Literature DB >> 22926983

Conditioned suppression is an inverted-U function of footshock intensity.

James E Witnauer1, Ralph R Miller.   

Abstract

Most theories of associative learning assert that conditioned responding to a target cue is a monotonically increasing function of unconditioned-stimulus (US) intensity. In a lick suppression preparation with rats, a cue was paired with a 0.4-, 0.6-, 0.8-, 1.0-, 1.2-, or 1.4-mA footshock in Experiment 1a, and with a 0.3-, 0.8-, 1.3-, or 1.8-mA footshock in Experiment 1b. Subsequent suppression in response to the cue was an inverted-U function of the US intensity. In Experiment 2, we demonstrated that massive extinction of the training context and compound conditioning can each attenuate the response decrement caused by training with a high-intensity US. The sometimes-competing-retrieval model (Stout & Miller, Psychological Review 114:759-783, 2007) provides a better fit to these data than do several other models of associative learning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 22926983      PMCID: PMC3529137          DOI: 10.3758/s13420-012-0088-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Learn Behav        ISSN: 1543-4494            Impact factor:   1.986


  23 in total

1.  Trial spacing is a determinant of cue interaction.

Authors:  Steven C Stout; Raymond Chang; Ralph R Miller
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2003-01

2.  The conditioned emotional response as a function of intensity of the US.

Authors:  Z ANNAU; L J KAMIN
Journal:  J Comp Physiol Psychol       Date:  1961-08

Review 3.  An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: adaptive gain and optimal performance.

Authors:  Gary Aston-Jones; Jonathan D Cohen
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 12.449

4.  Counteraction between overshadowing and degraded contingency treatments: support for the extended comparator hypothesis.

Authors:  Gonzalo P Urcelay; Ralph R Miller
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2006-01

5.  Sometimes-competing retrieval (SOCR): a formalization of the comparator hypothesis.

Authors:  Steven C Stout; Ralph R Miller
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 8.934

Review 6.  Determinants of cue interactions.

Authors:  Daniel S Wheeler; Ralph R Miller
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2008-02-08       Impact factor: 1.777

7.  Overshadowing and latent inhibition counteract each other: support for the comparator hypothesis.

Authors:  A P Blaisdell; A S Bristol; L M Gunther; R R Miller
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  1998-07

8.  Two roles of the context in Pavlovian fear conditioning.

Authors:  Gonzalo P Urcelay; Ralph R Miller
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2010-04

9.  Conditioned fear and startle magnitude: effects of different footshock or backshock intensities used in training.

Authors:  M Davis; D I Astrachan
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  1978-04

10.  Overexpectation and trial massing.

Authors:  Heather T Sissons; Ralph R Miller
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2009-04
View more
  4 in total

1.  Threat intensity widens fear generalization gradients.

Authors:  Joseph E Dunsmoor; Marijn C W Kroes; Stephen H Braren; Elizabeth A Phelps
Journal:  Behav Neurosci       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 1.912

Review 2.  The error in total error reduction.

Authors:  James E Witnauer; Gonzalo P Urcelay; Ralph R Miller
Journal:  Neurobiol Learn Mem       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 2.877

Review 3.  Classical conditioning and pain: conditioned analgesia and hyperalgesia.

Authors:  Gonzalo Miguez; Mario A Laborda; Ralph R Miller
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2013-11-22

Review 4.  Forebrain networks and the control of feeding by environmental learned cues.

Authors:  Gorica D Petrovich
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2013-04-03
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.