CS Intensity effects on rabbit nictitating membrane conditioning, extinction and generalization

  • M. J. Scavio
  • I. Gormezano


One purpose of the present experiments was to determine if the Grice and Hunter (1964) observation of augmented within-versus between-Ss CS intensity effects in human eyelid conditioning would be obtained in conditioning of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response under two (Experiment 1) and four (Experiment 2) CS intensity values. In addition, a determination was made of the effects of CS intensity upon extinction and stimulus intensity generalization gradients. The studies revealed that: (a) while acquisition performance was positively related to CS intensity, the effect was independent of the between and within-S manipulation of CS intensity; (b) rate of response decrement in extinction was an inverse function of CS intensity; and (c) a positively sloped intensity generalization gradient was obtained when the training stimulus was the low-intensity one. Overall, these results are most consistent with Hull’s (1949) stimulus intensity dynamism account of CS intensity effects in conditioning.


Conditioned Stimulus Nictitate Membrane Generalization Gradient Generalization Testing Eyelid Conditioning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, N. H.: Comparison of different populations: Resistance to extinction and transfer.Psychol. Rev.,70:162–179, 1963.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, G. W.: Conditioned stimulus intensity and temporal factors in spaced-trial classical conditioning.J. Exp. Psychol.,51:192–198, 1956.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carter, L. F.: Intensity of conditioned stimulus and rate of conditioning.J. Exp. Psychol.,28:481–490, 1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Frey, P. W.: Within- and between-session CS intensity performance effects in rabbit eyelid conditioning.Psychonom. Sci.,17:1–2, 1969.Google Scholar
  5. Gormezano, I.: Classical conditioning.In J. B. Sidowski (Ed.)Experimental Methods and Instrumentation in Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.Google Scholar
  6. Gormezano, I., Schneiderman, N., Deaux, E. B., and Fuentes, I.: Nictitating membrane: Classical conditioning and extinction in the albino rabbit.Science,138:33–34, 1962.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grant, D. A., and Schneider, D. E.: Intensity of the conditioned stimulus and strength of conditioning. I. The conditioned eyelid response to light.J. Exp. Psychol.,38:690–696, 1948.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grant, D. A., and Schneider, D. E. Intensity of the conditioned stimulus and strength of conditioning. II. The conditioned galvanic skin response to an auditory stimulus.J. Exp. Psychol.,39:35–40, 1949.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grice, G. R.: Stimulus intensity and response evocation.Psychol. Rev.,75: 359–374, 1968.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grice, G. R.: Conditioning and a decision theory of response evocation, in G. H. Bower (Ed.)Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Vol. 5. New York: Academic Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  11. Grice, G. R., and Hunter, J. J.: Stimulus intensity effects depend upon the type of experimental design.Psychol Rev.,71:247–256, 1964.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hovland, C. I.: The generalization of conditioned responses: II. The sensory generalization of conditioned responses with varying intensities of tone.J. Genet. Psychol.,51:279–291, 1937.Google Scholar
  13. Hull, C. L.:Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1943.Google Scholar
  14. Hull, C. L.: Stimulus intensity dynamism (V) and stimulus generalization.Psychol. Rev.,56:67–76, 1949.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hull, C. L.:A behavior system. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952.Google Scholar
  16. Kamin, L. J.: Temporal and intensity characteristics of the conditioned stimulus.In W. F. Prokasy (Ed.)Classical Conditioning: A Symposium. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965.Google Scholar
  17. Kupalov, P. S., and Gantt, W. H. The relationship between the strength of the conditioned stimulus and the size of the resulting conditioned reflex.Brain,50:44–52, 1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lipkin, S. G., and Moore, J. W.: Eyelid trace conditioning, CS intensity, CS-UCS interval, and a correction for “spontaneous” blinking.J. Exp. Psychol.,72:216–220, 1966.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Logan, F. A.: A note on stimulus intensity dynamism (V).Psychol. Rev.,63:63–73, 1956.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mattson, M., and Moore, J. W.: Intertriai responding and CS intensity on classical eyelid conditioning.J. Exp. Psychol.,68:396–401, 1964.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pavlov, I. P.:Conditioned reflexes. (Translated by G. V. Anrep). London: Oxford University Press, 1927.Google Scholar
  22. Perkins, C. C., Jr.: The relation between conditioned stimulus intensity and response strength.J. Exp. Psychol.,46:225–231, 1953.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Razran, G.: The dominance-contiguity theory of the acquisition of classical conditioning.Psychol. Bull.,54:1–46, 1957.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. J. Scavio
    • 1
  • I. Gormezano
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of IowaUSA

Personalised recommendations