Comparing excitatory backward and forward conditioning

Three Pavlovian lick suppression studies with rats were conducted to compare the role of the conditioning context in excitatory backward and forward conditioning. The experiments explored the possibility that excitatory backward conditioning, but not forward conditioning, is mediated by the context. That is, in excitatory backward conditioning, the conditioning context may function as an excitatory mediator, which supports second-order conditioning of the target cue. This possibility contrasts with traditional accounts, which suggests that common processes underlie excitatory backward and forward conditioning. Experiment 1 found that conditioned responding following backward conditioning was attenuated as a result of posttraining extinction of the training context, but the same manipulation elevated responding after forward conditioning. Experiments 2 and 3 found that posttraining and pretraining associative inflation of the context (presenting unsignalled USs) increased conditioned responding to the target of a backward conditioning procedure but either had no effect or reduced responding to the target of a forward conditioning procedure. Thus, excitatory backward and forward conditioning appear to differ in their dependence on the status of the conditioning context.     

The decrement in conditioned fear with increased trials of simultaneous conditioning is not specific to the simultaneous procedure

Three experiments using a conditioned punishment paradigm with rat subjects examined the possibility that the nonmonotonic acquisition function previously found to characterize simultaneous conditioning was due to the noninformative nature of the conditioned stimulus (CS). In Experiment 1 the suppressive effects of a CS previously presented with an unconditioned stimulus (US) in a simultaneous and forward (informative) manner were compared following 20 and an additional 60 conditioning trials. Excitatory conditioning similarly diminished with increased trials for both the simultaneous and forward procedures. Experiment 2 employed a between-groups design. Simultaneous, forward, and trace conditioning procedures were compared following 20 or 100 trials. Each of the three 100-trial groups showed less resistance to extinction than their 20-trial counterparts. Experiment 3 determined that the decrement in excitatory conditioning for the 100-trial groups was not due to the greater number of US presentations, per se, but rather to the number of CS-US pairings. The nonmonotonic acquisition function observed with all three conditioning procedures indicated that informational factors were not responsible for the decrement observed in simultaneous conditioning. The pattern of results suggested that subjects receiving extended conditioning trials were better able to discriminate between training and testing.     

The pavlovian analysis of instrumental conditioning

An account was given of the development within the Russian literature of a uniprocess formulation of classical and instrumental conditioning, known as the bidirectional conditioning hypothesis. The hypothesis purports to offer a single set of Pavlovian principles to account for both paradigms, based upon a neural model which assumes that bidirectional (forward and backward) connections are formed in both classical and instrumental conditioning situations. In instrumental conditioning, the bidirectional connections are hypothesized to be simply more complex than those in classical conditioning, and any differences in empirical functions are presumed to lie not in difference in mechanism, but in the strength of the forward and backward connections. Although bidirectional connections are assumed to develop in instrumental conditioning, the experimental investigation of the bidirectional conditioning hypothesis has been essentially restricted to the classical conditioning operations of pairing two CSs (sensory preconditioning training), a US followed by a CS (backward conditioning training) and two USs. However, the paradigm involving the pairing of two USs, because of theoretical and analytical considerations, is the one most commonly employed by Russian investigators. The results of an initial experiment involving the pairing of two USs, and reference to the results of a more extensive investigation, leads us to tentatively question the validity of the bidirectional conditioning account of instrumental conditioning.     

Human evaluative conditioning: Order of stimulus presentation

In an experiment designed to demonstrate evaluative conditioning, subjects were shown 48 pictures of sculptures that they rated on a scale with 21 categories (?10 to +10). Then, the two most liked pictures (L) were paired with pictures from the categories ?1, 0, or +1 (N). In contrast to prior experiments, subjects were given either forward conditioning (N-L) or backward conditioning (L-N) trials but not both. Four other neutral stimuli were paired with each other (N-N) and acted as control stimulus pairs. After conditioning, the stimuli were rated a second time. There was a statistically significant difference in evaluative ratings showing a change of the evaluative tone of the previously neutral stimuli in a positive direction only after forward conditioning. This finding is inconsistent with results of prior experiments and challenges the assumption of Martin and Levey (1987) that evaluative conditioning is different from human classical conditioning.     

Relative effectiveness of concurrent forward/backward versus simple forward and simple backward Pavlovian conditioning procedures

Concurrent forward/backward Pavlovian conditioning procedures were compared with simple forward and simple backward procedures for differential excitatory and inhibitory conditioning. Four groups of dogs each received 30 shocks while restrained in a Pavlovian harness. One group of dogs (CON) received concurrent conditioning with a clicker signaling shocks and with a tone following shocks. For another group of dogs (SF), a clicker signaled the shocks, whereas the tone was randomly related to shocks. For a third group (SB), the tone followed shock termination, whereas the clicker was randomly related to shocks. For a fourth group (TRC), both the clicker and the tone were randomly related to shocks. All stimuli were then superimposed on a temporally paced avoidance baseline and their associative properties were assessed relative to the TRC group. Differential excitatory-inhibitory conditioning was significantly reduced in the concurrent procedure relative to that which occurred in the simple conditioning procedures despite exactly equal CS + -US and US-CS-contingencies. These results were interpreted with reference to contextual conditioning effects predicted by the Rescorla-Wagner conditioning model and the theoretical issue of independence vs. interdependence of CS-US associative strengths.     

Backward conditioning as an extinction procedure

In two conditioned suppression experiments, rats received Pavlovian forward defense conditioning in which tonal conditioned stimuli (CSs) terminated with the onset of scrambled grid shock unconditioned stimuli (USs). After this experience, the rats then received a Pavlovian backward conditioning procedure in which the same USs now terminated with the onset of the same CSs. Although the two experiments differed greatly in terms of CS and US parameters, number of forward and backward pairings, and in terms of the general techniques used to establish and measure the Pavlovian conditioned response (CR), the results of both experiments agreed in showing that backward conditioning can indeed weaken a CR based on forward pairings. The results also show that, under some conditions, the backward procedure can be at least as effective in weakening an established CR as the traditional CS-alone extinction procedure; but, under other conditions, the backward procedure is less effective and leads to more spontaneous recovery than the CS-alone procedure.     

Evidence of the origin of specific spontaneous head turns during intertrial intervals

Direction and the frequency of spontaneous head movements during the ITIs following forward and backward paired trials were compared to an acquisition of a conditioned orienting (alpha) response directed to the side of the tone source. The head movements were analyzed from video recordings using classification of head turns to preferred and to nonpreferred directions. The results showed a significant increase in the alpha responses during the forward paired conditioning to the preferred direction and rapid extinction during the subsequent backward conditioning sessions. Spontaneous head movements during the ITIs increased to the same preferred direction as the conditioned alpha responses. The results of this experiment suggest that the response initially elicited by the CS can later appear as “spontaneous,” instrumental behavior, the form and the nature of which is determined by the characteristics of the conditioned alpha response developing as a result of classical conditioning.     

A functional analysis of social reinforcement in vicarious verbal conditioning

This article reports the results of 629 subjects in three experiments designed to replicate and extend the phenomenon of vicarious verbal conditioning. Experiment I replicated the finding that subjects who responded most to vicarious verbal conditioning were aware of the contingency involved. Experiment II attempted to examine the effects of prior history with the verbal reinforcer on vicarious verbal conditioning by providing seven groups of subjects with varying classic conditioning histories prior to vicarious verbal conditioning. The null results associated with this experiment were hypothesized to be due to the fact that the vicarious verbal conditioning took place in a language laboratory where the subjects could hear but not see the model. Experiment III replicated Experiment II in a live group context as was done in Experiment I. The results showed a) that vicarious verbal conditioning was again found to take place, b) that associating the verbal reinforcer with a tone or tone plus money via forward classic conditioning potentiated the effects of the verbal reinforcer, c) that backward classic conditioning did not potentiate the reinforcer, d) nor did either of two sensitization procedures potentiate the effects of the verbal reinforcer. Both aware and unaware subjects evidenced vicarious verbal conditioning.     

Differential effects of forward or simultaneous conditioned stimulus-unconditioned stimulus intervals on the defensive behavior system of the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus)

To test several predictions derived from a behavior-systems approach, the authors assessed Pavlovian fear conditioning in rats after 30 trials of forward, simultaneous, or unpaired training. Direct evidence of conditioned fear was collected through observation of flight and freezing reactions during presentations of the conditioned stimulus (CS) alone. The authors also tested the CS's potential to reinforce an instrumental escape response in an escape-from-fear paradigm. On the one hand, rats that received forward training showed conditioned freezing, but no conditioned flight was observed. On the other hand, rats that received simultaneous training showed conditioned flight, but no conditioned freezing was observed. Rats that received either forward or simultaneous pairings showed instrumental learning of the escape-from-fear response. Implications for several theories of Pavlovian conditioning are discussed.     

Changing minds in a changing world

I defend a general rule for updating beliefs that takes into account both the impact of new evidence and changes in the subject??s location. The rule combines standard conditioning with a ??shifting?? operation that moves the center of each doxastic possibility forward to the next point where information arrives. I show that well-known arguments for conditioning lead to this combination when centered information is taken into account. I also discuss how my proposal relates to other recent proposals, what results it delivers for puzzles like the Sleeping Beauty problem, and whether there are diachronic constraints on rational belief at all.     

Palatability shifts in taste and flavour preference conditioning

Changes in palatability of tastes and flavours as a result of flavour preference conditioning were examined. In Experiment 1, when tastes were paired with glucose in a reverse-order differential conditioning paradigm, rats acquired conditioned preferences for CS + and displayed more hedonic responses to CS + than to CS - in a postconditioning taste reactivity test. In Experiment 2, rats that received oral infusions of flavours as CSs during a reverse-order conditioning procedure expressed both palatability shifts and conditioned preferences for CS + . Rats that received a forward conditioning procedure acquired a preference for CS + , but the palatability of CS + was unchanged. In Experiment 3, hungry rats drank mixtures of a flavour CS and a calorific or sweet tasting reinforcer in a long-exposure conditioning paradigm. When tested hungry, rats preferred CS + whether they had acquired flavour-calorie or flavour-taste associations. However, CS + became more palatable only for rats that acquired flavour-calorie associations. These results suggest that acquisition of flavour preferences, as measured by 2-bottle tests, may not always be accompanied by enhanced palatability.     

Reasoning rats: forward blocking in Pavlovian animal conditioning is sensitive to constraints of causal inference

Forward blocking is one of the best-documented phenomena in Pavlovian animal conditioning. According to contemporary associative learning theories, forward blocking arises directly from the hardwired basic learning rules that govern the acquisition or expression of associations. Contrary to this view, here the authors demonstrate that blocking in rats is flexible and sensitive to constraints of causal inference, such as violation of additivity and ceiling considerations. This suggests that complex cognitive processes akin to causal inferential reasoning are involved in a well-established Pavlovian animal conditioning phenomenon commonly attributed to the operation of basic associative processes.     

Aversive and positive conditioning treatments of homosexuality

Thirty-one male homosexual patients were randomly allocated to receive either aversive therapy, in which unpleasant shocks were associated with pictures of nude males; or positive conditioning, in which pictures of nude women were associated with similar pictures of men and later with pictures of heterosexual relationships. The patients were further randomly allocated to receive either procedure according to a forward or backward conditioning paradigm. Before, 3 weeks and 1 yr following 5 days of treatment, the patients were shown a film containing at 1-min intervals 10-sec segments of pictures of nude women or men. During this and all treatment procedures their penile volume responses were measured.

The positive conditioning technique proved ineffective and hence acted as a placebo treatment control for the aversive therapy. Patients reported significantly greater reduction in homosexual feelings and behaviour following the latter. After both the aversive and the positive conditioning technique, patients showed significantly less penile volume increase to the pictures of men. There was no trend for this change to be greater following aversive therapy. It was concluded that this therapy reduced the secondary reinforcement value of homosexual stimuli but did not alter sexual orientation.     

Time-dependent changes in conditioned suppression

Time-dependent changes in a response following aversive conditioning were investigated using a conditioned suppression procedure in a within-subjects design. Four groups of pigeons received Pavlovian conditioning “off the baseline”, immediately followed by an operant task. During the Pavlovian phase, two groups received a forward pairing of a tone with shock, one group received a backward pairing, and one group received a truly random pairing. One of the forward pairing groups also received a delay between the Pavlovian and operant phases. For all groups, key pecking was reinforced on a variable-interval schedule during the operant phase. Testing sessions were identical to training sessions, except that the tone used during Pavlovian conditioning was presented either 0, 15, 30, 45, of 60 minutes after the operant phase began. Testing sessions in which the Pavlovian phase was omitted were also included. The results showed suppression to change as a function of the retention interval, with maximum suppression occurring at intermediate intervals. This U-shaped function was obtained for 11 of the 12 pigeons in the forward-pairing groups and for three of the five in the truly random group. Pigeons in the background pairing group did not show changes in suppression as a function of the retention interval.     

Conditioned inhibition of fear: Evidence for a competing response mechanism

In two experiments, inhibitory conditioning was attempted by presenting a discrete CS in a neutral stimulus environment shortly following the termination of either shock (Experiment 1) or a second discrete CS which had been paired in a forward manner with shock (Experiment 2). Evidence of successful inhibitory conditioning was mixed in Experiment 1, where the properties of the CS were assessed within an escape-from-fear procedure. Postresponse presentations of the CS enhanced performance, whereas the presentation of the CS prior to responding did not have the expected degrading effect on performance. In Experiment 2, the inhibitory properties of the CS were assessed by combining this stimulus with an excitatory CS and presenting the compound to rats engaged in a water-reinforced licking response. Less response suppression was found in reaction to this compound relative to three separate comparison conditions, thus witnessing the success of the inhibitory-conditioning procedure used. The common assumption that inhibitory conditioning results from the nonreinforcement of a CS in a situation where reinforcement is expected, i.e., one which contains previously reinforced cues, is not supported by these data, for no previously reinforced cues were simultaneously presented with the CS during inhibitory training. The data are in agreement with a conditioned antagonistic-response interpretation of inhibitory conditioning.     

状态焦虑对条件恐惧习得和消退的影响

采用44名正常女性大学生作为被试, 通过心理社会压力暴露的方法诱发焦虑组被试的状态焦虑, 采用主观预期值作为指标, 考察焦虑对条件恐惧习得和消退的直接影响, 并探讨这种影响是否也表现在评价性条件作用上。结果表明：心理社会压力暴露显著提高了焦虑组被试的状态焦虑。在习得阶段, 状态焦虑降低了被试对条件刺激的辨别条件恐惧反应, 具体而言, 状态焦虑降低了被试对CS+的主观预期值, 但是却提高了对CS?的主观预期值; 在消退阶段, 状态焦虑抑制了被试对条件刺激的消退。状态焦虑的影响也表现在评价性条件作用上, 和控制组相比, 焦虑组在习惯化和消退阶段对条件刺激表现出了更为负性的效价评定。     

Pavlovian Conditioning to a Diazepam Cue with Yohimbine as the Unconditional Stimulus

On multiple occasions, rats were administered diazepam (2.0 mg/kg, ip) followed 30 min thereafter by yohimbine hydrochloride (2.5 or 5.0 mg/kg) or isotonic saline (forward conditioning groups). Three additional groups (backward conditioning controls) were given equivalent injections, but in reverse order. After eight such pairings, the effects of a single injection of diazepam on motor performance (balancing on a rotating drum) was assessed. Rats that had received either dose of yohimbine during forward conditioning trials maintained their balance longer than the saline controls. After four additional conditioning trials, the animals’ activity patterns in a plus-maze screening test for anxiolytics were examined. Placed into the maze after a single test injection of isotonic saline, the behavior of all groups was virtually identical: less than 16% of total entries into or time spent in the four arms of the maze was spent in the two “open” arms (unprotected by surrounding walls). When tested in the maze again, but 35 min after a single injection of diazepam, the groups that had received diazepam but not yohimbine during the conditioning phase exhibited the expected increase in open-arm activity, and equivalent increases were found in backward conditioning groups. However, the group previously conditioned with 2.5 mg/kg of yohimbine following diazepam also showed an increased open-arm activity when tested with diazepam alone, but it was significantly greater than that seen in the control group. In contrast, the group conditioned with 5.0 mg/kg yohimbine following diazepam exhibited no effect of diazepam upon their plus maze activity; consequently, these animals spent less time in the open arms than either of the other groups. Yohimbine alone normally decreases open-arm activity (a putative “anxiogenic” effect) in a linear dose-dependent fashion. The fact that it had a bidirectional conditional effect on the diazepam cue drug demonstrates that a conditional response in drug → drug conditioning cannot always be predicted on the basis of the behavioral response to the signaled drug. Consideration is given to possible reasons for these effects of diazepam → yohimbine pairings in terms of the known neuropharmacological properties of yohimbine.     

Overshadowing of subsequent events and recovery thereafter

Four experiments using a conditioned lick suppression preparation with rats were conducted to examine whether overshadowing of subsequent events could be obtained in Pavlovian backward conditioning (i.e. unconditioned stimulus [US] before conditioned stimulus [CS]), and to determine whether such overshadowing could be reversed without further training with the overshadowed CS, as has been reported in overshadowing of antecedent events. In Experiment 1, a backward-conditioned CS overshadowed a second backward-conditioned CS. Two posttraining manipulations, extinction of the overshadowing CS (Experiment 2) and shifting of the temporal relationship of the overshadowing CS to the US (Experiment 3), increased responding to the overshadowed CS. These results constitute the first unambiguous demonstration of stimulus competition between subsequent events using first-order conditioning, and they show that, like overshadowing with forward conditioning, such overshadowing is due, at least in part if not completely, to a failure to express information that had been acquired.     

Forward and backward second-order Pavlovian conditioning in honeybees

Second-order conditioning (SOC) is the association of a neutral stimulus with another stimulus that had previously been combined with an unconditioned stimulus (US). We used classical conditioning of the proboscis extension response (PER) in honeybees (Apis mellifera) with odors (CS) and sugar (US). Previous SOC experiments in bees were inconclusive, and, therefore, we attempted to demonstrate SOC in the following three experiments: (Experiment 1) After differential conditioning (pairing odor A with US and presenting odor B without US), the bees experienced two pairs of partially overlapping odors, either a new odor C followed by a previously reinforced odor A (C-A) or a new odor C followed by a previously nonreinforced odor B (C-B). (Experiment 2) After differential conditioning, bees were presented with C-A or A-C. (Experiment 3) Bees were first presented with C-A or A-C before differential conditioning and were tested with odor C. We observed: (Experiment 1) 40% of the bees showed PER to the C-A presentation, but only 20% showed PER to the C-B presentation. (Experiment 2) 40% of the bees showed PER to the C-A presentation, while only 20% showed PER to the reversed sequence A-C. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that a previously reinforced odor can be a secondary reinforcer for excitatory SOC only with forward-pairing. (Experiment 3) PER toward C was lower (15%) in bees presented with A-C than with C-A (25%). This showed that backward SOC is not as effective as forward SOC. These results help to delineate different conditions that are critical for the phenomenon of SOC.     

Simultaneous conditioning in honeybees (Apis mellifera).

Honeybees (Apis mellifera) were classically conditioned with odor as conditioned stimulus (CS), sucrose as unconditioned stimulus (US), and proboscis extension as response. The purpose of Experiment 1 (Ns = 26 and 27) was to look for facilitation of forward conditioning by CS-US overlap, but rapid conditioning without overlap left little room for improvement. In 2 further experiments, CS and US were simultaneous, and response to odor alone was measured in subsequent tests. In Experiment 2, a Simultaneous group (N = 25) responded more to the training odor than did an Unpaired control group (N = 25). In Experiment 3, a differentially conditioned Simultaneous group (N = 29) responded more to an odor paired with sucrose in training (S+) than to an odor presented alone (S-). The implications of the results for the problem of the role of amount of reward in honeybee learning are considered.