The effects of intertrial interval (ITI) and foreperiod duration on the acquisition of a conditioned emotional response were investigated using a four-trial conditioning procedure. The optimum ITI was found to be 60 s with a bidirectional gradient for conditioned suppression above and below 60 s. Conditioned supression was found to be directly related to foreperiod duration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrelsfordJ.TheiosJ. (1965). Single session conditioning of the nictitating membrane in the rabbit: effect of the intertrial interval. Psychonomic Science2, 81–2.
2.
CarltonP. L.DidamoP. (1960). Some notes on the control of conditioned suppression. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour3, 255–8.
3.
CarltonP. L.VogelJ. R. (1967). Habituation and conditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology36, 348–51.
4.
EstesW. K. (1950). Toward a statistical theory of learning. Psychological Review57, 94–107.
5.
EstesW. K. (1955a). Statistical theory of spontaneous recovery and regression. Psychological Review62, 145–54.
6.
EstesW. K. (1955b). Statistical theory of distributional phenomena in learning. Psychological Review62, 369–77.
7.
EstesW. K. (1959). The statistical approach to learning theory. Psychology: A Study of a ScienceKochS.McGraw-Hill Vol. 2, 380–491.
8.
EstesW. K.SkinnerB. F. (1941). Some quantitative properties of anxiety. Journal of Experimental Psychology29, 390–400.
9.
FreyP. W.MisfeldtT. J. (1967). Rabbit eyelid conditioning as a function of the intertrial interval. Psychonomic Science137–8.
10.
GormezanoI.MooreW. M. (1969). Classical conditioning. Learning: ProcessesMarxM. H.London: Collier-Macmillan121–203.
11.
HovlandC. K. (1956). Inhibition of reinforcement and phenomena of experimental extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Washington22, 430–3.
12.
HullC. L. (1943). Principles of BehaviourNew York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
13.
HullC. L. (1952). A Behaviour SystemNew Haven: Yale University Press.
14.
HumphreysL. G. (1940). Distributed practice in the development of the conditioned eye-lid reaction. Journal of General Psychology22, 379–85.
15.
KrausH. H.ProkasyW. F. (1963). On intertrial iterval discrimination in classical conditioning. Psychological Reports12, 138.
16.
LubowR. E.SiebertL. (1969). Latent inhibition within the CER paradigm. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology68, 136–8.
17.
MisF. W.AndrewsJ. G.SalafiaW. R. (1970). Conditioning of the rabbit nictitating membrane response—ISI by ITI interaction. Psychonomic Science20, 57–8.
18.
PavlovI. P. (1927). Conditioned ReflexesAnrepG. V.London: Oxford University Press.
19.
ProkasyW. F. (1961). Non-random stimulus sampling in statistical learning theories. Psychological Review68, 219–24.
20.
ProkasyW. F. (1965). Classical eyelid conditioning: experimenter operations, task demands and response shaping. Classical Conditioning: A SymposiumProkasyW. F.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts218–25.
21.
ProkasyW. F.GrantD. A.Myer (1958). Eyelid conditioning as a function of unconditioned stimulus intensity and intertrial interval. Journal of Experimental Psychology55, 242–6.
22.
ProkasyW. F.WhaleyF. L. (1963). Intertrial interval range shift in classical eyelid conditioning. Psychological Reports12, 55–8.
23.
SalafiaW. R.MisF. W. (1970). Intertrial interval consolidation in classical conditioning of the nictitating membrane response of the rabbit Paper presented at a meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Atlanta City in April 1970.
24.
SiegelS. (1956). Non-parametric Statistics for the Behavioural SciencesMcGraw-Hill.
25.
SpenceK. W.NorrisE. B. (1940). Eyelid conditioning as a function of the intertrial interval. Journal of Experimental Psychology40, 716–20.
26.
SteinL.SidmanM.BradyJ. V. (1958). Some effects of two temporal variables on conditioned suppression. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour1, 153–62.
27.
WinerB. J. (1962). Statistical Principles in Experimental DesignNew York: McGraw-Hill.
28.
YeoA. G. (1974). The acquisition of conditioned suppression as a function of interstimulus interval duration. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology26, 405–16.
