Karteikarten
Classical Conditioning
Karten in diesem Stapel (32)
- 1Associative learningtwo events occur together, learn about relationship between them
- 2Pavlovdigestive system
looking at saliva
dogs salivate before food was presented - 3Standard paradigmUS: elicit response without prior training (food)
UR: innate response (salivation)
NS>CS: does not elicit UR (bell)
CR: when UR occurs from presentation of CS (salivation from bell) - 4Basic experiment + measuring conditioningFood > salivation
Bell: Food > salivation
Bell > salivation
Intersperse training trials with test trials (CS>CR) to measure conditioning - 5Second order conditioningCS serves as US to support new conditioning
Bell: food > salivation
Bell > salivation
Light: bell > salivation
Light > salivation - 6Sensory preconditioning (bell + light)two NS paired and then ONE is paired with a US
Light : bell
Bell : food > salivation
bell > salivation
light > salivation - 7Contemporary conditioning: AutoshapingReinforcing approximations of target behaviour
teaching pigeons to associate light with receiving food which they peck for
eventually began pecking when light turned on
could transform into operant behaviour - has to peck for food - 8Contemporary conditioning: eyeblinkLight/ tone : air puff > blink
Light/ tone elicits blink just before US occurs - 9Taste aversionrobust
strong aversion after single trial
associations can be formed when subject is unconscious - 10Taste aversion: nature of conditioned/ unconditioned stimulusaversion rapid if CS is novel
familiar foods less likely to become aversions
US usually nausea drug or radiation - 11Taste aversion: Garcial and Koellingflavoured or normal water
given radiation
consumption of flavoured water NOT normal water decreased - 12Food aversion: cancer anorexia Broberg and Bernstein studyweight loss due to taste aversion learning
Used candy as scapegoat between meal and chemo
Children twice as likely to eat some of test meal if they had received scapegoat - 13Contemporary conditioning: Fear conditioningsubject trained to engage in behaviour (press lever > get pellet)
fear introduced - 30sec tone and 1sec shock
UR: jump, flinch, freeze
eventually lever pressing decreases in presence of CS
Lever pressing for food behaviour can be used to indirectly measure extent to which CS elicits fear - 14Suppression ratiosCS response/ CS response + pre-CS response
total suppression = 0
partial suppression = 0-0.5
no suppression = 0.5
low ration = less responding = greater suppression - 15Stimulus generalisation v discriminationG: transfer conditioning effects to similar stimuli. 1000Hz elicits salivation - 900 and 1100Hz also elicit salivation
D: response elicited more by one stimulus than another. Get food at 2000Hz but not 1900Hz, don't salivate at 1900Hz - 16Conditioned sexual arousal Japanese quail Humans?Japanese quail: buzzer: female > courting
buzzer > courting
Humans: black boots : naked woman > penile erection
boots > penile erection
some subjects generalised to brown boots, black heels - 17Some stimuli results in habituation some in sensitisation1. Intensity of stimulus: high vs. medium
2. Evolutionary significance: overrides intensity, at night locomotives vs. wasp in room (wasp is potentially dangerous so sensitise to it) - 18Predicting the CR: is it a simple transfer er of the response?NO!
CR is never an exact replica
Not all UR of US become CR
CR may include new responses
CR and UR differ substantial (rat jumps with shock, but freezes with CS light) - 19Predicting the CR: behaviour systems theoryUS activates behaviour system relevant to US
behaviour the CS elicits will depend on characteristics of CS and how it becomes incorporated into US behaviour system - 20What is learned in CC: Pavlov's ideasUS centre, CS centre, Response centre
1. S-R: direct association between CS centre and response centre
2. S-S: association between CS centre and US centre, CS activates US centre which activates response centre - 21What is learnt in CC: Rescorla testing Pavlov's S-S, S-R theoriesIf S-S is correct a reduction in US-response connection should cause reduction in CR
If S-R is correct reduction in US-response connection should change nothing
Create CS with light, then devaluate US through habituation
CR dependent on strength of US-response so S-S theory correct - 22Acquisitionmaximum level CR approaches = asymptote
strong US and CS result in faster conditioning (higher asymptote)
strong air puff (50%) v weak air puff (30%) - 23Extinction + spontaneous recoverygradual reduction of response to CR by continually paring CS without US
SR: CS-US association not fully destroyed after one session, need multiple extinction trials - 24Inhibition theoryhave excitatory association which is CS-US
extinction causes development of inhibitory association where CS inhibits activation in US centre
Overtime inhibitory association gets stronger so can withstand time and the excitatory association - 25Disinhibitionon completion of extinction (CS-bell no longer evokes CR-salivation)
Use novel stimulus to interfere
Buzzer: bell > salivation
fragile inhibition is interfered where as excitatory association is less affected - 26Rapid reaquisitionfollowing acquisition and extinction
another acquisition phase will progress quicker - 27Inhibitory conditioningCS associated with absence/ removal of US
Pre-requisite: for absence of US to be significant, needs to have occurred periodically
e.g. 'closed' 'out of order'
signal something we expected to be there but isn't there - 28Pavlov's inhibitory experimentA: buzzer, B: light, US: food
buzzer + food > salivation
buzzer + light + no food (compound CS)
1. light has become conditioned inhibitory stimulus
OR 2. animal has learnt that compound stimulus indicates no food - 29Summation test - re: Pavlov's inhibition experimentintroduce third stimulus
Buzzer + food
buzzer + light + no food
Fan + food
Testing: light + fan > no salivation
the light is a general conditioned inhibitory stimuli, as it blocks fan CR without ever being paired with it - 30Retardation testconditioned inhibitory properties will interfere with acquisition of excitatory properties
- 31Control problem in CC sensitisation + pseudoconditioningSensitisation: non-associative enhancement of pre-existing responses to a CS resulting from repeated exposure to that stimulus
Pseudoconditioning: successive presentation of US = increased responding to subsequent NS - 32unpaired control procedurenormal conditioning: CS + US
unpaired: same number of stimuli presentations but arranged so CS and US never occur together
CS-US experimental group should occur more
responding equal in groups is NOT pavlovian conditioning
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Psy236 Karteikarten am Classical Conditioning, erstellt von steph.goodman94 am 10/11/2014.
- Erstellt von
- steph.goodman94
- Aufrufe
- 9
- Bewertung