Manipulation of response-contingent unconditioned-stimulus intensity in human eyelid conditioning: A two-phase model analysis

Four groups of human subjects were given 360 classical eyeblink conditioning trials. All groups received the same UCS (unconditioned stimulus) intensity on[Formula: see text] (nonconditioned response) trials but differed in the intensity presented on CR trials. Response probability increased as a positive function of UCS intensity on CR trials. Phase 1 of the two-phase model was longer when no UCS was presented on CR trials, but did not differ in duration among the remaining three groups. Most subjects could be described with a single operator in Phase 2, the operator limit increasing as a positive function of CR-contingent UCS intensity. For subjects requiring different operator limits on CR and[Formula: see text] trials, the latter was lower with high CR-trial intensities but higher with low CR-trialintensities. The results were interpreted to be more consistent with drive theory than with "law-of-effect" or two-factor theories.