INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN INFANT
ORIENTING AND CONDITIONING

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EBEN INGRAM
'1972

LIBRARJI L:

Michigm State
Universigy

 
   
    

Infi’”

    
   
   

. BIN-LING av 1":
'~ «IIIMII & SIINS'
w W I'IE

'él'flhlw Inn .

, I :II

Individual Differences in Infant Orienting

and Conditioning

by

Eben Ingram

Abstract

Conditioned discrimination and discrimination
reversal of the skin potential response was attempted in
three-month-old infants. In addition to conditionability, a
major focus of the study was to investigate the extent to
which individual differences in orienting response magnitude
predicts condition-ability. A delayed conditioning procedure
was used in which CS onset preceded UCS onset by 5 seconds.
UCS duration was 1 second, and CS and UCS terminated simul-
taneously. The CSs were 75 db 500 Hz and 1000 Hz square wave
tones. The UCS was a 5 psi air puff delivered to the in-
fant's cheek. The results indicated that there were sub-
stantial individual differences in conditionability. More-
over. there was a strong relationship between 0R magnitude
and conditionability. Although there was a lack of a pre-
dominate response wave form, both components of the skin
potential response showed evidence of conditioning. The
results provide strong support for the occurrence of autonomic

conditioning in young infants. Moreover, the results also

suggest the existence of a relationship between the magnitude

of the OR and individual differences in conditionability.

Individual Differences in Infant Orienting

and Conditioning

by,

EbenyIngram

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology
1972

This thesis is dedicated to my wife Judy and
my daughter Edith.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

"This study was supported. in part, by NIMH Research
Grant MH-18655 and NSFURP Grant, 6Y-8727.”

iii

Dedication . . . . .
Acknowledgements . .
List of Tables . . .
List of Figures . .

Introduction . . . .

Methods of Determining
Infant Conditioning
Individual differences

Method.......

Subjects . .
Apparatus .

Design and Procedure .

Table

of Contents

Response Reduction .

ReSUltS o o o c o o o

Habituation

Conditioned Discrimination

Conditioned Reversal .
Wave Form of the SP Response
Habituation . .

Discrimination conditioning

Electrodermal

in infant

Conditioned reversal .

DiSCUSSiOn o o o o 0
References . . . . .

Appendix 0 o o o o 0

iv

Activity.

learning . .

Page
ii

iii

Table
l.
2.

3.

5.
6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

List of Tables

Experimental DeSign o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Mean Response Magnitude for each S to the
CS+ and 08- during the discrimination phase

Mean response magnitude for the 500 Hz and
1000 Hz groups to CS+ and CS- . . . . . . .

Mean response magnitude to the CS+ and CS-
and the mean difference score for the con-
ditioned and non-conditioned group . . . .

Intercorrelations, Pearson r . . . . . . .

Mean response magnitude to the CS+ and CS-
and the mean difference score for the high
and low 0R groups . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I
Mean response magnitude to the CS+ and OS-
for each subject during the reversal phase.

Mean response magnitude of the positive and
negative wave response during habituation
t0 the CSS 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Mean response magnitudes of the positive
and negative wave responses to CS+ and CS-
for each subject during discrimination
conditioning o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Mean magnitude of the negative wave
response to the CS+ and 08- for each sub-
ject during the discrimination phase . . .

Mean number of positive and negative wave
responses for each subject responding with
both positive and negative waves during the
discrimination phase . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean number of positive and negative wave
responses for each subject responding with
both positive and negative wave responses
during the reversal phase . . . . . . . . .

Page
14

20

21

22
25

27

29

3o

31

32

33

35

Figure

l.

2.

3.

List of Figures

Page

Mean response magnitude to the stimulus
to serve as CS+ and 08- for the first
and last blocks of 10 trials during
habituation for all subjects . . . . . . . . . 18
Mean difference score for the conditioned

and non-conditioned groups . . . . . . . . . . 23

Mean difference score for the high and
lOWORgrOUPSoooooooococo...026

vi

Introduction

The concept of the orienting reflex (OR) was intro-
duced by I.P. Pavlov as an investigatory response elicited
by novel stimulation or by a change in ongoing stimulation.
The OR is ”non-specific” in that qualitative, intensive, or
temporal changes in stimulation all serve as eliciting
stimuli (Sokolov. 1963a). In general, the OR assumes one of
two forms, generalized or local. Both forms consist of
somatic. autonomic, electroencephalographic, and sensory
components (Brackbill & Fitzgerald, 1969). While activation
of several sensory analyzers involves the generalized OR,
activation of the local OR is confined solely to the analyzers
directly stimulated. (Sensory analyzers refer to the whole
analyzing apparatus of the nervous system, which includes
receptors, transmitting apparatus, and cortical centers).

According to Sokolov, the presence or absence of the
OR is a function of cortical matching or mismatching of
stimuli. A neuronal model preserves information about the
characteristics of a stimulus. Thus. the individual compares
at the inferred level. the earlier occurring stimulus.
Supportive evidence fbr Sokolov's neuronal model has been
offered by Lovibond (1969). who demonstrated that the rate

of OR habituation is negatively related to the uncertainty

2
of stimulation. Moreover, Zimmy and Schwabe (1966) demon-
strated that the habituated OR is restored by the appearance
of novel stimuli.

The functional significance of the OR is found in
the increased discriminatory powers of the sensory analyzers,
thus providing optimal conditions for stimulus receptivity.
This increase in receptor sensitivity effects the reactivity.
the sensitivity, and the lability of both the central and
peripheral parts of the analyzers (Sokolov, 1963b), for ex-
ample. the lowering of sensor thresholds. Because of these
functional properties, the OR is held to play important role
in learning. For example. Sokolov proposes that elicitation
of an OR facilitates conditioning.

Maltzman and Raskin (1965) suggest that extensive
pre-adaptation of the OR, resulting in the extinction or
habituation of the OR to the CS. retards subsequent condition-
ing. Their study brings a point of interest to those focus-
ing on the relationship of the OR to conditioning. However,
their contention is challenged by Kimmel and Greene (l96h)
who demonstrated that the OR is disinhibited by the presence
of an extra stimulus. Thus. in the conditioning paradigm.
the pairing of the CS and UCS produces a novel stimulus situ-
ation, restoring the 0R. In addition, Zimny and Schwabe
(1966) have demonstrated the restoration of a previously
habituated OR by the presentation of a novel stimulus. Using
a classical discrimination paradigm Zeiner (1970) compared

GSR magnitude in a group of §§ that received habituation

3
trials prior to conditioning, with a group that did not.
Zeiner found no significant difference between groups on
response magnitude to CS+ and CS-. The problem of preadapt-
ation arises for only one reason, habituation of the
original response to the CS prevents its being confused with
the conditioned response (CR) (Beecroft. 1966). Therefore,
considering Zeiner's finding of no effects due to pre-
adaptation, the problem of over extensive habituation prior
to conditioning should be approached in terms of the poss-
ibility that the 0R cannot be habituated to the extent of
significantly affecting the course of CR acquisition.

Levels of the 0R are related to the ability to dis-
criminate between stimuli rather than as an energizer of
perfbrmance (Maltzman and Raskin. 1965). Since the OR is
an abstract concept not directly measured. the occurrence of
an electrodermal response cannot be taken unequivocally as a
measure of any abstract concept. The electrodermal responses
are only dependent variables elicited by a variety of ante-
cedent conditions (Maltzman & Raskin, 1965). Moreover, there
are a variety of OR measures, both behavioral and physio-
logical.

Measures of the 0R are not simply specific to peri-
pheral responses. but are presumably reflect central processes
(Brackbill. 1971; Maltzman & Mandell. 1968). For example.
Brackbill found that although orienting responses were

elicited in an anecephalic infant, habituation did not occur.

L;

Presumably the cortex must be functional in order for habitu-
ation or response inhabition to occur. Maltzman & Raskin
(1965) found reliable differences in OR magnitude between
“aware” and ”unaware" subjects as differentiated by tests
given following semantic conditioning of GSR. The basic
premise underlying these findings was first set forth by
Pavlov through his concept of nervous system lability. This
concept refers to individual differences in the quality of
nervous system functioning (Pavlov. 1927). Certain relativ-
ely recent studies have found evidence to support this
premise. Birch and Demb (1959) found that retardates re-
quired a significantly greater number of trials to acquire a
conditioned GSR response than did normal subjects. Moreover,
lower IQ retardates have been found to demonstrate lesser
magnitude GSR responses than higher IQ retardates, and also
to be generally less reactive than normals (Grings.
Lockhart & Dameron, 1962; Karrer & Clausen. 196h). By using
concepts of nervous system function, Pavlov demonstrated
the relationship of intelligence to learning. He proposed
two levels of nervous function; the first and second signal
systems. It is through the interaction of the two systems
that intelligence or capacity--associated with the second
system-~may influence the ”vegetative" responses of the
first signal system.

In terms of classical GSR conditioning, Stewert,

Stern. Winokur, and Fredman (1961) feel that many researchers

5

unsuccessful in demonstrating classical conditioning of the
GSR, failed to employ proper controls. They feel that the
CR may represent only an augmented response to the CS or the
return of the OR. They comment on the lack of a ”true”
acquisition function, i.e., the failure of the learning
curve to increase to an asymptote and remain constant.
Stewart 33 31., argue that the galvanic GR is defined by its
latency. in that it should appear at or in the neighborhood
of the UCS onset on test trials. Nonetheless, latency as
the sole criterion for conditioning appears to be inadequate.
Lockhart & Grings (1963) computed a correlation coefficient
from the data in the Stewart gt g1. study, and found a
correlation of .90 between the frequency of ORs which occur
early in the CS-UCS interval. and the response considered
by Stewart 23.31. to be the true CR. which occurs late in
the interval. near UCS onset. However, according to Stewart
gt‘gl. the expected correlation should have been very low,
thus the high correlation reported by Lockhart and Grings
suggests that anticipatory GSRs are merely another fbrm of
sensitized response.

In response to the problem of distinguishing between
sensitization and conditioning, Grings. Lockhart and
Dameron (1962) have proposed the use of the discrimination
paradigm. Grings £3 31. feel that this procedure will permit
a more clear distinction among orienting, sensitization, and

pseudoconditioning more effectively than is possible to

6
obtain using simple conditioning procedures. The basic
assumption involved in the use of the discrimination paradigm
is that before pairing, the response amplitude to the test
and control stimuli is equal and becomes different only
after pairing of the CS and UCS. An additional requirement
is placed on the difference in magnitude between the test and
control stimuli as a function of increased pairings of the
CS and UCS. It is assumed that if the difference between
the test and control stimuli (CS+ and 05-) are the same
at the beginning of the discrimination conditioning, then
as the discrimination progresses, the difference in respond-
ing should also increase; this increase is presumably due to
learning.

In terms of Stewart 23 gl.'s contention that most
researchers have merely demonstrated augmented ORs, Dykman
(1967) feels that there is no justification fer assuming that
an augmented OR is not an effect of conditioning. if the
augmentation persists over trials as was the case in the
research critized by Stewart gt 31. Kimmel (1964) notes that
the discrimination paradigm allows one to distinguish be-
tween specific and non-specific sensitization. He also con-
siders the OR to be a CR should significant changes be
demonstrated through the use of control procedures.

In his literature review, Dykman (1967) concluded
that the basic mechanism of learning is sensitization,

suggesting that the responses that occur depend on the pathways

7

excited. It is apparent, therefore, that the conditioned
GSR may take one of several forms. This is illustrated in a
study by Lockhart (1966), who found an additional GSR
response that occurred in the UCS interval on test trials
when the UCS was absent (i.e.. a temporarily conditioned
response or an OR to signal absence).

Methods of recording electrodermal actiylty; There
are two methods of recording electrodermal activity, and of
these. the resistance method has been more widely used than
the potential method. This is due in part to the fact that
the resistance method yields a unidirectional response. Even
though the potential method has not been used as extensiv-
ely. it is generally assumed that it reflects the same pro-
cesses as does the resistance method (McCleary, 1950:
Woodworth & Schlosberg. 1954). Wilcott (1958) reported high
correlations between skin potential and skin resistance
responses. He used mental multiplication and word associ-
ation tests as stimuli. Correlations of .95 were found be-
tween the two electrodermal measures. Gaviria, Coyne and
Thelford (1969) obtained high correlations between change
measurements and prestimulus levels (.87 for males, and .9h
for females).

Several studies have demonstrated the relationship
of skin potential (SP) to the 0R. For example, Raskin.
Kotes and Bever (1969) found a direct relationship between
stimulus intensity and magnitude of the positive wave of the

SP response. Autonomic responses were‘recorded to a number

8
of stimulus intensities (auditory stimuli), and it was found
that the higher intensities (120 db) produced larger positive
wave responses and a greater amount of positive wave activity.
Previous research (Forbes & Bolles. 1936; Uno & Grings, 1965)
has shown that high intensity stimulation more readily evokes
the positive wave of the SP response than does low intensity
stimulation. Raskin (1969) consider the occurrence of the
positive wave in relationship to high intensity stimulation
to indicate that the positive wave may be a component of the
defensive reflex (DR) since it fellows the relationship pro-
posed by Sokolov. between stimulus intensity and the type of
response evoked. Sokolov (1960) reported that novel stimuli
initially produce 0Rs which are more resistant to habituation
at higher intensities of stimulation. Raskin £3 £1. found
that consistant with Sokolov's finding, the negative wave of
the SP response habituated more rapidly with lower stimulus
intensities than with high.

Edelburg (1963) reports findings in support of
Raskin's position, that the negative wave is the SP component
of the OR. Shaver, Brusilow and Cooke (1962). using micro-
electrodes inserted in the sweat ducts, found that the SP
responses were negative in direction. Edelburg concluded
that there was sufficient evidence that the positive and
negative components are of independent origins and show
stimulus-response specificity.

Infant conditioning. Recent reviews of the literature

on infant learning clearly show that human infants are

9

conditionable (see Fitzgerald & Porges, 19713 Brackbill &
Koltsova, 1967). However, the data on autonomically con-
ditioned responses is meager in comparison with data on
somatically mediated responses. In the classical condition-
ing paradigm Kasatkin et al., (1953), Koch (1965), Kaye
(1965),Lipsitt and Kay (1964) and Lintz, Fitzgerald and
Brackbill (1967) have obtained evidence demonstrating con-
ditioning of somatically mediated responses such as the
Babkin reflex, sucking, eye blinking, and head rotation.
The major extent of the conditioning of autonomically mediated
response in infants has been done by Brackbill and Fitzgerald
(Brackbill & Fitzgerald, 1969; Brackbill, Fitzgerald & Lintz,
1967: Brackbill, Lintz & Fitzgerald, 1968i Fitzgerald, Lintz,
Brackbill & Adams, 1967; Fitzgerald & Brackbill, 1971).
Their studies involved conditioning of pupillary reflex
dilation and constriction to auditory, tactile and temporal
stimuli. Jones (1930) reported conditioning of the GSR in
nine-month-old infants using auditory, tactile, and visual
stimuli with electroshock as the UCS. Although the combined
results of these studies are by no means conclusive, they are
suggestive that autonomic conditioning in infants is possible.

Individual differences in infant learning. Two
major issues concerning infant conditioning have arisen in
the past ten years. The first issue is that Soviet
researchers contend that there is an immutable developmental
order for CS effectiveness during early infancy (Brackbill &

Koltsova, 1967). The second issue concerns the role of the

10
CS in conditioning. Here again the Soviets define an all
important role to the CS in that it predicts the course of
conditioning, independent of the response and UCS
(Brackbill & Fitzgerald, 1969). Considering the evidence
reported in their review, Fitzgerald and Porges (1971) find
both Soviet contentions ”questionable.“ In addition to the
above issues, a third issue can be identified--1arge1y by
the lack of attention it has received--and this is the area
of individual differences in early conditioning.

Human infants are bombarded by stimuli in all
sensory modalities, thus assessment of the infant's ability
to coordinate his behavior around these stimuli would in-
volve examining the relationship between the infant's in-
itial response to stimulation (the OR) and the learning pro-
cesses underlying his association of his behavior to external
stimulus input. Maltzman and Raskin have provided evidence
to suggest a relationship between the OR magnitude and con-
dition ability in human adults. For human infants, this
question has not even been asked.

Moreover, questions arise as to the existence of in-
dividual differences in autonomic activity during infancy
as well as the more specific question of the relationship
of individual differences in autonomic function to learning.
Such questions have not gone completely unnoticed. Several
authors have reported observations of differences in auto-
nomic activity in infants (Lipton, Steinschneider & Richmond,

1961; Bridger & Reiser, 1959; Steinschneider, 1957). Lipton

ll
33 El. theorize a relationship between these differences in
autonomic function and psychosomatic disorders, activity
level and such constructs as ”adaptive capacity.” Thus,
questions as to the relationship of individual differences
to other aspects of the infant's performance have been, at
most, answered by speculative generalizations rather than
by empirical test.

The present study has attempted to provide just such
an empirical examination. The method of approach consists
of determining for a group of infants, the magnitude of the
OR and assessing its relationship to conditioning as a means
of testing the hypothesis that individual differences in
infant orienting behavior will be related to individual

differences in conditioning of an autonomic response.

Method

Subjects

Twelve full-term, clinically normal infants (6 boys
and 6 girls), drawn from the resident population of metro-
politan Lansing and surrounding townships, served as subjects
(§s). The infants' ages at the beginning of experimentation
ranged from 84 to 135 days (M = 112 days, Md = 102 days).
Subjects were brought to the laboratory on five consecutive
days for a one hour session. The time of the experimental
session for each S on each day was constant in order to avoid
any confounding effects due to variation in biological

rhythms. Subjects were randomly divided into two groups,

12

with the exception that there were an equal number of males
and females in each group.
Appgratus

Skin potential (SP) was recorded on a Grass Model 7
polygraph with Beckman Bio-Potential electrodes. The
apparatus for the delivery of the stimuli involved an air
tank filled with compressed air, a Hoke regulator valve, and
a Hunter Silent Solenoid. The UCS was a 5 psi air puff
delivered through a piece of 1/8 inch diameter surgical tub-
ing. The CSs were 500 and 1000 Hz tones delivered at 75 db
through a 10 inch Allied speaker. The tones were generated
by an Eico noise generator. All intervals, stimulus dura-
tions, stimulus onset and offset were controlled by Hunter
decade interval timers.
‘Qggign and Procedure

The UCS for skin potential discrimination condition-
ing was an air puff of 1 second duration delivered through a
rubber tube at 5 psi to the infant's left cheek, from a dis-
tance of two inches. The 083 were 500 Hz and 1000 Hz tones
presented through a ten-inch speaker located above and to
the front, three inches from 3's head. CS duration was six
seconds. The CS-UCS interval was five seconds, involving a
delay procedure, UCS and CS terminated simultaneously. The
intertrial interval (ITI) varied randomly among 15, 20, 25 and

30 seconds, to avoid any possibility of temporal conditioning.

13

Each § appeared at the laboratory accompanied by at
least one parent, to whom a description and explanation of
the experiment was given, and from whom final permission
for S's participation was obtained. Care was taken to
assure that permission was granted only after parents
clearly understood the exact nature of the experiment. The
infant was then placed into an infant crib constructed of
35 x 15 x 15 in. clear 1/4 in plexiglass with a foam rubber
pad and changeable covers as a reclining surface. The crib
was located inside a sound-attenuated booth (ambient noise
level = 30 db). The electrodes were then placed as follows:
The active electrode was placed on the arch of the foot half
way between the ankle and the first phalange; the referent
electrode was placed over the tibia bone, one-eighth of the
way up on the shin between the ankle and knee; the ground
electrode was placed on the outside of S's upper thigh. The
skin surface at each electrode site was prepared with 70
percent ethanol alcohol pads, abrading slightly at the active
site. An electrolye paste was used between the electrode
and the skin at the placement sites.

The experimental procedure was divided into three
parts: habituation. discrimination training, and discrimina-
tion reversal. Table 1 illustrates the experimental design.
Subjects were divided into two groups. Each Group I S
received the 1000 Hz tone as CS+ and the 500 Hz tone as 03-.

For discrimination reversal the 500 Hz tone was CS+ and the

14

TABLE 1

Experimental Design

 

Experimental Sessions

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Habituation Conditioning, Reversal
CS+ & CS- CS+ 1000 Hz CS+ 500 Hz
Group 1 (Mixed) CS- 500 Hz 08- 1000 Hz
N:
20 trials 30 trials 30 trials
minimum daily . daily
CS+ & CS- CS+ 500 Hz CS+ 1000 Hz
Group 2 (mixed) CS- 1000 Hz CS- 500 Hz
20 trials 30 trials 30 trials
minimum daily daily

 

1000 Hz tone CS-. The conditions for each Group II S were
just the opposite of those for Group I. Subjects in Group
II received the 500 Hz tone as CS+ and the 1000 Hz tone as
03-: during reversal, the 500 Hz tone was CS- and the 1003Hz
tone was CS+.

During session 1, all §s received habituation trials
which consisted of mixed presentations of either the CS+ or
the 08- on each trial. randomized according to a Gellerman
Series. All §s received at least 20 habituation trials, ex-
cept those requiring more than 20 trials to meet the
habituation criterion of two consecutive non-responses to

the same stimulus.

15

Session 2 was the first session devoted to condition-
ing. Each § received a minimum of 15 presentations of UCS
and CS+ paired, and a minimum of 15 presentations of CS-
alone. for a total of 30 trials minimum (30 trials proved to
be the minimum possible run before infant state changes
caused cessation of the session, however, some §s allowed
more trials under the same state - quiet awake and active
awake).

Session 3 was devoted to conditioning with each §
receiving the same number of minimum trials as in session 2.

Sessions 4 and 5 differed from sessions 2 and 3 only
in that discrimination reversal took place. In session 4,
each.§ received a minimum of 15 paired presentations of the
UCS and CS+, and a minimum of 15 presentations of the CS-
alone for a minimum total of 30 trials. Session 5 was the
same as session 4.

Inside the experimental booth were S and two experi-
menters. One experimenter recorded minute by minute judge-
ments of infant state on the 6-point scale developed by
(Brackbill & Fitzgerald, 1969), (See Appendix A.) The other
experimenter attended to the infant's needs. A third experi-
menter. located in another room, operated the recording
apparatus, stimulus programming apparatus and UCS delivery
system.
figgponse Reduction

A distribution of the magnitudes of the SP response
evoked by the first tone (always a 1000 Hz tone) presented at

16

the beginning of the habituation session was made, and SS
above the median were designated High Orienters while §s
below the median were designated as Low Orienters. SP was
scored according to a method devised by Raskin £3 31. (1969).
SP was calculated in mV change from the negative and positive
components. The negative component was calculated in milli-
meters of pen deflection towards the top of the recording
chart. The positive component was calculated using the same
units as the negative component, however, pen deflection
toward the bottom of the recording chart was considered a
positive response. The calculations involved scoring the
first wave as the peak change from base level at response
onset and the second as a change from the peak of the first.
In order to avoid scoring recovery phenomenon as response
activity. the second wave was scored only if it reached its
peak within 3 sec. of the preceding peak (pl). To be scored
as SP. the response must occur within a period of 5 seconds
following CS onset. In the case of shifting base levels,
Peak level (21) is to be scored from the point at which the
slope changes. A value of 0 is assigned to the point of res-
ponse onset, and peaks at maximum response levels in either
direction of the zero point are measured in mm. (positive or
negative).

A difference score was then computed for each.§.
The difference score consisted of the mathematical difference
between the magnitude of response to CS+ and the magnitude of

response to CS-.

17
Results

Hggituation. In order to demonstrate conditioned
discrimination, it is necessary to demonstrate an increase
in response magnitude over trials to the stimulus serving as
CS+, while the response magnitude to 08- remains the same or
shows a decrement over trials. Prior to the experimental
manipulations, the response magnitude to the stimulus later
to serve as CS+ was found by the related measures t-test not
to differ significantly from the response magnitude to the
stimulus later to serve as 08- (t_= .05, df = 11). Since
the response magnitudes were initially at the same level,
any differences occurring during the subsequent course of
conditioning should be due to the experimental manipulations.

Each.§'s response during the habituation period was
analyzed by dividing the habituation trials into two blocks
of 10 trials each. The first block of 10 trials consisted
of the first 10 habituation trials; the second block consisted
of the last 10 trials. Mean response magnitude of the first
block of trials was then compared with the mean response
magnitude of the last block of trials. The related measures
t-test indicated a significant decrement in response magnitude
(t = 3.04, df = 11, p.<.05), indicating that response
habituation occurred (see Figure l).
Conditioned Discrimination

Over all effects. As indicated in Table 2, ll of 12

§s demonstrated higher response magnitude to CS+ than to CS-.

18

21>

Resp nse
Hagn tude
mv/

LO

Int. lust
Trial Block

Figure 1
Mean response magnitude to the stimuli to serve as CS+ and

08- for the first and last block of 10 trials during
habituation for all gs.

19
To test for conditioned discrimination, mean CS+ response
magnitude (1.31 mu) was compared to mean CS- response magni-
tude (.68 mu). This difference was significant (t=5.73,
df=ll, P'<.001) indicating significantly greater response
magnitude to CS+ than to 08-.
Individual differences. For each §, all trials from
sessions 1 and 2 were combined and then divided into blocks
of 10 trials. Each block of 10 trials contained five CS+
trials and five CS- trials. Conditioning was determined by
comparing the mean response magnitude of the CS+ trials
with the mean response magnitude of the 08- trials. The
criterion for conditioning was that the magnitude of the
response to the CS+ trials be significantly greater than the
magnitude of the response to the 08- trials. As indicated
in Table 3, conditioning was demonstrated in six of 12 in-
fants.

Subjects were initially divided into two groups on
the basis of the frequency of the tones serving as the CS+
and 08- during discrimination training. The data from these
two groups was analyzed, and is summarized in Table 3.

The analysis consisted of a comparison between the two groups
on response magnitude to CS+ and CS-. As seen in Table 3,

no difference of any significance was found between these
groups. In view of the lack of significant effects for

this initial subject grouping, additional groupings were

formed and analyzed.

20
TABLE 2
Mean response magnitude fer each.§ to the CS+ and CS-

during the discrimination phase

 

 

Subject Mean response magnitudes (mu/mm)
C§+ ' cs- df t* P

l 1.03 0.28 5 2.75 <.05
2 2.21 1.05 6 3.20 <.05
3 1.79 0.73 5 3.66 < .05
4 1.08 0.18 5 8.65 <.001
5 1.26 0.40 8 5.24 <.001
6 1.44 0.56 4 3.07 <.05
7 1.32 0.99 7 1.77 NS

8 1.88 1.13 7 1.86 NS

9 0.56 0.58 8 0.13 NS
10 1.00 0.84 10 0.47 NS
11 0.92 0.53 7 1.46 NS
12 1.25 0.89 6 1.35 NS

*Related measures t.

21
TABLE 3
Analysis of between groups mean response magnitude

to CS+ and 08- across all conditioned.discrimination sessions

 

Mean response magnitudes (mv/mm)

Group 1 Group 2 df t* P
08- 0.793 ' 0.566 10 0.911 NS
CS+ 1.386 1.236 10 0.551 NS

*Independent groups t.

 

As seen in Table 2, six of 12 SS demonstrated con-
ditioning, thus the first comparison made was between those
§s who evidenced conditioning and those who did not show
evidence of conditioning. Three comparisons were made:

(a) differences in the mean magnitude of the difference

score, (b) differences in the mean magnitude of the response

to 08+, and (c) differences in mean magnitude of the response
to CS-. The results summarized in Table 4 indicate a signi-
ficant difference in the magnitude of the difference score
between the two groups. On the other hand, no significant
differences were found between conditioners and nonconditioners
for response magnitude differences to either CS+ or to 08-.

Figure 2 shows the discrimination performance of
both the conditioned and nonconditioned groups, and compares

their performance. Both group curves show a rapid decrease

22
TABLE 4
Mean response magnitude to the CS+ and CS- and the mean

difference score for the conditioned and non-conditioned groups

 

Mean response magnitudes (mv/mm)

 

 

Conditioned Non-conditioned df t* P
CS+ 1.47 1.25 10 1.018 NS
CS- 0.54 0.99 10 2.200 NS
MD 0.94 0.32 10 4.590 .001

*Independent groups t.

 

near the beginning of discrimination training, however, the
conditioned group shows the maximum decrease at the end of
the second block of trials, and the non-conditioned group
shows the maximum decrease at the end of the third trial block.
Immediately after the initial decrease, both curves show an
increase, with the conditioned group meeting the criterion
for conditioning by the end of the seventh trial block. The
non-conditioned group fails to meet this criterion by the
end of the seventh trial block, however, the curve shows a
trend that indicates that conditioning may have occurred
with more trials.

The relationship of OR magnitude to conditionability
was examined by ranking all §s in order on the basis of the

0R magnitude from highest and lowest. Subjects were then

23

Conditioned O
21)

Noncondi tioned .

 

9 I 2 3 4 5 6 7
Trial Blocks

Figure 2

Mean difference score for the conditioned and nonconditioned
groups.

24
divided at the median into two groups, high OR SS and low
0R §s, with each group containing one half of the total
sample. Using the criterion for conditioning set forth pre-
viously, it was found that five of six SS in the high OR
group demonstrated conditioning. A Fisher Exact Probability
Test indicated that the difference in the number of con-
ditioned §s over non-conditioned §s above the median was
significant (p. < .05). Moreover, Pearson product moment
correlations summarized in Table 5 indicated a significant
correlation between conditionability and OR magnitude (t_=
2.79, r = .66, p.<.02).

Figure 3 shows the discrimination performance of the
high and low OR groups. This comparison between the high
and low OH groups shows an early difference between the two
groups, which at the fourth block of trials decreases to
zero. After the fourth trial block the two curves diverge
again due to the greater increase in the performance of the
high OR group.

The median split ofԤs into high and low 0R magni-
tude groups was significantly correlated with the number of
trial blocks required for conditioned §s (discrimination
conditioning) to reach the criterion for conditioning (3}:
3.17. r =-.7l, pl<.01). Since the correlation is negative
the relationship is inverse, i.e., the higher the OR the
fewer blocks of trials required to reach the criterion of

conditioning, or the more rapidly conditioning was attained.

25

TABLE 5

Intercorrelations, Pearson r.

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1.00
2 0.33 1.00
3 0.00 0.00 1.00
4 0.66** 0.33 0.33 1.00
5 0.16 -0.16 0.16 0.50 1.00
6 -0.71**30.27 —0.40 -0.95**36.50 1.00
7 -0.44 -0.07 -o.41 -0.42 -0.62* -0.46 1.00
8 -0.10 -0.40 -o.30 -0.15 -0.16 -0.19 -0.33 1.00
* P<.05
** P<.02
*** P<.01

**** P < .001

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

OR magnitude median split (high or low OR).

Sex.

cs group: 500 Hz versus 1000 Hz.

Conditioned or not conditioned.

Reversal versus non reversal-

Trial blocks to condition.

Trials to habituation.

State score.

26

Conditioned'

Nonconditioned

1 Trial Blocks
Figure 3

Mean difference score for the high and low 03 groups.

.
”v-
.

_IO
OI

 

27

Additional analyses were carried out comparing the
high and low OR groups. As with the conditioned versus the
non-conditioned groups, mean response magnitude to CS+ and
CS- stimuli were compared as shown in Table 6; these data
yielded similar results to those obtained for conditioned-
non—conditioned groups. As for the conditioned and non-
conditioned group dimension, the high and low OH groups were
not significantly different in mean response magnitude to the
CS+ or to the 08-. On the other hand, the high OR group did
evidence a significantly greater mean difference score than

did the low OR group (I = 2.52, df = 10, p .<.05).

TABLE 6
Mean response magnitude to CS+ and CS- and the mean difference

score for the high and low OH groups

 

Mean response magnitude (mv/mm)

 

(High OR ggow OR dfl_, t* P
CS+ 1.46 0.99 10 1.59 NS
03- 0.63 0.90 10 0.95 NS
MD 0.84 0.42 10 2.52 < .05

*Independent groups t.

 

Conditioned Reversal
Overall effects. As indicated in Table 8 all 12 SS
demonstrated a higher response magnitude to CS+ than to CS-

during reversal. Of the 12 SS, all but one § demonstrated a

28
higher response magnitude to CS+ than to CS- during discrimi-
nation conditioning. To test for conditioned reversal,
mean CS+ response magnitude (1.04 mv) was compared to mean
CS- response magnitude (.59 mv). This difference was signi-
ficant (t = 4.18, df = 11), P < .01) indicating significant-
ly greater response magnitude to CS+ than to CS-.
Individual differences. The period during which reversal of
the auditory discrimination was undertaken was analyzed to
determine whether or not conditioned reversal occurred. The
analysis was similar to that employed fer conditioned dis-
crimination. Five of the 12 SS demonstrated a conditioned
discrimination reversal by meeting the criterion of a sig-
nificant difference in the mean response magnitude between

the CS+ and 08-. These data are summarized in Table 7.

Another criterion for conditionability would refer
to the number of.§s who demonstrate an absolute change in
direction of responding from the discrimination condition to
the reversal condition.

The correlational analysis reproduced in Table 6
indicates no significant correlation between learning the
reversal and whether or not § achieved the criterion for
conditioning during the discrimination phase.

Wave Form of the SP ResponSe

Habituation. Since the wave form of the SP response

is biphasic and one or both components may demonstrate con-

ditioning, an analysis comparing the magnitudes of the

29
TABLE 7
Mean response magnitude to the CS+ and 08- for each subject

during the reversal phase

 

 

 

Subject Mean response magnitudes (mv/mm)
CS+ CS- df t* P

1 SB 0.714 0.360 6 2.901 < .05
2 CG 2.405 0.995 11 3.279 .< .01
3 MP 1.712 1.150 7 0.731 NS
4 TG 0.660 0.340 4 3.200 < .05
5 8b 0.525 0.331 6 0.983 NS
6 KS 1.525 0.775 3 1.798 NS
7 BS 0.735 0.451 8 1.044 NS
8 WN 0.811 0.723 8 0.225 NS
9 EW 0.827 0.422 7 2.201 NS
10 FT 1.162 0.450 8 2.028 NS
11 tg 0.886 0.850 5 0.104 NS
12 DZ 0.595 0.260 7 1.820 NS

*Related measures t.

 

positive and negative waves to the stimulus to be used as

CS+ with the response magnitudes to CS— was done.

As indi-

cated in Table 8 there were no significant differences. The

mean reSponse magnitude of the positive wave to CS+ was not

significantly different from the positive wave response

30
magnitude to 08-, (t = .02, df = 11): the mean response
magnitude negative wave to CS+ was not significantly differ-
ent from the response magnitude of the negative wave to CS-,
(3_= .41, df = 11). Moreover, the positive and negative
wave responses were not significantly different in mean

magitUde (E = .5”, df = 11).

TABLE 8
Mean response magnitude of the positive and negative

wave responses during habituation to the CSs.

 

 

Mean response magnitude (mv/mm)

 

Positive wave Negative wave
CS+ CS- CS+ CS- Adi;
0.110 0.080 0.123 0.110 11
t = .015* t = 0.406*
P = NS P = NS

*Related measures t.

 

Discrimination conditioning. Analyses were made of

the response magnitudes of both the positive and negative
waves to the CS+ and CS- to determine whether or not con-
ditioning occurred separately for each wave form. The cri-
terion for conditioning was the same as before, that the
response magnitude to CS+ be significantly greater than the

response magnitude to 08-. For each S the mean magnitude of

31

the positive wave form to CS+ was compared with the mean
response magnitude of the positive wave form to CS-. The
results of this comparison are summarized in Table 9 and
indicate that only two §s demonstrated conditioning of the
positive wave form. Also the mean response magnitudes to
the CS+ and 08- of the negative wave form were compared,
and the results as summarized in Table 10 indicate all but

three infants failed to condition.

TABLE 9
The mean response magnitudes of the positive and negative wave

response to CS+ and 08- for each subject during discrimination

 

 

conditioning

Subject Mean response magnitude (mv/mm)

cs+ 03-- t df”
1 SB 0.425 0.225 1.298 3 NS
2 CG 1.066 0.500 2.460 5 NS
3 MP - - - - -
4 1'0 4.400 0.050 4.216 3 < .05
5 sb - - - - -
6 KS 0.425 0.175 1.655 3 NS
7 BS - - — - -
8 WN 0.260 0.120 0.721 4 NS
9 EW 0.333 0.333 0.000 8 NS
10 FT 0.500 0.390 0.714 9 NS
11 tg 0.314 0.214 0.917 6 NS
12 DZ - - - - -

*Related measures t.

32
TABLE 10
Mean magnitude of the negative wave response to the CS+ and

05- for each subject during the discrimination phase

 

Mean response magnitude (mv/mm)

 

.SQQject 05¢ 03- t* df P

1 SB 0.100 0.050 0.46 1 NS

2 00 0.500 0.333 0.38 5 NS

3 MP 0.883 0.366 3.09 5 "<.05
4 r0 0.400 0.100 3.90 2 NS

5 sb 0.555 0.200 6.57 8 .< .001
6 KS 0.666 0.233 2.74 2 NS

7 BS 0.633 0.444 1.10 8 NS

8 WN 0.757 0.600 0.85 6 NS

9 Ew - - - - -

10 FT - - - - -

11 tg 0.275 0.200 0.35 NS

12 DZ 0.614 0.385 1.75 NS

*Related measures t.

 

Table 11 summarizes the results of the analysis com-

paring the overall frequency of positive wave responses to

the overall frequency of negative wave responses for each.§

during discrimination conditioning.

Additional analysis com-

pared the magnitude of the positive wave response to the CS+

with the magnitude of the negative wave response to the CS+,

33
yielded no significant differences (3’: 1.24, df’= 11).

Moreover, the magnitude of the positive wave response to the
CS- was found not to differ from the magnitude of the

negative response to the CS- (1 = 1.03, df = 11).

TABLE 11
The mean number of positive and negative wave responses for
each subject responding with both the positive and negative

waves during the discrimination phase

 

 

Number of responses

 

 

 

Subject Mean number of Mean number of t* df P
positive waves negative waves

1 SB 5.25 0.50 14.66 3.<,001
2 CG 5.16 0.33 7.06 5‘<.001
3 MP - - - - -

4 TG 2.00 1.83 0.172 5 NS
5 sb - - - - -

6 KS 2.20 2.40 0.192 5 NS
7 BS - - - - -

8 WN 0.87 4.00 4.02 7 <.01
9 EN - . — - - -
10 FT - - y - - -
ll tg 4.00 1.28 3.64 6 <.02
12 DZ - - - - -

*Related measures t

34

The frequency of positive wave responses to CS+ and
the 08- were compared with the number of negative wave res-
ponses to the CS+ and CS-. No significant differences were
found (_'I_: = .87. at = 11), nor to cs- (3 = .92, df = 11).

Conditioneg_§gyersal. An analysis of the positive
and negative wave responses during the reversal period was
similar to that done for the discrimination conditioning
period. Conditioning was assessed by comparing the magni-
tudes of the positive and negative wave responses to CS+
and CS- for each §. The analysis of the positive wave res-
ponse revealed that only one § demonstrated conditioning.
0f the 11 remaining gs, four did not produce positive wave
responses, while six responded with both positive and nega-
tive wave responses. Analysis of the negative wave response
indicated that two §s achieved the criterion of conditioning.
However, subsequent analysis revealed that these two §s
responded more frequently with positive wave responses:
Three §s failed to respond with any negative wave responses,
while the remaining §s responded with both wave forms.

Also indicated in Table 12 are the results of an
analysis comparing the overall frequency of positive waves
with the overall frequency of negative wave forms occurring
for eachԤ during conditioned reversal.

The mean magnitude of all positive waves to the CS+
was found to not differ significantly from the mean magnitude
of all negative waves (3,: .81, df = 11). Similar analysis

35
TABLE 12
The mean number of positive and negative wave responses for
each subject responding with both positive and negative wave

responses during the reversal phase

 

Numbers of responses

 

 

Subject Mean number Mean number t* df P
of positive . of negative
wave gesponses waveggespggges
1 SB
2 CG 5.16 0.66 7.92 11 <.001
3 MP
4 TG 2.16 3.00 0.92 5 NS
5 sb
6 KS 1.25 3.28 2.06 3 NS
7 BS
8 WN 0.77 3.00 2.63 8 <.05
9 EW
10 FT 2.11 1.55 6.511 9 '<.001
ll tg
12 DZ

*Related measures t.

 

revealed like results for the magnitudes of all positive wave
responses to CS- (t_= .16, df’= 11). However, an analysis

of the frequency of all wave forms revealed a significant

36
difference in the frequency of positive and negative wave
form responses to CS+, where the frequency of negative wave
responses was greater (3 = 2.47, df = 11, p '<.05). 0n the
other hand, there was no difference in frequency of positive

and negative wave responses to CS- (3 a 1.14, df = 11).

Discussion

The results of the present study may be summarized
as follows. First, 3 month old infants are capable of learn-
ing a conditioned discrimination and a reversal of that dis-
crimination, as indicated by the autonomically mediated SP
response. This finding strengthens previous contentions
that autonomic conditioning in infants is possible (Brackbill
& Fitzgerald, 1969). Second, there are individual differ-
ences in OR magnitude found among infants. Third, the indi-
vidual differences in OR magnitude are related to condition-
ability; where conditionability in this study refers to the
rapidity with which conditioning occurs as well as to the
attainment of set criteria concerning response magnitude.

The question arises as to whether or not any differ-
ence between the response magnitudes to CS+ and CS- can be
considered sufficient to denote a conditioned discrimination.
The answer to this question is apparently yes, particularly
when, as a control procedure, a reversal of the discrimination

is used. and the appropriate shift in response magnitude is

made (i.e., the response magnitude to the new CS+ becomes

37

greater than the response magnitude to the new CS-). The
occurrence of a significant overall effect during discrimina-
tion conditioning indicates a trend toward conditioning for
all but one subject. However, of particular importance is
the shift in response magnitudes during the conditioned
reversal. This shift to greater magnitude responding to
the new CS+ over the new 08- indicates that the significance
of the pairing of reinforcement with CS+ is learned. How-
ever, the failure of some §s to reach the criterion set
for conditioning indicates differences in the degree of
conditioning or condition ability among §s.

The range of the 0R magnitude (7.0 mv to 1.0 mv,
Md = 2.1 mV) demonstrates that human infants do differ in
certain physiological characteristics, and that these parti-
cular physiological differences are related to behavior
differences at this early age. Individual differences in
other systems have been described by a number of authors:
cardiac rate (Bridger & Reiser, 1959), homeostatic capacity
(Richmond, Lipton & Steinschneider. 1962). However, the
most extensive relating of the individual's physiological
activity to his behavior has been the positing of relation-
ships between autonomic function and later personality
characteristics. The data presented in this study indicates
that individually unique levels of autonomic responding are
related to individual differences in conditionability.

Strongest confirmation of such individual differences

was reflected in the occurrence of a significant number of

38

high 0R §s demonstrating conditioning, with only 1 low DR S
showing a conditioned response. The difference between the
high and low OH groups (also conditioners and non-
conditioners) is evident in other data analyses, for
instance, in the difference score data. Also the difference
in the degree of conditioning is reflected by the attainment
significantly larger response magnitudes to CS+ by the high
0R§s while the low 0R §s did manage only to approach a
significant difference in response magnitude between CS+
and CS-. This evidence demonstrates the difference in
relative stability of the CR between the two groups, with
the high 0R subjects showing a tendency toward a more stable
CR. Also the finding of a relationship between condition-
ability and individual differences in OR magnitude is
analogous to the findings with adults such as in the research
of Maltzman and Raskin and Maltzman and Mandell. If the
phenomenon cannot be demonstrated consistently there is then
some probability associated with its occurrence. Thus 0R
magnitude may reflect the probability of an individual's
ability to produce and inhibit responses at given instances
of stimulation. This is reflected in the existence of a
significant difference between the high and low 0R groups on
the difference score.

The significant difference score data indicates that
a higher proportion of the low 0R §s responses to CS- were

equal or greater in magnitude than those for the higher 0R

39

group. This difference reflects a separation of the two
groups on the probability of the unpaired (CS- or incorrect
stimulus) stimulus eliciting a response of equal strength
as the paired stimulus (CS+ or correct stimulus). This
response occurrence probability differs from general res-
ponsivity or the activity level of a response system, in
that it refers to the likelihood of a response to a specific
stimulus in a given class of stimuli rather than the likeli-
hood of a response to any stimulus of that particular class
of stimuli. or of a large magnitude response to any of a
given class of stimuli. In addition, the data also indicated
that the majority of those §s initially learning the dis-
crimination appear to reach a point of optimum discrimina-
tion, or a peak in response magnitude to the CS+ over res-
ponse magnitude to the CS-. This peak of perfbrmance tends
to drop off after a few trials with the discrimination
showing a tendency to deteriorate. The shape of this func-
tion suggests a change of response occurrence probability
within.§s. However, this is probably not the case because
the magnitude of the responses to CS- decrease, indicating a
change in the level of responsiveness. Therefore, the 0R
reflects the many possible components of an.§s internal sys-
tem of response occurrence probability, and since these
probabilities may be expected to differ among individuals,
the indicators of this system may also differ among individuals.
The present results and interpretations conflict

with the findings of Morgenson and Martin (1968) using human

40
adults. These investigators found no differences between
"aware” and ”unaware" §s on OR magnitude in a verbal con-
ditioning study. Their Study also demonstrated that §s
having initially large magnitude responses continued to
respond with large magnitude CRs. From the above data
Morgenson argues that a correlation between 0R magnitude as
indexed by a single measure, and CR magnitude indexed by
the same measure, does not give evidence of a relationship
of the OR with conditioning, but rather demonstrates within
system responsiveness. The problem of within system res-
ponsiveness is best approached by looking at the discrimina-
tion paradigm and its requirement that the response to CS-
remain the same while the response to CS+ increase in magni-
tude. Therefore, if a particular group of §s are high magni-
tude responders (high OR) and the level of the GR is higher
than for low magnitude responders, then within system res-
ponsiveness has possibly been demonstrated. One must evalu-
ate these particular §s on criterion other than response
magnitude when compared on the basis of conditionability.
If a group of Se produces an initially high 0R level but a
CR level not significantly different from the CR level of
the SS producing an initially low 0R level, the designation
of within system responsiveness remains important for both
groups and not for one to the exclusion of the other. More-
over, any changes produced in the CR level for both groups

must then be due to some other factor in addition to within

41
system responsiveness, or to some factor(s) operating alone.
The present study indicates that the high and low OR groups
failed to differ in response magnitude to the CS+ (CR level).
In addition, the conditioned and non-conditioned §s did not
differ significantly in response magnitude to CS+. These
results do not fulfill the requirement of greater responsive-
ness attributable to one group (high magnitude responders)
if within system responsiveness were the sole variable in-
volved.

The results of the comparison of the response magni-
tude to 03- indicates that in one group (the non-conditioned
one) the responses to 03- were greater than the conditioned
group, demonstrating that SS in the conditioned group in-
hibited responding to 08- to a greater degree than did §s
in the non-conditioned group. This explains the greater
difference scores for the conditioned group. One might also
add that the decrement of the response to 05- over time is a
contradiction of the CR being an augmented response due to
”sensitization” or pseudoconditioning.

The question of sensitization brings up the position
of Dykman (1967) that conditioning is an equivalent process
to sensitization, meaning that the process of response
facilitation underlying CS augmentation is the same neural
process as involved in the conditioning process, and refers to
the particular neural pathways sensitized. The reversal

process indicates the changing of particular pathways to

42
involve transfer of sensitization to a new stimulus.

Here again one can assert that for the high OR §S
the likelihood of the appropriate response during reversal
is governed by the rapidity with which particular pathways
are changed to involve transfer of sensitization to a new
stimulus. At this point an adequate description of the
internal processes involved during conditioning await further
clarification. Yet, the individual differences that allow
one infant to manifest a certain phenomenon while disallowing
another under similar conditions of measurement, may be des-
cribed as the difference in the likelihood of the operation
of certain internal systems producing the appropriate res-
ponses. The likelihood of these particular systems operating
”properly" may be manifested by differences in the levels
of the 0R.

An additional factor that may operate to produce an
effect on the response system is the S's state or level of
arousal. Although state or level of arousal has been found
to be related to responsivity in infants (e.g. Brackbill &
Fitzgerald, 1969), there was no relationship between state
and conditioning found in the present study. Because of the
many systems involved in a gross behavioral measure of
state, a response like SP may vary little between each of a
number of different levels of arousal. These independent
fluctuations of one variable may be submerged within the com-
plexity of the interaction of the many variables. For

example. the influence of respiration rate on heart rate may

43
be substantial, yet an observed change in respiration rate
is not sufficient evidence to conclude that there was a
significant change in heart rate.

A behavioral measure of state, as was used in the
present study, may be insufficiently sensitive to very sub-
tile internal physiological indices of arousal level.
Therefore, studies analyzing the effects of arousal an infant
responsivity should include examinations of both physio-
logical and behavioral measures of arousal. Nevertheless,
the fact remains that in the present study, the predominate
transition from quiet awake to active awake showed no
relationship to conditionability.

In addition to the need for further in-depth research
into the nature of state, implications for further research
arise from the analysis of the separate components of the SP
response. The occurrence of more than one particular com-
ponent of the SP response within the group of infants indi-
cates that infants do not necessarily respond with any parti-
cular form of the SP response. Rather, infants respond
with all forms of the response without there being a tendency
toward one wave form as opposed to another. However, there
is a predominately greater occurrence of the uniphasic type
of SP response over the biphasic or triphasic (in fact, the
triphasic wave was not obtained in the present study).
According to data reported by Raskin g£_g;. (1969) the pre-
dominating occurrence of the positive wave form can be attri-

buted to intensity effects. In the present study, intensity

44
was held constant, thus the intensity explanation contributes
little unless there are within S differences in perception
of stimulus intensity, or actual intensity as received at
the receptor. Therefore, further study is needed to ascer-
tain the extent to which factors like intensity have an

effect on the nature of the response.

REFERENCES

Beecroft, R.S. Classical conditionin . Colita, Calif:
Psychonomic Press, 1966.

Birch, H.G. & Demb, H. The formation and extinction of
conditioned reflexes in "brain-damaged” and mongoloid
children, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders;
1959 p 129 9 162-170 0

Brackbill, Y. & Koltsovs, M.M. Conditioning and learning.
In Y. Brackbill (Ed.). Infancy and early childhood.
New York: Free Press, 1967.

Brackbill, Y., Fitzgerald, H.E. & Lintz, L.M. A develop-
mental study of classical conditioning. Monograph
‘2; the Society of Reseapgh in Child Development.
1967, 38, whole no. 8.

Brackbill, Y., Lintz, L.M. & Fitzgerald, H.E. Differences
in the autonomic and somatic conditioning of intants.

Psychosomatic medicine, 1968, 30, 193-201.

Brackbill, Y. & Fitzgerald, H.E. Development of the sensory
analyzers during infancy. In L.P. Lipsitt & H.W.
Reese (Eds.) Advances in child development and
behavior, (4th ed.), New York: Academic Press, 1969.

Brackbill, Y. The role of the cortex in orienting:
Orienting reflex in an anaencephalic human infant.

Developmental Psychology, 1971, 5, 195-201.
Brackbill. Y. & Fitzgerald, H.E. 1967.

Bridger, W.H. & Reiser, M.F. Psychophysiologic studies of
the neonate: An approach toward the theoretical and
methodological problems involved. Psychosomatic
Medicine , 1959, 21, 265-276.

Dykman, R.A. Classical conditioning. In C.C. Brown (Ed.),
Methods in Ps cho h siolo Baltimore: The
Williams & Wilkins Company, 1967.

Edelburg, R. Electrophysiologic characteristics and inter-

pretations of skin potentials. USAF School of Medicine,
Technical Documents Report, 1963, 63-95.

45

46

Fitzgerald, H.E.. Lintz, L.M., Brackbill, Y. & Adams, G.
Time perception and conditioning of an autonomic
response in young infants. Perception & Motor Skillg,
1967, 24, 479-486.

Fitzgerald, H.E. & Porges, S.W. A decade of infant con-
ditioning and learning research. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly of Behavior and Develgpment, 1971, 17.

Fitzgerald, H.E. & Brackbill, Y. Tactile conditioning of
an autonomic and somatic response in young infants.
Conditional ReflexI 1971, 6, 41-51.

Forbes, T.W. & Bolles, M.M. Correlation of the response
potential of the skin with ”exciting” and "non-
exciting” stimuli. Journal of Psychology. 1936,
2, 273-285.

Gaviria, B., Coyne, L.. & Thelford, P. Correlations of skin
resistance and skin potential measures. Psycho-
physiology, 1969, 5, 465-477.

Grings, W.W.. Lockhart, R.A.. & Dameron, L.E. Conditioning
autonomic responses of mentally subnormal individuals.
Psychological Monographs, 1962, 76, 1-34, no. 36.

Jones, H. The galvanic skin reflex in infancy. Child
Development, 1930, 25, 106-110.

Karrer, R.. & Clausen, J.A. A comparison of mentally
deficient and normal individuals upon four dimensions

of autonomic activity. Journal of Mental Deficiency
ResearCh’ 196“. 8’ 1 6-1 3.

Kasatkin, N.I., Mirzoiants, N.S., & Khokhelva, A.P. Condi-
tioned orienting responses in children in the first

year of life. Journal pf Higher Nervous ActivityI
1953! 3: 192-202.

Kaye, H. The conditioned Babkin Reflex in human newborns.
Psychonomic Science, 1965, 2, 287-288.

Kimmel, H.D. Further analysis of GSR conditioning: A reply
to Stewart, Stern, Winokur, and Fredman. Psycho-
logical Review, 1964, 71, 160-166.

Kimmel, H.D. & Pennypacker, H.S. ’Differential GSR condition-
ing as function of the CS-UCS interval. Journal of

Experimental PsychologyI 1963, 65, 559-563.

Kimmel, H.D. & Greene, W.A. Disinhabition in GSR condition-
ing as a function of the number of CS-UCS trials and
temporal location of the novel stimulus. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 1964, 68, 567-572.

4?

Koch, J. The development of the orienting reaction to
humans in 2-3 month infants. Activatas Nervosa

Lipsitt, L.P. Learning in the first year of life. In L.P.
Lipsitt & H.W. Reese (Eds.), Advances in child

degelopment and behavior. New York: Academic Press,
19 3.

Lipsitt, L.P. & Kaye, H. Conditioned sucking in the human
newborn. Psychonomic Science, 1964, 1, 29-30.

Lipton, E.L., Steinschneider, A., & Richmond, J.B.
Autonomic function in the neonate: IV Individual
differences in cardiac reactivity. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 1961, 23, 472-484.

Lockhart, R.A. & Grings, W.W. Comments on an “analysis of

GSR conditioning”. Psychological Review, 1963,
70 . 562-56“.

Lockhart, R.A. Comments regarding multiple response
phenomenon in long interstimulus interval condition-

ing. Psychophysiology, 1966, 3, 108-114.

Lovibond. S. H. Habituation of orienting responses to

multiple stimulus sequences. Psychophysiology,
1969: 5: 435-439.

Maltzman, I. & Raskin, D.C. Effects of individual differences
in the orienting reflex on conditioning and complex
processes. Journal of Ex erimental Research in

Personalitll 19 5, 1’ 1-1 0

Maltzman, I. & Mandell. M.P. The orienting reflex as
a predictor of performance and learning. Journal of
Experimental Research in Personality, 1968, 3, 99-106.

McCleary, R.A. The nature of the galvanic skin response,
Psychological Bulletin, 1950, 47, 97-117.

Morgenson, D.F. & Martin, I. The orienting response as a
predictor of autonomic conditioning. Journal of

Experimental research in Personality, 1968, 3, 89-90.

Pavlov, I.P. Conditioned Reflgxes: An investi ato

activity of the cerebrggcortex. London: Oxford
University Press, 1927.

 

 

 

Raskin, D.C.. Kotses, H., & Bever, J. Autonomic indicators
of orienting and defensive reflexes. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: 1969, 80, 423-433.

48

Richmond, J.B., Lipton, E.L., & Steinschneider, A. Observa-
tions on differences in autonomic nervous system
function between and within individuals during early
infancy. American Acagemy of Child Psychiatryl 1962,
1, 83-910

Shaver, B.A., Brusilow, S.W. & Cooke, R.C. Origin of the
galvanic skin response. Proceeds of the Society of
Experimental Biological Medicine, 1962, 110, 559-564.

Sokolov, E.N. Neuronal models and the orienting reflex.
In M.A.B. Braziers (Ed.) Central nervous §ystem and
behavior. New York: Josiah Mavey, Jr. Foundation,
1960.

. Perception and the conditioned reflex. Oxford:
Pergamon Press, 1963a.

. Higher nervous functions: The orienting reflex.
Annual Review of Physiology, 1963b, 25, 545-580.

Steinschneider, A. Deve10pmenta1 psychophysiology. In
Y. Brackbill (Ed.) lpfancy and early childhood.
New York: The Free Press, 1967.

Stewart, M.A., Stern, J.A., Winokur, G.. & Fredman, S. An

analysis of GSR conditioning. Psychological Review,
1961 g 68 p 68-70 0

Uno, T., & Grings, W.W. Autonomic components of orienting
behavior. Psychophysiology, 1965, 1, 311-321.

Wilcott, R.C. Correlation of skin potential and resistance.
Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology.
195 O 51’ 91" 950

Woodworth, R.S. & Schlosburg, H. Experimental Psychology,
(Rev., ed.) New York: Holt and Co.. 19543

Zeiner, A.R. Orienting response and discrimination condi-
tioning, Physiology and Behavior, 1970, 5, 641-646.

Zimny, G.H. & Schawbe, L.W. Stimulus change and habituation
of orienting response, Psychophysiology, 1966, 2,
103-115. ‘

A Scale for

State
gpmber

1.

2.

3.

APPENDIX A

Rating State (Brackbill and Fitzgerald, 1969)

State
name

Quiet
sleep

Active
sleep

Drowsiness

Quiet
Awake

Description

The infant's whole body gives the
appearance of general muscular
relaxation. This is interrupted
periodically, however, by brief
startles of an apparently spontaneous
nature, the infant's eyes are

usually closed. Respiration is
regular and is somewhat slower than
in active sleep.

Characteristics of this stage are
diffuse movements of relatively fre-
quent occurrence. These movements
may involve the whole body but are
most typically seen in the extemities
and in the muscles of the face in

the form of grimaces, smiling, suck-
ing, and the like. In addition, one
can sometimes see conjugate movements
of the eyeballs. (As in state 1, the
eyelids are usually closed.) Respira-
tion is considerably more irregular
and is somewhat faster than in quiet
sleep.

During this stage the infant's motor
behavior is often much like that of
sleepy people riding subway trains:

he relaxes more and more as he
gradually falls asleep, then suddenly
jerks awake. His eyelids flutter, and
his eyes, when visible, have a glassy
appearance. Respiration is more apt
to be marked by regularity than ir-
regularity.

There is little gross motor activity,
i.e., movements involving the whole
body, although there may be some
movements of the extremities and face.

49

50

State State , Description
number name

The baby's eyes are open and in
Wolff's terms (1966) are character-
ized by a bright, shiny appearance,
the major difference between this
state and the other two waking states
is that this is a peaceful state.
Accordingly, the vocalizations that
occur during this state are not of
an ”unhappy” variety. Respiration
is relatively regular, though less
regular than in quiet sleep.

5. Active This state is marked by a consider-
awake able amount of gross motor activity.

For example, as an infant becomes
unhappy he may begin to writhe.
Respiration is often quite irregular.
Within the spectrum of vocalizations
occurring during this period are
those of the cranky, fussy variety.

6. Crying The criteria for this state are the
awake same as those for the preceding state

except that in addition the infant
is crying. (He may or may not be
producing tears: most very young in-
fants do not). The lower limit of
crying is defined as protesting of
a definite, sustained nature.

S

 

"'IIIIIIIIILIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJIIIISIIIIS