Abstract
A classical conditioning procedure was instituted in which the locus of the US was changed coincidentally with the onset of the compound conditioning phase of the Kamin blocking design. The nictitating membrane of the rabbit served as the conditioning preparation. Three groups of nine rabbits each were employed: a conventional blocking group in which the US was unchanged during the simple and compound conditioning phases, a control group that received only the compound conditioning phase, and an experimental group given both simple and compound conditioning but in which the US was administered to the contralateral paraorbital region during the compound conditioning phase. Postconditioning presentations of the elements of the compound CS indicated that, relative to the control group, responding during the new element was markedly reduced in the conventional blocking group but was strongly conditioned in the group in which the US locus was changed. Implications of these findings for theoretical analyses of conditioning are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Reference Note
Theios, J., & Brelsford, J., Jr.A Markov model for classical conditioning: Applications to eye-blink conditioning in rabbits (Tech. Rep 9.) Austin, Tex: University of Texas, Conditioning Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology, 1965.
References
Bakal, R., Johnson, R., &Rescorla, R. A. The effect of changing the quality of the reinforcer on blocking.The Pavlovian Journal, 1974,2, 97–103.
Dickinson, A., &Mackintosh, N. J. Classical conditioning in animals.Annual Review of Psychology, 1978,21, 587–612.
Dickinson, A., &Mackintosh, N. J. Reinforcer specificity in the enhancement of conditioning by posttrial surprise.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1979,5, 162–177.
Donahoe, J. W., Crowley, M. A., Millard, W. J., &Stickney, K. J. A unified reinforcement principle: Some implications for matching. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein, & H. Rachlin (Eds.),Quantitative analysis of behavior (Vol. 2):Matching and maximizing accounts. Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger, 1982.
Donahoe, J. R., &Wessells, M. G. Learning, language, and memory. New York: Harper & Row, 1980.
Donegan, N., Whitlow, J. W., &Wagner, A. R. Post-trial reinstatement of the CS in Pavlovian conditioning: Facilitation or impairment of acquisition as a function of individual differences in responsiveness to the CS.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1977,3, 357–367.
Gormezano, I. Classical conditioning. In J. B. Sidowski (Ed.),Experimental methods and instrumentation in psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
Hintzman, D. L. Simpson’s paradox and the analysis of memory retrieval.Psychology Review, 1980,87, 398–410.
Kamin, L. J. Attention-like processes in classical conditioning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.),Miami Symposium on the Prediction of Behavior. Miami: University of Miami Press, 1968.
Kamin, L. J. Predictability, surprise, attention and conditioning. In R. M. Church & B. Campbell (Eds.),Punishment and aversive behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969.
Kettlewell, N. M., O’Connell, M. F., &Berger, L. H. Bilateral nictitating membrane conditioning in rabbits under asymmetrical levels of cutaneous afferent activity.Physiology & Behavior, 1974,13, 27–33.
Kimmel, H., &Reynolds, T. W. On the locus of extinctive inhibition.Acta Neurobiologica Experimentalis, 1971,31, 227–236.
Lajoie, J., &Bindra, D. An interpretation of autoshaping and related phenomena in terms of stimulus-incentive contingencies alone.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1976,30, 157–173.
Leyland, C. F., &Mackintosh, N. J. Blocking of first- and second-order autoshaping in pigeons.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1978,6, 391–394.
Mackintosh, N. J. Cognitive or associative theories of conditioning: Implications of an analysis of blocking. In S. H. Hulse, H. Fowler, & W. K. Honig (Eds.),Cognitive processes in animal behavior. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum, 1978.
Mackintosh, N. J., Byorave, D. J., &Picton, B. M. B. Locus of the effect of a surprising reinforcer on the attenuation of blocking.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1977,29, 327–336.
Mackintosh, N. J., &Turner, C. Blocking as a function of novelty of CS and predictability of UCS.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971,23, 359–366.
Marchant, H. G., &Moore, J. W. Blocking of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response in Kamin’s two-stage paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973,101, 155–158.
Mis, F. W., &Moore, J. W. Effects of preacquisition UCS exposure on classical conditioning of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response.Learning and Motivation, 1973,4, 108–114.
Moore, J. W., &Stickney, K. J. Formation of attentional-associative networks in real time: Role of the hippocampus and implications for conditioning.Physiological Psychology, 1980,8, 207–217.
Pearce, J. M., &Hall, G. A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned stimuli but not of unconditioned stimuli.Psychological Review, 1980,87, 532–552.
Pearce, J. M., Montgomery, A., &Dickinson, A. Contra-lateral transfer of inhibitory and excitatory eyelid conditioning in the rabbit.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1981,33, 45–61.
Prokasy, W. F., &Gormezano, I. The effects of US omission in classical aversive and appetitive conditioning of rabbits.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1979,7, 80–88.
Rescorla, R. A. Conditioned inhibition of fear. In N. J. Mackintosh & W. K. Honig (Eds.),Fundamental issues in associative learning. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dalhousie University Press, 1969.
Rescorla, R. A. Pavlovian second-order conditioning: Studies in associative learning. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum, 1980.
Rescorla, R. A., &Wagner, A. R. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In A. N. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972.
Rozeboom, W. W. “What is learned?”—An empirical enigma.Psychological Review, 1958,65, 22–23.
Salafia, W. R., Daston, A. P., Bartosiak, R. S., Hurley, J., &Martino, L. J. Classical nictitating membrane conditioning in rabbit as a function of US locus.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1974,86, 628–636.
Suboski, M. C., DiLollo, V., &Gormezano, I. Effects of unpaired preacquisition exposure of the CS and the UCS on classical conditioning of the nictitating membrane response of the albino rabbit.Psychological Reports, 1964,15, 571–576.
Terry, W. S. Short-term memory for “surprising” versus “expected” unconditioned stimuli in Pavlovian conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1976,1, 122–133.
Wagner, A. R. SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In N. E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1981.
Wagner, A. R., Mazur, J. E., Donegan, N., &Pfautz, P. L. Evaluation of blocking and conditioned inhibition to a CS signalling a decrease in US intensity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1980,6, 376–397.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by NIMH Research Grant MH 28610 and a Biomedical Research Support grant to the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Appreciation is expressed to John W. Moore for the use of his laboratory facilities for the conduct of the work.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stickney, K.J., Donahoe, J.W. Attenuation of blocking by a change in US locus. Animal Learning & Behavior 11, 60–66 (1983). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212308
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212308