Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The conditioned emotional response is usually measured through its effect in suppressing an ongoing response. For example, a rat first learns to press a lever through operant conditioning. Classical conditioning follows: in a series of trials the rat is exposed to a CS, often a light or a noise. Each CS is followed by the US, an electric shock.
It may also be called "conditioned suppression" or "conditioned fear response (CFR)." [1] It is an "emotional response" that results from classical conditioning, usually from the association of a relatively neutral stimulus with a painful or fear-inducing unconditional stimulus. As a result, the formerly neutral stimulus elicits fear.
Classical conditioning occurs when a conditioned stimulus (CS) is paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US). Usually, the conditioned stimulus is a neutral stimulus (e.g., the sound of a tuning fork), the unconditioned stimulus is biologically potent (e.g., the taste of food) and the unconditioned response (UR) to the unconditioned stimulus is an unlearned reflex response (e.g., salivation).
1941 Estes and his mentor B.F. Skinner presented their analysis of anxiety, introducing the conditioned emotional response (CER)/conditioned fear response (CFR) paradigm, [8] where rats were trained to respond on an operant schedule that produced a steady response rate, after which they were tested with an electric shock stimulus that was conditioned as a fear signal.
If the response requirement is low there may be no pause; if the response requirement is high the organism may quit responding altogether. Variable ratio schedule: Reinforcement occurs after a variable number of responses have been emitted since the previous reinforcement. This schedule typically yields a very high, persistent rate of response.
For example, as a result of training, INP cells discharge prior to CR execution and fire in a pattern of increased frequency of response that predicts the temporal form of the behavioral CR (McCormick & Thompson, 1984). This pattern of activity clearly indicates that the INP is capable a generating a conditioned response.
The conditioned compensatory response model, formed by Siegel (1975), postulates that the conditioned response is opposite to the unconditioned drug effect, such that the conditioned response is part of a homeostatic response resulting in the development of drug tolerance. [8] [12] Each conditioning model is empirically supported. [13]
A chart demonstrating the different response rate of the four simple schedules of reinforcement, each hatch mark designates a reinforcer being given. Ratio schedule – the reinforcement depends only on the number of responses the organism has performed.