Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Michael Markham

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 4. Data for Subjects 4 and 5 from Phase 1 symmetry and equivalence tests. Percentage correct over successive blocks of testing.

Figure 4 Data for Subjects 4 and 5 from Phase 1 symmetry and equivalence tests. Percentage correct over successive blocks of testing.

Related Figures (12)

Fig. 2. Schematic overview of procedural phases for Experiment 1. The study consisted of three phases (see Fig- ure 2). The first involved the training of two four-member stimulus equivalence classes. The second involved “on baseline” discriminated classical conditioning, with one symbol from the first equivalence class serving as a positive conditional stimulus (CS+) and one symbol from the second class serving as a negative conditional stimulus (CS—). Electric shock served as the unconditional stimulus (US). The classical conditioning procedure was presented while the subject was engaged in an operant key-press task. The operant task was used for two reasons. First, it served as a way to keep the subject’s attention focused on the computer screen on which the CSs were presented. Sec- ond, we originally intended to use disruption of operant responding by the CS (conditioned emotional responding, e.g., Lyon, 1968) as a measure of classical conditioning. These data, however, proved to be very unreliable and are not reported. cn ob ee es If... ,..... fe
Fig. 2. Schematic overview of procedural phases for Experiment 1. The study consisted of three phases (see Fig- ure 2). The first involved the training of two four-member stimulus equivalence classes. The second involved “on baseline” discriminated classical conditioning, with one symbol from the first equivalence class serving as a positive conditional stimulus (CS+) and one symbol from the second class serving as a negative conditional stimulus (CS—). Electric shock served as the unconditional stimulus (US). The classical conditioning procedure was presented while the subject was engaged in an operant key-press task. The operant task was used for two reasons. First, it served as a way to keep the subject’s attention focused on the computer screen on which the CSs were presented. Sec- ond, we originally intended to use disruption of operant responding by the CS (conditioned emotional responding, e.g., Lyon, 1968) as a measure of classical conditioning. These data, however, proved to be very unreliable and are not reported. cn ob ee es If... ,..... fe
Shock levels selected by each subject for use in conditioning during Experiment 1.
Shock levels selected by each subject for use in conditioning during Experiment 1.
Trial types used in training and testing two four-member equivalence classes. The operant task was a key press for which points were awarded on a fixed ratio (FR) 250 reinforcement schedule. The points were tal- lied on the computer monitor and were visible to the subject throughout the task. A 5-min baseline on the operant task was taken before classical conditioning began. Table 2 For classical conditioning, B1 served as the CS+ and B2 served as the CS—. Stimulus duration varied randomly between 20 and 40 s to minimize temporal conditioning (Sachs & May, 1969). A delayed conditioning procedure (Kamin, 1965) was used, in which B1 ter- minated with the onset of the shock. The stim- uli were presented in a semirandom order, with the constraint that no more than two B1 or B2 presentations could occur sequentially. The interstimulus interval varied from 90 to 150 s to minimize temporal conditioning ef- fects, and the stimuli were always presented within 10 s of point delivery via the operant task. There was a total of six B1 and six B2
Trial types used in training and testing two four-member equivalence classes. The operant task was a key press for which points were awarded on a fixed ratio (FR) 250 reinforcement schedule. The points were tal- lied on the computer monitor and were visible to the subject throughout the task. A 5-min baseline on the operant task was taken before classical conditioning began. Table 2 For classical conditioning, B1 served as the CS+ and B2 served as the CS—. Stimulus duration varied randomly between 20 and 40 s to minimize temporal conditioning (Sachs & May, 1969). A delayed conditioning procedure (Kamin, 1965) was used, in which B1 ter- minated with the onset of the shock. The stim- uli were presented in a semirandom order, with the constraint that no more than two B1 or B2 presentations could occur sequentially. The interstimulus interval varied from 90 to 150 s to minimize temporal conditioning ef- fects, and the stimuli were always presented within 10 s of point delivery via the operant task. There was a total of six B1 and six B2
Fig. 3. Data for Subjects 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 from Phase 1 symmetry and equivalence tests. Percentage correct ove1 successive blocks of testing.
Fig. 3. Data for Subjects 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 from Phase 1 symmetry and equivalence tests. Percentage correct ove1 successive blocks of testing.
Fig. 5. Peak skin-conductance levels for the B1 probe trial and during the test for transfer to all other stimuli for all subjects.
Fig. 5. Peak skin-conductance levels for the B1 probe trial and during the test for transfer to all other stimuli for all subjects.
1966; Rosen & Leitenberg, 1982; Stampfl & Levis, 1967). However, these intervention: typically result in a reduction in responding to a set of stimuli, not just to the specific stimul targeted in the intervention. A fundamenta question here is why the reduction in feat spreads to stimuli that are not specifically in. cluded in treatment and that bear no physica or formal similarity to the target stimulus. One possibility is that the set of fear-eliciting stim- uli are members of an equivalence class, anc extinction to one member of the class transfer: to the other members. Experiment 2 investi: gated this possibility. In order to test for the transfer of extinction it was decided to condition all of the members of an equivalence class, present one member in extinction, and then test for the transfer of extinction to the other members. In an attempt to replicate Experiment 1, after the test for transfer of extinction, one member of the class used in the original conditioning procedure was selected for reconditioning. Subsequently, the transfer of the reconditioning effects to the other members of the class was examined. Be- cause the transfer of respondent elicitation to the Class 1 stimuli was examined subsequent to the initial conditioning and transfer of ex- tinction procedures, the present study is not a direct replication of Experiment 1. Neverthe-
1966; Rosen & Leitenberg, 1982; Stampfl & Levis, 1967). However, these intervention: typically result in a reduction in responding to a set of stimuli, not just to the specific stimul targeted in the intervention. A fundamenta question here is why the reduction in feat spreads to stimuli that are not specifically in. cluded in treatment and that bear no physica or formal similarity to the target stimulus. One possibility is that the set of fear-eliciting stim- uli are members of an equivalence class, anc extinction to one member of the class transfer: to the other members. Experiment 2 investi: gated this possibility. In order to test for the transfer of extinction it was decided to condition all of the members of an equivalence class, present one member in extinction, and then test for the transfer of extinction to the other members. In an attempt to replicate Experiment 1, after the test for transfer of extinction, one member of the class used in the original conditioning procedure was selected for reconditioning. Subsequently, the transfer of the reconditioning effects to the other members of the class was examined. Be- cause the transfer of respondent elicitation to the Class 1 stimuli was examined subsequent to the initial conditioning and transfer of ex- tinction procedures, the present study is not a direct replication of Experiment 1. Neverthe-
Shock levels selected by each subject for use in conditioning during Experiment 2. less, the transfer of respondent elicitation is assessed. Table 3
Shock levels selected by each subject for use in conditioning during Experiment 2. less, the transfer of respondent elicitation is assessed. Table 3
Subject and Review Committee. As in Experi- ment 1, each subject received one to three 200-ms sample shocks to determine an ac- ceptable level of shock for each subject. No subject selected a shock level below 1.0 mA (see Table 3).
Subject and Review Committee. As in Experi- ment 1, each subject received one to three 200-ms sample shocks to determine an ac- ceptable level of shock for each subject. No subject selected a shock level below 1.0 mA (see Table 3).
Fig. 9. Skin-conductance levels during conditioning, the test for transfer of extinction, and the test for transfer of respondent elicitation for Subjects 9 through 12.
Fig. 9. Skin-conductance levels during conditioning, the test for transfer of extinction, and the test for transfer of respondent elicitation for Subjects 9 through 12.
Fig. 10. Skin-conductance responses during conditioning, the test for transfer of extinction, and the test for transfe of respondent elicitation for Subjects 9 through 12.
Fig. 10. Skin-conductance responses during conditioning, the test for transfer of extinction, and the test for transfe of respondent elicitation for Subjects 9 through 12.
Related topics:
PsychologyCognitive ScienceClassical ConditioningSkin conductanceStimulus EquivalenceThe Experimental Analysis of Behavior
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved