1 NATURE OF THE CONDITIONED RESPONSE Chapter 5

1 NATURE OF THE CONDITIONED RESPONSE Chapter 5

The Stimulus Substitution Theory 2 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 ……………… 4 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.

5 Sometimes-Opponent Process Theory Wagner’s SOP theory invokes the concept that the UCS elicits two states of memory activity (two components) A primary A 1 memory (dealing with a present US) A secondary A 2 memory (thinking about a future US) CS always elicits A 2 memory of the US A 2 memory is sometimes linked to non-opponent response (salivation) A 2 memory is sometimes linked to an opponent response (drug tolerance)

6 Affective Extension of SOP (AESOP) 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 Fear (optimal ISI, long) CS Blink (optimal ISI, short)

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

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 A 2 neural activity may elicit a discrete response (blink), while the emotive A 2 neural activity may produce a diffuse reaction (fear) Problem 2 Solved