1 / 41

Classical Conditioning

Lecture 4 Chapter 3 - Principles & Applications . Classical Conditioning . Strength of Conditioning . British Associationists . 3 Laws of Association. 1. Contiguity: which sequence works best?. 2. Frequency: How long do we have to pair? . 3. Intensity: stronger intensity?. CS/UCS.

chantel
Download Presentation

Classical Conditioning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lecture 4 Chapter 3 - Principles & Applications Classical Conditioning Strength of Conditioning

  2. British Associationists 3 Laws of Association 1. Contiguity: which sequence works best? 2. Frequency: How long do we have to pair? 3. Intensity: stronger intensity? CS/UCS Method in which to CC

  3. 1. Sequencing of CS/UCS – Types of Conditioning –Which works Best? TIME UCS Trace CS Delay CS CS Simultaneous CS Backward

  4. Which Sequence works best? TIME UCS TRACE* .5 SEC CS DELAY** CS ???? Got Contiguity CS Simultaneous CS Backward

  5. Instances of Simultaneous Conditioning Working: Sensory Preconditioning: Learning results from a procedure where 2 NS are presented together then one is paired with a UCS

  6. Sensory Preconditioning (DOGS – shock to paw): Compound stimulus - simultaneously Step #1 Step #2 Step #3 NS NS Why does learning work here?

  7. Simultaneous Conditioning: NS NS Normal CS UCS paring… UCS is more powerful stimulus = attention diverted away from CS (distracted) during simultaneous Overshadowing: differential conditioning to one element of a compound stimulus when stimuli are represented simultaneously (overshadowing of CS because of the UCS) …adaptation…selective conditioning…

  8. CS-UCS Interval Interstimulus Interval (ISI): interval between the onset of CS & the onset of UCS Trace Conditioning About 500 msec No conditioning at 2 seconds On general the shorter the ISI the better the conditioning

  9. 2. Frequency of Pairing Conditioning is best: early trials (30) then asymptote

  10. 3. Intensity: strength of association affected by vividness or intensity of stimuli Rats No fear .50 Tone (CS) paired with Shock (UCS) Greater intensity (mA) Tone elicited greater suppression (of lever press=freezing=fear)

  11. The measurement of fear in rats… Are you afraid??? …feces …urine Conditioned Emotional Response (Estes & Skinner, 1941) • CER: measure of fear – freeze – • Immobility = fear • (experimenter not present – objective measure) • Procedure: • condition rat to level press • FR1 • Then FR20 • Once rat continually pressed bar introduce “fear factor” • Responding on level press reduced  animal freezes

  12. Strength of Association (get better CC) Contiguity: pairing of 2 events – trace & delay CS/UCS Frequency early trials Intensity

  13. Robert Rescorla 1940 —

  14. 1966 – Robert Rescorla (age of 26!!!) Concept of Contingency It might not be as simple as the pairing of A CS & UCS (contiguity) that leads to conditioning (learning) BUT a predictable, CONTINGENT, relationship between the two stimuli An “If” “then” relationship If one event a) occurs, another event b) Will follow If /then predictability - CS must be a good predictor of the UCS

  15. 1966 – Robert Rescorla Seminal Paper!!! Is it just associations? Pairings of events??? E1 E2 Contiguity

  16. Contingency: a statistic derived from 2 probabilities phi coefficient (non parametric test) The probability that the UCS will occur in the presence of CS P (US CS) The probability that the UCS will occur in the absence of CS P (US no CS) p (shock l tone) = 0.10 P(shock l no tone) = 0.10 No predictive value = .10-.10=0 p (shock l tone) = 1.00 P(shock l no tone) = 0 predictive value 1.00-0=1.00

  17. 1966 – Robert Rescorla Seminal Paper!!! Is it just associations…. Pairings of events??? E1 E2 Contingency UCS occur when CS UCS occurs w/o CS

  18. Table 2.1 Outline of One of the Rescorla (1967) Conditioning Experiments. Results: Groups 2 and 4 show conditioning. Groups 1 and 3 do not show conditioning. Conclusion: The CS must predict something.

  19. Strength of Conditioning CS/UCS Contiguity Frequency Intensity Contingency: CS must be a reliable predictor

  20. Can anything be turned into a CS? “Any natural phenomenon chosen at will may be converted into a conditioned stimulus…any visual stimulus, any desired sound, any odor, and stimulation of any part of the skin” (Pavlov, 1928) “Equipotentiality Hypothesis”

  21. Garcia & Koellings (1966) 2nd Seminal Paper Preparedness: The tendency to associate some CS-UCS combinations more readily then others (selective association) Garcia & Koellings (1966) Conditioned Taste-Aversion Learning Development of a severe negative reaction to a food item due to pairing the food with illness or other aversive stimulation

  22. Garcia & Koellings (1966) Rats have “Bait Shyness”: one trial learning… One taste of poison & will not eat again However will go back to the place where the poison was encountered Did the rat learn only taste-aversion? Selectively learn?…where’s contiguity? Only associated taste & odor not visual cues?

  23. UCS CS Irradiation/Xray Water with Light & Noise (bright, noisy water) Electric shock Irradiation/Xray Sweetened Water Electric shock Garcia & Koellings (1966)

  24. Garcia & Koellings (1966) CS only X-ray-ill CS only Shock

  25. Findings by Garcia & Koelling Extremely important! Demonstrated for the first time that certain CS-US combos (taste-aversion) could not be conditioned Preparedness! Animals are preprogrammed or predisposed to learn certain connections

  26. Garcia & Koellings (1966) Conditioned Taste-Aversion Learning Argued that those connection that make sense in an organism’s natural habitat would under go conditioning more readily animals learned taste aversion bright lights & tones not usually associated with illness from ingesting Something..but TASTE IS! When X ray paired with sweet water

  27. Garcia & Koellings (1966) Conditioned Taste-Aversion Learning Argued that those connections that make sense in an organism’s natural habitat would under go conditioning more readily animals learned taste aversion sweetened water (taste) is usually not associated with noise & painful stimulation...but shock IS! When light & tone paired with shock ..loud noises could potentially signal Dangerous situations like lightning, Tree crashing down…predator…

  28. Shift in Paradigm Paper first published in Psychonomics Science? Rejected!!!! DID NOT FOLLOW Laws of Association Disbelief in results Contiguity

  29. Strength of Conditioning UCS/CS Contiguity Frequency Intensity contingency preparedness

  30. another finding against contiguity- Blocking Occurs when initial conditioning to a CS1 impairs later conditioning to a another CS2 Kamin (1969) Used noise & light paired with shock CR= fear Rats (CER) Pretraining Conditioning Blocking N shock NLshock Control NLshock Control grp:noise alone & light caused fear Blocking grp: only noise caused fear…conditioning with noise blocked light from being associated

  31. Mary Cover Jones • “mother of Behavioral Therapy” • Johnston, PA • Vassar College • “took every class in Psych” • Graduated in 1919 • Attended weekend lecture… • J.B. Watson • Little Peter – fear of rabbits 1987-1987

  32. 1st application of Using Counter Conditioning

  33. Behavioral Therapy vs Psychotherapy behavioral therapy mind environment behavior psychotherapy

  34. Behavioral Therapy vs Psychotherapy behavioral therapy mind environment behavior Change environment

  35. Behavioral Therapy vs Psychotherapy mind environment behavior Psychotherapist

  36. What works best? • Ex: Enuresis • Psychotherapy: • Underlying Psychological issue why • child wets the bed • long term therapy •  $$$$$$$$ • Behavioral Therapy: • Train child to associate bladder function • with awakening… • Minimal cost for pad • Few trials

More Related