1 / 19

Classical conditioning

Classical conditioning. Sensitization, habituation, pseudoconditioning, and background conditioning S-S vs S-R theories...or is it something else?. Classical conditioning phenomena. Human conditioning studies Eyeblink conditioning Lemon-drop salivation conditioning Little Albert

paul
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. Classical conditioning Sensitization, habituation, pseudoconditioning, and background conditioning S-S vs S-R theories...or is it something else?

  2. Classical conditioning phenomena • Human conditioning studies • Eyeblink conditioning • Lemon-drop salivation conditioning • Little Albert • Typical acquisition and extinction curves • Optimal CS-US intervals are 200 – 700 ms • GSR conditioning has a 3 – 5 second interval

  3. (CS) Sensitization • In typical classical conditioning experiments, CS reliably precedes US: Contingency exists. • If contingency is not present, people will still come to respond to the CS as they experience the US: Sensitization. • Thus, sensitization to repeated presentations of the CS will produce responses that only look like conditioned responses. • Sensitization also occurs to repeated presentation of strong USs.

  4. Assessing sensitization • Compare two experimental conditions (groups) to see if response is a CR or a sensitization response. • Condition 1: CS reliably predicts US • Condition 2: CS occurs just as frequently, but does not reliably predict US • Could the Little Albert results be explained as sensitization? Was there a control condition? • Could sensitization explain why some students prefer to study with music playing?

  5. Habituation • UR magnitude decreases as US is presented repeatedly. • Habituation is less likely with stronger USs • Both sensitization and habituation show learning has taken place, but it is nonassociative learning. • Both may interfere with associative learning.

  6. Sniffy details • Sniffy is programmed to habituate to low-intensity shock USs, to sensitize to high-intensity shock USs, and to remain stable under moderate-intensity shock USs. • Sniffy output includes • Pain (mid-level unless sensitizing or habituating) • Fear, a result of conditioning or US presentation • CS response strength to various CSs, including the background (cage) • Movement ratio, measuring classical conditioning of fear • Suppression ratio, measuring effect on operant responding • The cumulative record of stimulus presentation and bar-press responses. Ignore this until we start operant conditioning.

  7. (US) Pseudoconditioning • Repeated presentations of a US may increase the likelihood of responding (with the UR) to any novel stimulus, even if it is not paired with the US as a CS. • Little Albert’s apparent conditioning to the rat CS may have been an artefact of the repeated loud noise US: pseudoconditioning.

  8. Assessing pseudoconditioning • Kimble, Mann & Dufort (1955): Human eyeblink conditioning • Group 1: 60 paired trials of light CS with airpuff US • Group 2: 20 paired trials, 20 US-only trials, 20 paired trials • Response patterns were the same in the last 20 trials. • The result cannot be due to associative learning in the middle 20 trials. • Test pseudoconditioning with unpaired control.

  9. Background conditioning • When the US is too strong to habituate, the US may become associated with the context or background of the learning situation. • Thus, in background conditioning, the individual associates the shock with the setting, such as the conditioning chamber.

  10. Conditioned inhibition • Inhibition develops in extinction (Pavlov) • Reactive inhibition (Hull) develops in repeated responding • Inhibition may be conditioned (Pavlov) • Training: • CS1(metronome)  US(food) • CS1(metronome) + CS2 (whistle)  No US

  11. Testing conditioned inhibition • CS1 (metronome)  CR(salivation) • CS1(metronome) + CS2(whistle)  No CR • Then, the summation test: • Train with a new CS: • CS3(touch nose) US(food) • Test response to CS2 + CS3? • Less responding: Conditioned inhibition.

  12. Classical conditioning theory • Watch Pavlov’s experiments. • If conditioning does involve association, what is being associated? • CS and US? • CS and UR/CR? • Is the learning S – S or S – R?

  13. S-S vs . S-R theories: What is associated? • Response prevention • Learning phase: CS + US  no UR • Testing phase: CS  CR • US devaluation • Learning phase: CS + US  CR/UR • Next, devalue the US through satiation • Test phase: CS  lessened CR

  14. Classical conditioning theory • S-S or S-R theories, continued: • Sensory preconditioning • Preconditioning phase: CS1 + CS2 OR • Conditioning phase: CS1 + US  UR • Test phase: CS1 CR. • CS2 ? • Response-prevention, US devaluation, and sensory preconditioning support S - S theory

  15. S - S or S - R ? • Second-order conditioning • Start with standard pairing of CS1 and US • CS1 CR • Then pair CS1 + CS2 • Test: CS2  CR • Then devalue US, or extinguish CS1 • Test: CS2 CR • Whether CS connects to US or CR depends on which is more salient

  16. A crucial test • Set up a second-order conditioning experiment: • CS1(light) + US1 (food)  UR1(salivation) • Test: CS1 (light)  CR1 (salivation) • CS2(buzzer) + CS1(light)  CR1(salivation) • Test: CS2 (buzzer)  CR1 (salivation) • Then: CS1 (light) + US2(shock)  UR2(leg lift) (Counterconditioning) • Test: CS2 CR1

  17. Changing representations • Covert conditioning • Autoshaping: Light + Food  Key peck • But start with Tone + Food  No key peck • Pair Tone + light in 2nd order conditioning • Autoshaping occurs • Supports S-S • US devaluation also shows changing representations.

  18. One more second-order experiment • First autoshape all pigeons to peck at a lighted key CS1, which is sometimes red, sometimes yellow. • CR is the key peck. • Add CS2 of either vertical or horizontal lines on lighted key. • One group then has simple CS1-CS2 pairings (red-vertical and yellow-horizontal), while the other group has complex pairings (sometimes red-vertical, sometimes red-horizontal, etc.). • Thus, group 1 has two trial types, and group 2 has four trial types. • S-S theory thus predicts better learning for group 1. • That is what happens.

  19. Pavlov’s studies • This video clip, a reenactment, shows Pavlov’s methods for • Measurement of UR and the salivary reflex • Discovery of classical conditioning • Testing different CSs

More Related