Trace and delay eyeblink conditioning: Contrasting phenomena of declarative and nondeclarative memory

Trace and delay eyeblink conditioning: Contrasting phenomena of declarative and nondeclarative memory
复制标题

DOI:
10.1111/1467-9280.00356
复制
发表时间:
2001-07-01
影响因子:
8.2
通讯作者:
Squire, LR
Squire, LR
中科院分区:
心理学1区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Clark, RE;Manns, JR;Squire, LR

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

我们测试了跟踪和延迟眨眼条件反射是根本不同类型的学习的提议。字符串的一个,两个,三个,或四个试验与条件刺激(CS)单独和字符串的一个,两个,三个,或四个试验与配对介绍的CS和非条件刺激(US)发生在这样一种方式,美国的概率是独立的字符串长度。在每次试验之前,参与者预测美国在下次试验中的可能性。在延迟(n = 20)和跟踪(n = 18)条件反射,参与者表现出高期望的美国以下字符串的CS-单独的审判和低期望的美国以下字符串的CS-美国审判的现象称为赌徒的谬论。在延迟条件反射过程中,条件反应(CR)不受预期的影响,但由CS和US的关联强度。因此,一系列CS-US试验后CR概率较高,而一系列单独CS试验后CR概率较低。微量条件反射的结果则相反。当对美国的期望值高时,CR概率高,当对美国的期望值低时,CR概率低。结果表明,跟踪和延迟眨眼条件反射是根本不同的现象。我们考虑如何可以理解的陈述性和非陈述性记忆系统,支持眨眼经典条件反射的研究结果。
We tested the proposal that trace and delay eyeblink conditioning are fundamentally different kinds of learning. Strings of one, two, three, or four trials with the conditioned stimulus (CS) alone and strings of one, two, three, or four trials with paired presentations of both the CS and the unconditioned stimulus (US) occurred in such a way that the probability of a US was independent of string length. Before each trial, participants predicted the likelihood of the US on the next trial. During both delay (n = 20) and trace (n = 18) conditioning, participants exhibited high expectation of the US following strings of CS-alone trials and low expectation of the US following strings of CS-US trials-a phenomenon known as the gambler's fallacy. During delay conditioning, conditioned responses (CRs) were not influenced by expectancy but by the associative strength of the CS and US. Thus, CR probability was high following a string of CS-US trials and low following a string of CS-alone trials. The results for trace conditioning were opposite. CR probability was high when expectancy of the US was high and low when expectancy of the US was low. The results show that trace and delay eyeblink conditioning are fundamentally different phenomena. We consider how the findings can be understood in terms of the declarative and nondeclarative memory systems that support eyeblink classical conditioning.