Abstract
Eyelid conditioning and extinction procedures were embedded in a masking probability learning task. On non-CS trials interspersed with extinction trials, a 100% masking (100% M) group received the US along with the masking stimuli, whereas a masking + free-shock (M + FS) group received US-alone presentations. A control (C) group received the same stimuli as did Group 100% M but with neutral instructions. Group 100% M revealed more, but Group M + FS revealed less, resistance to extinction than did Group C. Only the M + FS group extinguished completely.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
AZRIN, N., & HOLZ, R. Punishment. In W. Honig (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. Pp. 380–447.
PROKASY, W. F., & KUMPFER, K. L. One- and two-operator versions of a two-phase model applied to the performances of Vs and Cs in human eyelid conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 80, 231–236.
SPENCE, K. W. Cognitive and drive factors in the extinction of the conditioned eye blink in human subjects. Psychological Review, 1966a, 73, 445–458.
SPENCE, K. W. Extinction of the human eyelid CR as a function of presence or absence of the UCS during extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966b, 71, 642–648.
SPENCE, K. W., HOMZIE, M. J., & RUTLEDGE, E. F. Extinction of the human eyelid CR as a function of the discriminability of the change from acquisition to extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964, 67, 545–552.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Supported by NASA Grant NGR 10-007-010.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kessler, R.S., Williams, C.D. & Schneiderman, N. Extinction of human eyelid conditioning as a function of components of a masking procedure. Psychon Sci 17, 337–338 (1969). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03335269
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03335269