Abstract
Four groups of human subjects were given 360 classical eyeblink conditioning trials. All groups received the same UCS (unconditioned stimulus) intensity on\({CR}\) (nonconditioned response) trials but differed in the intensity presented on CR trials. Response probability increased as a positive function of UCS intensity on CR trials. Phase 1 of the two-phase model was longer when no UCS was presented on CR trials, but did not differ in duration among the remaining three groups. Most subjects could be described with a single operator in Phase 2, the operator limit increasing as a positive function of CR-contingent UCS intensity. For subjects requiring different operator limits on CR and\({CR}\) trials, the latter was lower with high CR-trial intensities but higher with low CR-trialintensities. The results were interpreted to be more consistent with drive theory than with “law-of-effect” or two-factor theories.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Birch, H. G., &Bitterman, M. E. Reinforcement and learning: The process of sensory integration.Psychological Review, 1949,56, 292–308.
Chandler, J. P. STEPIT: Finds local minima of a smooth function of several parameters (CPA 312).Behavioral Science, 1699,14, 81–82.
Coleman, S. R.Effects upon the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response of response-contingent changes in intensity of the UCS. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1972.
Gormezano, I., &Coleman, S. R. The law of effect and CR contingent modification of the UCS.Conditional Reflex, 1973,8, 41–56.
Hebb, D. O. The distinction between “classical” and “instrumental.”Canadian Journal of Psychalogy, 1956,10, 165–166.
Hull, C. L. A functional interpretation of the conditioned reflex.Psychological Review. 1929,36, 498–511.
Jones, J. E. Contiguity and reinforcement in relation to CS-UCS intervals in classical aversive conditioning.Psychological Review, 1962,69, 176–186.
Maier, N. R., &Schneirla, T. C. Mechanisms in conditioning.Psychological Review, 1942,49, 117–134.
Moore, J. W., &Gormezano, I. Yoked comparisons in instrumental and classical eyelid conditioning.Journal of ExpeHmental Psychology, 1961,62, 552–559.
Perkins, C. C., Jr. The stimulus conditions which follow learned responses.Psychological Review, 1955,62, 341–348.
Perkins, C. C., Jr. An analysis of the concept of reinforcement.Psychological Review. 1968,75, 155–172.
Prokasy, W. F. Developments with the two-phase model applied to human eyelid conditioning. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning II. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972. Pp. 119–147.
Prokasy, W. F. A two-phase model account of aversive classical conditioning performance in humans and rabbits.Learning and Motivation, 1973,4, 247–258.
Prokasy, W. F. Discriminated avoidance vs classical conditioning: A two-phase model analysis.Ammal Learning & Behavior, 1974,2, 257–261.
Prokasy, W. F., &Whaler, F. L. The intertrial interval in classical conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1961,62, 560–564.
Prokasy, W. F., Williams, W. C., Lee, W. Y. M., &Kumpfer, K. L. Two-phase model analysis of the effects of interstimulus interval and masking task in human aversive classical conditioning.Memory & Cognition, 1974,2, 206–210.
Rescorla, R. A., &Solomon, R. L. Two-process learning theory: Relationships between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning.Psychological Review, 1967,74, 151–182.
Runouist, W. N., Sidowski, J., &Gormezano, I. Yoked comparisons of classical and avoidance conditioning in differential conditioning of the eyelid response.Psychological Reports, 1962,11, 43–50.
Schlosberg, H. The relationship between success and the laws of conditioning.Psychological Review, 1937,44, 379–394.
Sheffield, F. D. Avoidance training and the contiguity principle.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1948,58, 362–367.
Spence, K. W.Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956.
Spence, K. W. The roles of reinforcement and non-reinforcement in simple learning. In K. W. Spence (Ed.),Behavior theory and learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 1960.
Spence, K. W., Haggard, D. F., &Ross, L. F. UCS intensity and the associative (habit) strength of the eyelid CR.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958,55, 404–411.
Theios, J. Finite integer models for learning in individual subjects.Psychological Review, 1968,75, 292–307.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This paper was submitted by the junior author to the faculty of the Umverstty of Utah in parttal fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Science. Research support was provided by NSF Grant MBS 71-01219 to William F. Prokasy.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Clark, C.G., Prokasy, W.F. Manipulation of response-contingent unconditioned-stimulus intensity in human eyelid conditioning: A two-phase model analysis. Memory & Cognition 4, 277–282 (1976). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213176
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213176