Advertisement

Animal learning & behavior

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 277–287 | Cite as

Blocking with serial and simultaneous compounds in a trace conditioning procedure

  • Elizabeth A. Kohler
  • John J. B. Ayres
Article

Abstract

Blocking of conditioned suppression in rats was studied in three experiments using serial and simultaneous compounds in Pavlovian trace conditioning procedures. Experimental groups were first given trace conditioning trials with a 2-sec stimulus (A) presented at least 60 sec before an electric grid shock US. Next, both experimental and control groups received reinforced trials with a compound stimulus (AB). Both A and B were 2 sec in duration and were presented at least 60 sec before the US. For some groups during AB training, the A stimulus preceded the B stimulus; for others, B preceded A; for still others, A and B occurred simultaneously. Conditioning was subsequently assessed separately to both A and B. The results were as follows: First, varying the interval between the onset of A and the US during A training appeared to produce significantly different levels of conditioning to A but did not detectably affect A’s ability to block conditioning to B. Second, blocking was observed in both simultaneous and serial procedures. Third, in the serial procedure, A blocked conditioning to B whether it preceded B or followed B in the AB compound. Fourth, in tests given after AB conditioning, the experimental and control groups suppressed similarly to A. The relevance of these results to the conditioning model of Rescorla and Wagner (1972) and to Mackintosh’s (1975b) theory of attention are discussed.

Reference Notes

  1. 1.
    Ayres, J. J. B., & Vigorito, M.Blocking, surprise, and post-US suppression in the conditioned suppression procedure. Paper presented at the 22nd annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Philadelphia, 1981.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miller, R. R., Hartl, P., Capra, S., & Balaz, M.Factors underlying contextual control of acquired behavior. Paper presented at the 21st annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis, Missouri, 1980.Google Scholar

References

  1. Annau, Z., &Kamin, L. J. The conditioned emotional response as a function of intensity of the US.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1961,54, 428–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres, J. J. B., &Bombace, J. C. A surprising extension of the preconditioned stimulus beyond the cotermination of the US and the added element does not alleviate blocking to the added element.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1982,10, 263–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheatle, M. D., &Rudy, J. W. Analysis of second-order odor-aversion conditioning in neonatal rats: Implications for Kamin’s blocking effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1978,4, 237–249.Google Scholar
  4. Estes, W. K., &Skinner, B. F. Some quantitative properties of anxiety.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1941,29, 390–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gray, T. Blocking in the CER: Trace and delay procedures.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1978,32, 40–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gray, T., Appignanesi, A. A. Compound conditioning: Elimination of the blocking effect.Learning and Motivation, 1973,4, 374–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kamin, L. J. Temporal and intensity characteristics of the conditioned stimulus. In W. F. Prokasy (Ed.),Classical conditioning, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965.Google Scholar
  8. Kamin, L. J. “Attention-like” processes in classical conditioning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.),Miami Symposium on the prediction of behavior, 1967: Aversive stimulation. Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  9. Kamin, L. J. Predictability, surprise, attention and conditioning. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.),Punishment and aversive behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969.Google Scholar
  10. Kehoe, E. J., Gibbs, C. M., Garcia, E., &Gormezano, I. Associative transfer and stimulus selection in classical conditioning of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response to serial compound CSs.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1979,5, 1–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kehoe, E. J., Schreurs, B. G., &Amodei, B. Blocking acquisition of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response to serial conditioned stimuli.Learning and Motivation, 1981,12, 92–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kohler, E. A., &Ayres, J. J. B. The Kamin blocking effect with variable-duration CSs.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1979,7, 347–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mackintosh, N. J. Blocking of conditioned suppression: Role of the first compound trial.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1975,1, 335–345. (a)Google Scholar
  14. Mackintosh, N. J. A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review, 1975,82, 276–298. (b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marchant, H. G., III, &Moore, J. W. Blocking of the rabbit’s conditioned nictitating membrane response in Kamin’s two-stage paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973,101, 155–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marlin, N. A. Contextual associations in trace conditioning.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1981,9, 519–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pavlov, I. P. Conditioned reflexes. New York: Dover, 1960. (Originally published, 1927.)Google Scholar
  18. Rescorla, R. A., &Heth, C. D. Reinstatement of fear to an extinguished conditioned stimulus.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1975,104, 88–96.Google Scholar
  19. Rescorla, R. A., &Wagner, A. R. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972.Google Scholar
  20. Tomie, A. Interference with autoshaping by prior context conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1976,2, 323–334. (a)Google Scholar
  21. Tomie, A. Retardation of autoshaping: Control by contextual stimuli.Science, 1976,192, 1244–1246. (b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vom Saal, W., &Jenkins, H. M. Blocking the development of stimulus control.Learning and Motivation, 1970,1, 52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wagner, A. R. Stimulus selection and a “modified continuity theory.” In G. H. Bower & J. T. Spence (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 3). New York: Academic Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  24. Wagner, A. R. Priming in STM: An information-processing mechanism for self-generated or retrieval-generated depression in performance. In T. J. Tighe & R. N. Leaton (Eds.),Habituation: Perspectives from child development, animal behavior, and neurophysiology. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1976.Google Scholar
  25. Wagner, A. R., &Rescorla, R. A. Inhibition in Pavlovian conditioning: Application of a theory. In R. A. Boakes & M. S. Halliday (Eds.),Inhibition and learning. London: Academic Press, 1972.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth A. Kohler
    • 1
  • John J. B. Ayres
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MassachusettsAmherst

Personalised recommendations