1 / 8

Nature of the Conditioned Response

Nature of the Conditioned Response. Chapter 5. The Stimulus Substitution Theory. Originally suggested by Pavlov Stimulus substitution theory Pairings of the CS and the UCS enable the CS to later elicit the US representation. So, the CS is treated as if it were the US. But ……………….

tad
Download Presentation

Nature of the Conditioned Response

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. Nature of the Conditioned Response Chapter 5

  2. The Stimulus Substitution Theory • Originally suggested by Pavlov • Stimulus substitution theory • Pairings of the CS and the UCS enable the CS to later elicit the US representation. So, the CS is treated as if it were the US.

  3. But ……………… • In many cases the CR and UCR are not the same • Problem 1: In some cases the CR and UCR seem opposite each other. • Problem 2: And sometimes the CR changes over the interstimulus interval.

  4. Sometimes-Opponent Process Theory • Wagner’s SOP theory invokes the concept that the UCS elicits two states of memory activity (two components) • A primary A1 memory (dealing with a present US) • A secondary A2 memory (thinking about a future US) • CS always elicits A2 memory of the US • A2 memory is sometimes linked to non-opponent response (salivation) • A2 memory is sometimes linked to an opponent response (drug tolerance) • Problem 1 Solved

  5. Affective Extension of SOP (AESOP) 6 Fear (optimal ISI, long) CS Blink (optimal ISI, short) • Developed by Wagner and Brandon to explain the inconsistencies that SOP could not explain • It is based on the idea that there are two distinct UCR sequences • A sensory sequence • An emotive sequence

  6. 7 The sensory and emotive attributes of an unconditioned stimulus activate separate response sequences The latency of the sensory and emotive activity sequences can also differ This leads to different optimal CS-UCS intervals for the emotive and sensory components

  7. 8 • There are several important aspects of AESOP • A CS may activate a strong sensory CR but only a weak emotive CR (or vice versa) • This can explain the lack of correspondence between response measures of conditioning • A sensory A2 neural activity may elicit a discrete response (blink), while the emotive A2 neural activity may produce a diffuse reaction (fear) • Problem 2 Solved

More Related