However, if that same CS is presented without the US but accompanied by a well-established conditioned inhibitor CI , that is, a stimulus that predicts the absence of a US in R-W terms, a stimulus with a negative associate strength then R-W predicts that the CS will not undergo extinction its V will not decrease in size.
The most important and novel contribution of the R—W model is its assumption that the conditioning of a CS depends not just on that CS alone, and its relationship to the US, but also on all other stimuli present in the conditioning situation.
In particular, the model states that the US is predicted by the sum of the associative strengths of all stimuli present in the conditioning situation. Learning is controlled by the difference between this total associative strength and the strength supported by the US.
When this sum of strengths reaches a maximum set by the US, conditioning ends as just described. The R—W explanation of the blocking phenomenon illustrates one consequence of the assumption just stated.
In blocking see "phenomena" above , CS1 is paired with a US until conditioning is complete. Then on additional conditioning trials a second stimulus CS2 appears together with CS1, and both are followed by the US. One of the main reasons for the importance of the R—W model is that it is relatively simple and makes clear predictions.
Tests of these predictions have led to a number of important new findings and a considerably increased understanding of conditioning. Some new information has supported the theory, but much has not, and it is generally agreed that the theory is, at best, too simple. However, no single model seems to account for all the phenomena that experiments have produced.
A number of experimental findings indicate that more is learned than this. Among these are two phenomena described earlier in this article. Latent inhibition might happen because a subject stops focusing on a CS that is seen frequently before it is paired with a US. In fact, changes in attention to the CS are at the heart of two prominent theories that try to cope with experimental results that give the R—W model difficulty.
In one of these, proposed by Nicholas Mackintosh ,  the speed of conditioning depends on the amount of attention devoted to the CS, and this amount of attention depends in turn on how well the CS predicts the US.
Pearce and Hall proposed a related model based on a different attentional principle  Both models have been extensively tested, and neither explains all the experimental results. Consequently, various authors have attempted hybrid models that combine the two attentional processes.
Pearce and Hall in integrated their attentional ideas and even suggested the possibility of incorporating the Rescorla-Wagner equation into an integrated model. As stated earlier, a key idea in conditioning is that the CS signals or predicts the US see "zero contingency procedure" above.
However, for example, the room in which conditioning takes place also "predicts" that the US may occur. Still, the room predicts with much less certainty than does the experimental CS itself, because the room is also there between experimental trials, when the US is absent.
The role of such context is illustrated by the fact that the dogs in Pavlov's experiment would sometimes start salivating as they approached the experimental apparatus, before they saw or heard any CS.
The associative strength of context stimuli can be entered into the Rescorla-Wagner equation, and they play an important role in the comparator and computational theories outlined below. To find out what has been learned, we must somehow measure behavior "performance" in a test situation.
However, as students know all too well, performance in a test situation is not always a good measure of what has been learned. As for conditioning, there is evidence that subjects in a blocking experiment do learn something about the "blocked" CS, but fail to show this learning because of the way that they are usually tested. In particular, they look at all the stimuli that are present during testing and at how the associations acquired by these stimuli may interact. At the time of the test, these associations are compared, and a response to the CS occurs only if the CS-US association is stronger than the context-US association.
This means that the CS elicits a strong CR. Blocking and other more subtle phenomena can also be explained by comparator theories, though, again, they cannot explain everything.
An organism's need to predict future events is central to modern theories of conditioning. Most theories use associations between stimuli to take care of these predictions. The Rescorla-Wagner model treats a stimulus as a single entity, and it represents the associative strength of a stimulus with one number, with no record of how that number was reached.
As noted above, this makes it hard for the model to account for a number of experimental results. More flexibility is provided by assuming that a stimulus is internally represented by a collection of elements, each of which may change from one associative state to another. For example, the similarity of one stimulus to another may be represented by saying that the two stimuli share elements in common. These shared elements help to account for stimulus generalization and other phenomena that may depend upon generalization.
Also, different elements within the same set may have different associations, and their activations and associations may change at different times and at different rates. This allows element-based models to handle some otherwise inexplicable results. The time of presentation of various stimuli, the state of their elements, and the interactions between the elements, all determine the course of associative processes and the behaviors observed during conditioning experiments.
To begin with, the model assumes that the CS and US are each represented by a large group of elements. Each of these stimulus elements can be in one of three states:.
Of the elements that represent a single stimulus at a given moment, some may be in state A1, some in state A2, and some in state I. When a stimulus first appears, some of its elements jump from inactivity I to primary activity A1. From the A1 state they gradually decay to A2, and finally back to I. Element activity can only change in this way; in particular, elements in A2 cannot go directly back to A1. If the elements of both the CS and the US are in the A1 state at the same time, an association is learned between the two stimuli.
However, US elements activated indirectly in this way only get boosted to the A2 state. This can be thought of the CS arousing a memory of the US, which will not be as strong as the real thing.
In consequence, learning slows down and approaches a limit. The model can explain the findings that are accounted for by the Rescorla-Wagner model and a number of additional findings as well. For example, unlike most other models, SOP takes time into account.
Many other more subtle phenomena are explained as well. A number of other powerful models have appeared in recent years which incorporate element representations. Such models make contact with a current explosion of research on neural networks , artificial intelligence and machine learning.
Pavlov proposed that conditioning involved a connection between brain centers for conditioned and unconditioned stimuli.
His physiological account of conditioning has been abandoned, but classical conditioning continues to be to study the neural structures and functions that underlie learning and memory. Forms of classical conditioning that are used for this purpose include, among others, fear conditioning , eyeblink conditioning , and the foot contraction conditioning of Hermissenda crassicornis , a sea-slug. Both fear and eyeblink conditioning involve a neutral stimulus, frequently a tone, becoming paired with an unconditioned stimulus.
In the case of eyeblink conditioning, the US is an air-puff, while in fear conditioning the US is threatening or aversive such as a foot shock.
It appears that other regions of the brain, including the hippocampus, amygdala, and prefrontal cortex, contribute to the conditioning process, especially when the demands of the task get more complex.
Fear and eyeblink conditioning involve generally non overlapping neural circuitry, but share molecular mechanisms. Fear conditioning occurs in the basolateral amygdala, which receives glutaminergic input directly from thalamic afferents, as well as indirectly from prefrontal projections.
The direct projections are sufficient for delay conditioning, but in the case of trace conditioning, where the CS needs to be internally represented despite a lack of external stimulus, indirect pathways are necessary.
The anterior cingulate is one candidate for intermediate trace conditioning, but the hippocampus may also play a major role. Presynaptic activation of protein kinase A and postsynaptic activation of NMDA receptors and its signal transduction pathway are necessary for conditioning related plasticity.
CREB is also necessary for conditioning related plasticity, and it may induce downstream synthesis of proteins necessary for this to occur. Some therapies associated with classical conditioning are aversion therapy , systematic desensitization and flooding. Aversion therapy is a type of behavior therapy designed to make patients cease an undesirable habit by associating the habit with a strong unpleasant unconditioned stimulus. Systematic desensitization is a treatment for phobias in which the patient is trained to relax while being exposed to progressively more anxiety-provoking stimuli e.
This is an example of counterconditioning , intended to associate the feared stimuli with a response relaxation that is incompatible with anxiety  Flooding is a form of desensitization that attempts to eliminate phobias and anxieties by repeated exposure to highly distressing stimuli until the lack of reinforcement of the anxiety response causes its extinction.
Conditioning therapies usually take less time than humanistic therapies. A stimulus that is present when a drug is administered or consumed may eventually evoke a conditioned physiological response that mimics the effect of the drug. This is sometimes the case with caffeine; habitual coffee drinkers may find that the smell of coffee gives them a feeling of alertness. In other cases, the conditioned response is a compensatory reaction that tends to offset the effects of the drug.
For example, if a drug causes the body to become less sensitive to pain, the compensatory conditioned reaction may be one that makes the user more sensitive to pain. This compensatory reaction may contribute to drug tolerance. If so, a drug user may increase the amount of drug consumed in order to feel its effects, and end up taking very large amounts of the drug.
In this case a dangerous overdose reaction may occur if the CS happens to be absent, so that the conditioned compensatory effect fails to occur. For example, if the drug has always been administered in the same room, the stimuli provided by that room may produce a conditioned compensatory effect; then an overdose reaction may happen if the drug is administered in a different location where the conditioned stimuli are absent. Signals that consistently precede food intake can become conditioned stimuli for a set of bodily responses that prepares the body for food and digestion.
These reflexive responses include the secretion of digestive juices into the stomach and the secretion of certain hormones into the blood stream, and they induce a state of hunger. An example of conditioned hunger is the "appetizer effect.
The lateral hypothalamus LH is involved in the initiation of eating. The nigrostriatal pathway, which includes the substantia nigra, the lateral hypothalamus, and the basal ganglia have been shown to be involved in hunger motivation. The influence of classical conditioning can be seen in emotional responses such as phobia , disgust, nausea, anger, and sexual arousal.
A familiar example is conditioned nausea, in which the CS is the sight or smell of a particular food that in the past has resulted in an unconditioned stomach upset. Similarly, when the CS is the sight of a dog and the US is the pain of being bitten, the result may be a conditioned fear of dogs. An example of conditioned emotional response is conditioned suppression. As an adaptive mechanism, emotional conditioning helps shield an individual from harm or prepare it for important biological events such as sexual activity.
Thus, a stimulus that has occurred before sexual interaction comes to cause sexual arousal, which prepares the individual for sexual contact. For example, sexual arousal has been conditioned in human subjects by pairing a stimulus like a picture of a jar of pennies with views of an erotic film clip.
Skip to main content. You are here Home. Primary tabs View active tab Flashcards Learn Scatter. Select card Please select Flashcard Learn Scatter. Learning that certain events occur together. The events may be two stimuli as in classical conditioning or a response and its consequences as in operant conditioning. A type of learning in which we learn to associate a response our behavior and its consequence, and thus to repeat acts followed by good results and avoid acts followed by bad results.
In classical conditioning, the unlearned, naturally occurring response to the unconditioned stimulus, such as salivation when food is in the mouth. In classical conditioning, a stimulus that unconditionally naturally and automatically triggers a response. And so it was with Pavlov, whose almost fanatic devotion to pure science and to experimental research was supported ty the energy and simplicity of a Russian peasant.
In his lab, experiments were run and replicated by the hundreds. New workers never assigned to new or independent projects, but required instead to replicate experiements already done. They learned about work in progress and gave Pavlov a check on the reliability of previous work. If they failed, another replication by a third party was ordered to resolve the discrepancy. As an old man he wrote, "First of all, be systematic.
I repeat, be systematic. Train yourself to be strictly systematic in the acquisition of knowledge. Descartes had said that we have or are a mind trapped in the physical structure of a body. He viewed the body as a marvelous machine. Reflected in science fiction stories about transferring a mind into a different body.
Pavlov and his colleagues: The mind is the product of the workings of a living body, not as a separate entity. Similar to Aristotle's view. Psychological and biological factors are inseparable, so there is no specific ailment that could be called psychosomatic.
Any disease is psychosomatic. In , Platanov wrote, "In light of the theory of the unity of mind and body, any somatic disease is indissolubly connected with the state of the patient's higher nervous activity. Pavlov dubbed his teacher Sechenov the "father of Russian physiology. Hence, all conscious movements resulting from these acts and usually described as voluntary are reflex movements in the strict sense of the term. Another foundation of his work: Sir Charles Sherrington's findings on the importance of excitation and inhibition in the workings of the spinal cord.
Parlov tried to show that excitation and inhibition were likewise evident in the workings of the brain. At turn of century, Pavlov began to investigate "psychic reflexes. When food placed in dog's mouth, dog would salivate. This reflex required no experience to be triggered by appropriate stimulus.
Pavlov found that other stimuli that bore no "wired-in" relation to salivation could also trigger salivary reflex if they regularly preceded food delivery.
First CS, then US. Pavlov devoted the rest of his life to studying these conditioned reflexes, as they came to be called. First translations of his "psychological" work into English were in Earlier impact on American thinking was word of mouth aand hearsay.
Developed a model of brain function based on fields of excitation and inhibition. His impact in America has been restricted to the bare flact of classical conditioning, the necessary conditions of association and the nature of the associations formed. To Pavlov, the conditioned response were merely the key to unlock the secrets of the brain.
Pavlov's approach is different from the S-R psychology of American behaviorism --it's an S-N neuronal process -R theory. Behavior of animals thought of as reflexive and automatic. Discovery of "psychic" or conditioned reflexes presented a dilemma. The new behavior couldn't be interpreted in the terms of human learning, but had to be simply a new reflex. So Pavlov expanded concet of reflex to include learned reactions, and behavior must reflect correspoding events in nervous system.
Pavlov did distinguish between the "first signal system," sensations arising from the outside world, and the "second signal system," which consists of stimuli that reach people in the form of speech. In his view the latter applied only to humans. Conditioned reflexes represent learning contingent on the first signal system.
Recent work with primates has shown than apes can respond to a sign language mediated second signal system, and apparently to dolphins and whales. Careful control of experimental situation needed. Difficult to condition a dog on the street due to distraction. Unstead of giving the CR, animal will be constantly producing investigative responses. To know the properties of a given response, must rule out distracting stimuli.
Now called orienting response. Occurs when individuals are concerned or naturally curious or an attention-gettig stimulus occurs. Sokolov's brain-systems theory. Heightened response is provided by ascending retuclar formation of brain, which also discharges arousal, making one sensitive to stimuli.
The researcher responsible for discovering classical conditioning was a) Skinner. b) Tolman. c) Kohler. d) Pavlov.
Start studying Psychology Unit 3 - Chapter 4. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.
In classical conditioning, an originally irrelevant stimulus that, after association with an unconditioned stimulus, comes to trigger a conditioned response. What did Pavlov's work do? Jan 30, · The researcher responsible for discovering classical conditioning was _____ A. Skinner B. Tolman C. Kohler D. PavlovStatus: Resolved.
chapters 5&6. Description. Learning & Memory. Total Cards. Subject. Psychology. Level. Undergraduate 2. The researcher responsible for discovering classical conditioning was ____ Definition. Ivan Paviov: _____ appears to be responsible for the storage of new long-term memories. If it is removed, the ability to store anything . counterconditioning a classical conditioning procedure for changing the relationship between a conditioned stimulus and its conditioned response aversive conditioning - a form of treatment that consists of Print › Ch 6 - Learning | Quizlet | Quizlet .