In both within- and between-Ss designs, the ready signal was shown to increase the frequency of short-latency eyelid responses, most of which are below the latency usually regarded as defining a CR. Since the occurrence of a short latency response sharply reduces the probability of a longer latency response, fewer responses are scored as CRs when a ready signal is used. These factors appear to explain the decrement obtained with a ready signal in eyelid conditioning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DufortR. H.KimbleG. A.Ready signals and the effects of interpolated UCS presentations in eyelid conditioning. J. exp. Psychol., 1958, 56, 1–7.
2.
DufortR. H.RollinsH. A.Acquisition of the conditioned eyelid response under different ready-signal conditions. Psychon. Sci., 1963, 3, 81–82.
3.
GoodrichK. P.Effects of a ready signal on the latency of voluntary responses in eyelid conditioning. J. exp. Psychol., 1964, 67, 496–498.
4.
McAllisterW. R.McAllisterD. E.The influence of the ready signal and unpaired UCS presentations on eyelid conditioning. J. exp. Psychol., 1960, 60, 30–35. (a)
5.
McAllisterW. R.McAllisterD. E.The “ready” signal in eyelid-conditioning. Amer. J. Psychol., 1960, 73, 444–447. (b)
6.
PriceL. E.VandamentW. E.AbbottD. W.Effects of ready signal condition on acquisition and extinction of the conditioned eyelid response. J. exp. Psychol., 1964, 68, 516–518.
7.
SuboskiM. D.GreennerR. T.PappasP.The law of effect and the origin of the classically conditioned eyelid response. Canod. J. Psychol., 1967, 21, 409–415.
8.
TurnerB. B.Effects of a ready signal upon eyelid conditioning. J. exp. Psychol., 1966, 72, 11–14.
