Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 690–693 | Cite as

The interval between the CS and the UCS as a determiner of generalization performance

  • Cantey Land
  • Steven B. Harrod
  • David C. Riccio
Brief Reports
  • 276 Downloads

Abstract

Rats were trained in a conditioned taste aversion paradigm in order to determine whether a trace interval between the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) would result in the forgetting of stimulus attributes. Accordingly, subjects were conditioned with milk (CS), given either an immediate or a delayed injection of lithium chloride (UCS), and tested 48 h later with either milk or chocolate milk, a generalized flavor. The rats conditioned immediately following the presentation of the CS avoided milk more than chocolate milk, indicating discrimination between the two flavors. Those conditioned after a trace interval avoided both flavors equally, suggesting a loss of stimulus attributes of the original CS. Delay rats, however, still exhibited substantial learning when compared with controls not experiencing the UCS. These results allege a role for the forgetting of stimulus attributes during a trace interval in addition to following a complete learning episode.

Keywords

Conditioned Stimulus Taste Aversion Chocolate Milk Trace Interval Target Conditioned Stimulus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bahrick, H. P., Clark, S., &Bahrick, P. (1967). Generalization gradients as indicants of learning and retention of a recognition task.Journal of Experimental Psychology,75, 464–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batsell, W. R., Jr., &Best, M. R. (1993). One bottle too many? Method of testing determines the detection of overshadowing and retention of taste aversions.Animal Learning & Behavior,21, 154–158.Google Scholar
  3. DeCola, J. P., &Fanselow, M. S. (1995). Differential inflation with short and long CS-US intervals: Evidence of a nonassociative process in long-delay taste avoidance.Animal Learning & Behavior,23, 154–163.Google Scholar
  4. Domjan, M. (1977). Selective suppression of drinking during a limited period following aversive drug treatment in rats.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,3, 66–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garcia, J., Ervin, F. R., &Koelling, R. A. (1966). Learning with prolonged delay of reinforcement.Psychonomic Science,5, 121–122.Google Scholar
  6. Guttman, N., &Kalish, H. I. (1956). Discriminability and stimulus generalization.Journal of Experimental Psychology,51, 79–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jenkins, H. M., &Harrison, R. H. (1960). Effects of discrimination training on auditory generalization.Journal of Experimental Psychology,59, 246–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Marlin, N. A. (1981). Contextual associations in trace conditioning.Animal Learning & Behavior,9, 519–523.Google Scholar
  9. MacArdy, E. A., &Riccio, D. C. (1991). Increased generalization between drug-related interoceptive stimuli with delayed testing.Behavioral & Neural Biology,56, 213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McAllister, W. R., &McAllister, D. E. (1963). Increase over time in the stimulus generalization of acquired fear.Journal of Experimental Psychology,65, 576–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mitchell, D., Scott, D. W., &Mitchell, L. K. (1977). Attenuated and enhanced neophobia in the taste-aversion “delay of reinforcement” effect.Animal Learning & Behavior,5, 99–102.Google Scholar
  12. Pavlov, I. P. (1927).Conditioned reflexes (G. V. Anrep, Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Perkins, C. C., Jr., &Weyant, R. G. (1958). The interval between training and testing as determiner of the slope of generalization gradients.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,97, 140–153.Google Scholar
  14. Revusky, S. (1971). The role of interference in association over a delay. In W. K. Honig & P. H. R. James (Eds.),Animal memory (pp. 155–213). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Revusky, S. H., &Garcia, J. (1970). Learned associations over long delays. In G. H. Bower & J. T. Spence (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 4, pp. 1–84). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Riccio, D. C., Ackil, J., &Burch-Vernon, A. (1992). Forgetting of stimulus attributes: Methodological implications for assessing associative phenomena.Psychological Bulletin,112, 433–435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Riccio, D. C., Rabinowitz, V., &Axelrod, S. (1994). Memory: When less is more.American Psychologist,49, 917–926.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Richardson, R., Williams, C., &Riccio, D. C. (1984). Stimulus generalization of conditioned taste aversion in rats.Behavioral & Neural Biology,41, 41–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thomas, D. A., &Riccio, D. C. (1979). Forgetting of a CS attribute in a conditioned suppression paradigm.Animal Learning & Behavior,7, 191–195.Google Scholar
  20. Thomas, D. R., &Lopez, L. J. (1962). The effects of delayed testing on generalization slope.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,55, 541–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Watson, J., &Raynor, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology,3, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zhou, Y. L., &Riccio, D. C. (1996). Manipulation of components of context: The context shift effect and forgetting of stimulus attributes.Learning & Motivation,27, 400–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cantey Land
    • 1
  • Steven B. Harrod
    • 1
  • David C. Riccio
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyKent State UniversityKent

Personalised recommendations