Abstract
Virtually no evidence of excitatory CR acquisition is observed in rabbit eyelid conditioning with a trace-conditioning procedure if the CS-UCS trace interval is greater than a few seconds. The lack of overt CRs following training with a trace-conditioning procedure has traditionally been interpreted as due to the passive decay of the CS stimulus trace over time. However, it is conceivable that a trace interval sufficiently long to preclude CR acquisition may be sufficiently long to teach the subject that the CS signals a UCS-free period, thereby producing an inhibitory CS. To test this proposal, eyelid conditioning in rabbits was conducted in two experiments with a 10-sec trace interval (there being no evidence of excitatory conditioning with this procedure). The trace-CS was then tested for evidence of inhibition with retardation-of-acquisition and summation tests. The trace-CS was shown to have conditional inhibitory properties. These results indicate that the interstimulus interval function in trace conditioning may be determined, in part, by inhibitory associations.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Benedict, J. O., &Ayres, J. J. B. Factors affecting conditioning in the truly random control procedure.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1972,78, 323–330.
Carlton, P., &Vogel, J. R. Habituation and conditioning.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 196763, 348–351.
Coleman, S. R., &Gormezano, I. Classical conditioning of the rabbit’s (Oryctolagus cuniculus) nictitating membrane response under symmetrical CS-US interval shifts.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1971,77, 447–455.
Ellison, G. D. Differential salivary conditioning to traces.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1964,57, 373–380.
Gormezano, I. Classical conditioning. In J. B. Sidowski (Ed.),Experimental methods and instrumentation in psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
Hull, C. L. Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1943.
Kamin, L. J. Trace conditioning of the conditioned emotional response.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1961,54, 149–153.
Kehoe, E. J., Gibbs, C. M., Garcia, E., &Gormezano, I. Associative transfer and stimulus selection in classical conditioning of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response to serial compound CSs.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1979,5, 1–18.
Kremer, E. F. Truly random and traditional control procedures in CER conditioning in the rat.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1971,76, 441–448.
Kremer, E. F., &Kamin, L. J. The truly random control procedure: Associative or nonassociative effects in rats.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1971,74, 203–210.
Leonard, D. W., &Theios, J. Effect of CS-US interval shift on classical conditioning of the nictitating membrane response in the rabbit.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1967,63, 355–358.
Mackintosh, N. J. Stimulus selection: Learning to ignore stimuli that predict no change in reinforcement. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.),Constraints on learning. London: Academic Press, 1973.
Meredith, A. L., &Schneiderman, N. Heart rate and nictitating membrane classical discrimination conditioning in rabbits under delay versus trace procedures.Psychonomic Science, 1967,9, 139–140.
Moscovitch, A., &LoLordo, V. M. Role of safety in the Pavlovian backward fear conditioning procedure.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1968,66, 673–678.
Pavlov, I. P. Conditioned reflexes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1927.
Reiss, S., &Wagner, A. R. CS habituation produces a “latent inhibition” effect but no active “conditioned inhibition.”Learning and Motivation, 1972,3, 237–245.
Rescorla, R. A. Pavlovian conditioned inhibition.Psychological Bulletin, 1969,72, 77–94.
Rescorla, R. A. Summation and retardation tests of latent inhibition.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1971,75, 77–81.
Schneiderman, N. Interstimulus interval function of the nictitating membrane response of the rabbit under delay versus trace conditioning.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1966,62, 397–402.
Sears, R. J., Baker, J. S., &Frey, P. W. The eye blink as a time-locked response: Implications for serial and second-order conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1979,5, 43–64.
Siegel, S. Latent inhibition and eyelid conditioning. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning II. New-York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972.
Siegel, S., &Domjan, M. Backward conditioning as an inhibitory procedure.Learning and Motivation, 1971,2, 1–11.
Siegel, S., &Domjan, M. The inhibitory effect of backward conditioning as a function of the number of backward pairings.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1974,4, 122–124.
Smith, M. C. CS-US interval and US intensity in classical conditioning of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1968,66, 679–687.
Smith, M. C., Coleman, S. R., &Gormezano, I. Classical conditioning of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response at backward, simultaneous, and forward CS-US intervals.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1969,69, 226–231.
Tomie, A. Interference with autoshaping by prior context conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1976,2, 323–334.
Wagner, A. R. Priming in STM: An information processing mechanism for self-generated or retrieval-generated depression in performance. In T. J. Tighe & R. N. Keaton (Eds.),Habituation: Perspectives from child development, animal behavior, and neurophysiology. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1976.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by Research Grant APA-0298 from the National Research Council of Canada.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hinson, R.E., Siegel, S. Trace conditioning as an inhibitory procedure. Animal Learning & Behavior 8, 60–66 (1980). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209730
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209730