The influence of CS-US interval on several different indices of learning in appetitive conditioning.

Andrew R Delamater, Peter C Holland
Author Information
  1. Andrew R Delamater: Department of Psychology, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, Brooklyn, New York 11210, USA. andrewd@brooklyn.cuny.edu

Abstract

Four experiments examined the effects of varying the conditioned stimulus-unconditioned stimulus (CS-US) interval (and US density) on learning in an appetitive magazine approach task with rats. Learning was assessed with conditioned response (CR) measures, as well as measures of sensory-specific stimulus-outcome associations (Pavlovian-instrumental transfer, potentiated feeding, and US devaluation). The results from these studies indicate that there exists an inverse relation between CS-US interval and magazine approach CRs, but that sensory-specific stimulus-outcome associations are established over a wide range of relatively long, but not short, CS-US intervals. These data suggest that simple CR measures provide different information about what is learned than measures of the specific stimulus-outcome association, and that time is a more critical variable for the former than latter component of learning.

References

  1. Behav Processes. 1998 Dec;44(2):163-82 [PMID: 24896973]
  2. Physiol Behav. 2005 Dec 15;86(5):717-30 [PMID: 16257019]
  3. Science. 1983 Apr 22;220(4595):431-3 [PMID: 6836286]
  4. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1985;443:22-41 [PMID: 3860073]
  5. Physiol Behav. 2007 Feb 28;90(2-3):362-7 [PMID: 17078980]
  6. Psychol Rev. 1958 Jan;65(1):22-33 [PMID: 13505979]
  7. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2005 Jan;31(1):31-9 [PMID: 15656725]
  8. Physiol Behav. 2007 May 16;91(1):95-105 [PMID: 17346758]
  9. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2006 Nov;59(11):1875-908 [PMID: 16987779]
  10. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1980 Apr;6(2):155-74 [PMID: 7373230]
  11. J Neurosci. 2005 Jan 26;25(4):962-70 [PMID: 15673677]
  12. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2004 Apr;30(2):104-17 [PMID: 15078120]
  13. Physiol Behav. 2002 May 1;76(1):117-29 [PMID: 12175595]
  14. Cognition. 1990 Nov;37(1-2):105-31 [PMID: 2269004]
  15. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1986 Apr;12(2):143-52 [PMID: 3701263]
  16. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1979 Jan;5(1):65-78 [PMID: 528879]
  17. J Neurosci. 1999 Mar 1;19(5):1876-84 [PMID: 10024371]
  18. Behav Neurosci. 2005 Feb;119(1):317-22 [PMID: 15727536]
  19. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1988 Jul;14(3):261-79 [PMID: 3404081]
  20. Eur J Neurosci. 2003 Apr;17(8):1680-94 [PMID: 12752386]
  21. Psychol Rev. 2000 Apr;107(2):289-344 [PMID: 10789198]

Grants

  1. R01 MH065879/NIMH NIH HHS
  2. R01 MH065879-05/NIMH NIH HHS
  3. 065947/Wellcome Trust
  4. 67378/PHS HHS
  5. 065879/Wellcome Trust

MeSH Term

Animals
Appetitive Behavior
Association Learning
Conditioning, Classical
Conditioning, Operant
Male
Motivation
Rats
Rats, Long-Evans
Rats, Sprague-Dawley
Reinforcement Schedule
Time Factors
Transfer, Psychology

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0CS-USmeasuresintervallearningstimulus-outcomeconditionedUSappetitivemagazineapproachCRsensory-specificassociationsdifferentFourexperimentsexaminedeffectsvaryingstimulus-unconditionedstimulusdensitytaskratsLearningassessedresponsewellPavlovian-instrumentaltransferpotentiatedfeedingdevaluationresultsstudiesindicateexistsinverserelationCRsestablishedwiderangerelativelylongshortintervalsdatasuggestsimpleprovideinformationlearnedspecificassociationtimecriticalvariableformerlattercomponentinfluenceseveralindicesconditioning

Similar Articles

Cited By