Learning And Behavior Quiz 2

Front 1

stimulus substitution theory

Back 1

theory predicting the changes that supposedly take place among the observable event of conditioning-the stimuli and responses. States that by virtue of repeated pairings between CS and US, the CS becomes a substitute for the US, so that the response initially elicited only by the US is now also elicited by the CS.

Front 2

conditioned compensatory responses

Back 2

conditioned responses that are the opposite of the UR.

Front 3

sign-tracking theory

Back 3

recent theory of class. cond. stating that animals tend to orient themselves toward, approach, and explore any stimuli that are good predictors of important events, such as the delivery of food; thus, some components of the orienting response to the CS are retained as the CR.

Front 4

S-R Association

Back 4

pavlov's theory about the associations forming in the brain where the CS activation activates the response center directly

Front 5

S-S Association

Back 5

pavlov's theory about the associations forming in the brain where the CS forms a new connection with the US and activates it which in turn activates the response center.

Front 6

S-S, through US devaluation the response was of was not as strong without the US.

Back 6

which did rescorla find support for S-R or S-S assoc?

Front 7

neutral stimuli

Back 7

stimuli, when they do not elicit the reflex in question (e.g., salivation)

Front 8

unconditional stimuli

Back 8

original term for US the response occurs to the stimuli “unconditionally,” or without
need of prior experience with them.

Front 9

defensive

Back 9

Pavlov found that dogs would salivate when weak acid or sand was placed into the dog's mouth. Because this response tended to dilute or wash out the offending substance, Pavlov termed this type a salivary response the _________________ reflex.

Front 10

False, could cause an investigatory response, but not what it will be conditioned to do.

Back 10

A neutral stimulus, when presented, does not produce a response of any kind. T/F?

Front 11

Extinction

Back 11

Repeatedly present a previously-conditioned CS, without the
US, across a series of trials..this causes a decrease in the “strength” of
conditioned response to the CS due to
its presentation without the US; approaches 0 strength.

Front 12

spontaneous recovery

Back 12

Extinguish the conditioned response to the CS. Then wait (e.g., overnight). Now test the CS again, still in extinction. There will be partial recovery of the conditioned response between extinction sessions, eventually reaching near 0 strength.

Front 13

reflex action

Back 13

what was for pavlov the basic unit of behavior?

Front 14

generalization

Back 14

responding to a stimulus because of its similarity to the CS. ie, dog bite as child scared of all dogs later..

Front 15

discrimination

Back 15

responding differently to a stimulus because of its difference from the CS. With experience we can learn to respond differently, as
needed, despite stimulus similarities.

Front 16

Short delay conditioning

Back 16

This temporal conditioning is best so long as it is not too short, usually around 5 secs, CS appears short time before US, stays present.

Front 17

inhibition of delay

Back 17

phenomenon in long-delay conditioning where Initially, when the CR develops it occurs throughout the presentation of the CS. With more training, it gradually becomes limited to the few seconds prior to US delivery.

Front 18

Trace Conditioning

Back 18

CS begins before US is presented. CS appears briefly (e.g., 1 second), leaving a gap between the CS and US during which no stimulus is present. less effective than delay conditioning.

Front 19

trace interval

Back 19

gap in time between CS and US in trace conditioning

Front 20

Backward Conditioning

Back 20

The CS is presented after the US reversing the usual order. this produces inhibitory conditioning–the CS gains the power to inhibit the response.

Front 21

Temporal Conditioning

Back 21

No formal CS is presented. Instead, the US is presented at regular intervals . A CR develops and occurs just prior to each delivery of the US. To account for this, one must assume that internal, time-correlated stimuli are becoming paired with the US, thus serving as the CS.

Front 22

leon kamin

Back 22

man who demonstrated a procedure in which conditioning failed to take place to a stimulus despite its frequent pairing with the US; called blocking

Front 23

blocking

Back 23

when a 2 element compound CS is used first conditioning one, then adding the other, the same response is shown. when testing them by themselves, the second added stimulus elicits no response b/c it adds no new info, it is redundant, so no conditioning takes place

Front 24

CS preexposure effect

Back 24

If your present the CS a number of times before you first pair it with the US, acquisition of the conditioned responses will take place more slowly than it usually would.

Front 25

Mackintosh’s Theory of Attention

Back 25

theory that assumes that subjects learn to attend most strongly to whatever stimulus is the best predictor of the US.

Front 26

comparator theories

Back 26

theory with focus on the long-term changes that take place over the course of many conditioning trials. They assume that the subject compares the likelihood that the US will occur, given that the CS has just occurred, to the likelihood that the US will occur when the CS has been absent for a time. focus on contextual stimuli's effect on the conditioning of the CS as well.

Front 27

john garcia

Back 27

researcher who demonstrated what appeared to be classical conditioning when the gap between CS and US was as long as 22 minutes, this was taste aversion.

Front 28

taste aversion

Back 28

giving rats flavored water, then making them sick caused them to refuse the water in subsequent trials. easy to condition to water, but not other stimuli such as light, beep, etc.

Front 29

equipotentiality premise

Back 29

Hager (1962)'s assumption that all stimuli are equally associable with any given US.

Front 30

prepared associations

Back 30

Seligman (1970) proposed, some
stimuli may be more easily (or less easily) associated with some USs than with others. When biology predisposes an animal to make certain associations easily.

Front 31

conditioned opponent theory

Back 31

Shull's interpretation of the opponent theory that states that b-processes become conditioned to contextual stimuli and therefore are ever-present causing the buildup of tolerance and the withdrawal symptoms.

Front 32

contingency

Back 32

Which plays more of a role in compound conditioning, contiguity or contingency?

Front 33

contingency

Back 33

Which plays more of a role in compound conditioning, contiguity or contingency?