86, 523–548.
Rescorla, R. A., &Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning: II. Current theory and research (pp 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Saladin, M. E., &Tait, R. W. (1986). US preexposures retard excitatory and facilitate inhibitory conditioning of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response.Animal Learning & Behavior,14, 121–132.
Saladin, M. E., & Tait, R. W. (1988).The effects of temporal locus of US preexposures on subsequent excitatory conditioning of the albino rabbit’s nictitating membrane response Manuscript submitted for publication.
Smith, M. C. (1968). CS-US interval and US intensity in classical conditioning of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane responseJournal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,66, 679–687.
Solomon, R. L., &Corbit, J. D. (1974). An opponent-process theory of motivation: I. Temporal dynamics of affect.Psychological Review,81, 119–145.
Suboski, M. D., DiLollo, V., &Gormezano, I. (1964). Effects of unpaired pre-acquisition of CS and US on classical conditioning of the nictitating membrane response of the albino rabbit.Psychological Reports,15, 571–576.
Tait, R. W., &Gormezano, I. (1974). A microcomputer program for stimulus control and analog data for discrete trials paradigms in biological preparation: Classical conditioning.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,6, 295–300.
Taylor, J. A. (1956). A level of conditioning and the intensity of the adaptation stimulus.Journal of Experimental Psychology,51, 127–130.
Terry, W. S. (1976). The effects of priming unconditioned stimulus representations in short-term memory on Pavlovian conditioningJournal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,2, 354–369.
Tomie, A. (1976). Retardation of autoshaping: Control by contextual stimuliScience,192, 1244–1246.
Tomie, A., Murphy, A., Fath, S., &Jackson, R. L. (1980). Retardation of autoshaping following pretraining with unpredictable food: Effects of changing the context between pretraining and testing.Learning & Motivation,11, 117–134.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant A0312 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to R. W. Tait. Michael Saladin was supported by a postgraduate scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Saladin, M.E., Have, W.N.T., Saper, Z.L. et al. Retardation of rabbit nictitating membrane conditioning following US preexposures depends on the distribution and number of US presentations. Animal Learning & Behavior 17, 179–187 (1989). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207633
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207633