Is the number of trials a primary determinant of conditioned responding?

Acquisition of conditioned responding is thought to be determined by the number of pairings of a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US). However, it is possible that acquisition is primarily determined not by the number of trials but rather by quantities that often correlate with the number of trials, such as cumulative intertrial interval (ITI) and the number of sessions. Four experiments examined whether the number of trials has an effect on acquisition of conditioned responding, once cumulative ITI and number of sessions are equated. Results of the experiments with rats and mice favor the hypothesis that over an eightfold range, variation in number of CS-US pairings has little effect. It is suggested that learning curves might more accurately be plotted across cumulative ITI or number of sessions, and not across number of trials. Results pose a challenge to trial-centered accounts of conditioning, as demonstrated by simulations of the Rescorla-Wagner model, a simplified version of Wagner's standard operating procedure model (SOP), and Stout & Miller's sometimes competing retrieval model (SOCR). A time-centered account, rate estimation theory (RET), predicts the main finding but has trouble with other aspects of the learning process more easily accommodated by trial-centered models.