ABSTRACT EFFECTS OF ORIENTING AND DEFENSIVE REFLEXES IN CLASSICAL CONDITIONING By Barry Kotses This research was primarily concerned with the manner in which orienting and defensive reflexes (ORs and DRs) influence conditoned and unconditioned autonomic responses (CRs and UCRs) in classical conditioning. In general, this problem was approached by comparing the CR5 and UCRs of experimental groups in which ORs and DRs were consistently elicited with the responses of appropriate control groups. A further objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that UCR decrement and recovery, observed in studies of conditioned inhibition, was not a consequence of inhibitory processes but a re- sult of OR dynamics. Specifically, it was theorized that UCR decre— ment was due to the habituation of the OR over trials, and that what appeared to be UCR recovery was actually the elicitation of the OR by a novel stimulus in the form of a trial consisting only of the un- conditioned stimulus (UCS). To test this formulation, the responses of paired groups on UCS—only test trials administered at the end of the acquisition session were compared with those of unpaired groups. A total of 96 male undergraduate psychology students served as §§: Half the §§_received trials in which the conditioned stimulus (CS) was paired the the UCS while the remainder received the same stimuli in an unpaired fashion. §§_in the paired group were further divided into two groups. One of these groups received a 60 dB UCS Harry Kotses while the other received a 120 dB UCS. In addition, half the §§_in the 60 dB group and half of those in the 120 dB group were asked to perform a motor task at UCS onset. Unpaired groups were treated in the same manner. Fifteen CS-UCS trials were presented to the §§_in the paired groups. The same stimuli, in terms of number and quality, were pre- sented to the unpaired groups, but, in this case, no time relation- ships existed between them. At the end of this series, all §§_re- ceived 2 UCS-only trials. The CS was a low intensity tone and the UCS was a white noise of either low or high intensity. The skin con- ductance response (SCR) and the skin potential response (SPR) were the dependent variables. The performance of a task consistently elicited an OR during conditioning and permitted the examination of the effects of the OR on the CR and UCR in paired task groups. A DR was elicited by the 120 dB UCS thereby allowing its effects on CR3 and UCRs to be studied in paired groups receiving the high intensity UCS. The results showed that the 0R served to increase the magnitude of the response to the tone and to the noise in both paired and unpaired groups. Furthermore, the responses of the Unpaired-Task group were as large or larger than those of the Paired-Task group. This result indicated that the elicitation of an OR in no way contributed to the formation of a true CR. The elicitation of a DR also served to increase the magnitude of all responses. However, in this case, the CRs of paired groups were larger than those of unpaired groups. Thus, it was con- cluded that the elicitation of a DR was instrumental in the development of a true CR. a--. a'. o -- Harry Kotses With respect to SCRs on UCS-only trials, the paired groups gave significantly larger responses than did the unpaired groups. This result was in accordance with 0R theory. Paired and unpaired group responses of equal magnitude would have been predicted by the condi- tioned inhibition theory. Thus, a reinterpretation of UCR diminution and recovery in terms of OR theory was supported. EFFECTS OF ORIENTING AND DEFENSIVE REFLEXES IN CLASSICAL CONDITIONING By Harry Kotses A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1968 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to Dr. Paul Bakan, Dr. Glenn I. Hatton, Dr. Ralph L. Levine, and Dr. Mark E. Rilling for their encouragement and sug- gestions during the course of this research. Thanks are also due to James Bever for his assistance in the analysis of the data. I am especially indebted to Dr. David C. Raskin for his guidance and support in every phase of this project. Without his efforts this work would not have been possible. This research was supported by United States Public Health Service Grant MB 11996 to David C. Raskin. Chapter I II III IV TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION The OR and learning The OR in classical conditioning Indexes of the OR STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The OR and the DR in classical conditioning The effects of novel stimulation during conditioning Comparison of autonomic indexes METHOD Subjects Design Apparatus Procedure Scoring of electrodermal responses RESULTS Skin conductance responses Skin potential responses UCR magnitude on test trials DISCUSSION OR and DR effects during conditioning Effects of novel stimuli during conditioning Comparison of skin conductance and skin potential responses Implications for future research BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A STIMULUS SEQUENCE APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL GROUPS iii Page 1 ll 13 15 15 16 18 19 19 19 2o 22 23 25 2s 29 33 35 35 an as 48 53 55 APPENDIX C SCORING PROCEDURES 59 APPENDIX D STATISTICAL TESTS 61 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 1. U1 0') \l (D LO LIST OF TABLES Analysis of variance summary table for SCR to ucs (15 trials) Analysis of variance summary table for SCR to tones (15 trials) Analysis of variance summary table for positive skin potential responses to UCS (15 trials) Analysis of variance summary table for negative skin potential responses to UCS (15 trials) Analysis of variance summary table for positive skin potential responses to tones (15 trials) Analysis of variance summary table for negative skin potential responses to tones (15 trials) Analysis of variance summary table for SCR to UCS on trials 16 and 17 Analysis of variance summary table for positive skin potential responses to UCS on trials 16 and 17 Analysis of variance summary table for negative skin potential responses to UCS on trials 16 and 17. Page 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 LIST OF FIGURES Figure l. The skin conductance reSponse to the CS and Page UCS for both intensities of UCS for blocks of three trials and UCS-only test trials 26 Figure 2. The positive skin potential response to the CS and UCS for both intensities of UCS for blocks of three trials and UCS-only test trials. 30 Figure 3. The negative skin potential response to the CS and UCS for both intensities of UCS for blocks of three trials and UCS-only test trials 31 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A discriminable change in stimulation, regardless of its nature, elicits a distinct and relatively invariable response generally referred to as the orienting reflex (Pavlov, 1927; Sokolov, 1960). Except for the fact that the magnitude of the orienting reflex (OR) is a positive function of both the magnitude of stimulus change (Kimmel, 1960) and the intensity of stimulation (Raskin, Kotses 8 Bever, in press), the response to a noticeable alteration in the intensity of a familiar stimulus is much the same as the response to a completely new stimulus. Neither the sensory modality involved nor the direction of change in intensity is a determining factor; the only important characteristic of a stimulus eli- citing the OR is detectability. Because of the wide range of stimuli capable of eliciting an OR, it is sometimes referred to as a nonspecific reSponse (Sokolov, 1960). The adaptive value of a response such as the OR is immediately obvious. Important events in the existence of any organism occur as abrupt changes in the environment. The approach of a predator, the appearance of potential prey, and even the presence of a mate are signaled by a change in the quality of stimulus input, or by what might be described as a novel stimulus. A movement, a sound, an odor, or a host of other stimuli may serve to elicit an OR, provided the organism is able to detect 2 the stimulus and identify it as a change superimposed against a back- ground of seemingly constant stimulation. Perhaps the survival of an organism is the best indication that it can, in fact, detect important environmental changes. Although all discriminable stimuli usually initially elicit an OR, only a limited number of stimuli are capable of conSistently eliciting the response under conditions of repeated presentation. Stimuli of the latter type include significant stimuli such as food or intense stimuli, and neutral stimuli that have become conditioned stimuli or have acquired importance through instructional procedures (Lynn, 1966). Because of their ability to consistently elicit an OR such stimuli are said to possess signal value. The responses to stimuli which do not predict the occurrence of an important stimulus decrease after several presentations (Coombs, 1938; Davis, 1930; Porter, 1938; Sokolov, 1960, 1963; Williams, 1963). This fact leads to theconclusion that as the organism's experience with such neutral stimuli increases, the magni- tude of response to the stimulus decreases or habituates. Furthermore, some research (Sokolov, 1960) has shown that the decrease in OR magni- tude is coincident with a decrease in perceptual discrimination. The OR was first observed and described by Pavlov (1927). In a laboratory geared to the study of the conditioned reflex (CR), it must have been extremely disquieting to encounter a form of behavior capable of disrupting a reflex carefully developed over a long period of time. As reported by Lynn (1966), the OR was an inconvenience to some of Pavlov's students; for once a conditioned reflex had been established, an OR to a novel stimulus would very often obscure the CR which was so painstakingly established. Pavlov, however, understood the importance 3 0f the response and briefly discussed the role played by the OR in the development of the CR. At one point, he considered the idea of using the OR to determine the degree to which a particular sensory system was capable of discriminating between two stimuli, but he rejected the notion because he recognized the transient nature of the response. Since the OR was originally noted in Pavlov's laboratory, it is not surprising that the great bulk of research concerning this prob- lem has been carried out in Russia. In general, 0R work in that country has progressed toward both the description of the response in terms of its physiological and behavioral components, and the study of the function of the OR in perception and learning (Sokolov, 1963). To date, a large number of OR components have been reported (Lynn, 1966) including momentary cessation of ongoing skeletal acti— vity, EEG changes, elicitation of skin potential and skin resistance responses, alteration in resPiratory rhythm, changes in the cephalic and peripheral vasculature, increase in EMG, pupillary dilation, and changes in the heart rate. Studies of behavioral components of the general response have emphasized receptor orientation. This listing, although including most of the reSponses studied in OR research, should in no way be understood to represent the totality of orienting behavior. As in all research areas, knowledge of the components of the orienting reflex is limited by the ingenuity of the experimenter and the sensitivity of his recording instruments. According to Sokolov (1960, 1963), the function of this complex of autonomic and motor activity is to increase the organism's percep— tual discriminative capacity. This is in line with most thinking re- garding the function of the 0R. Pavlov (1927) descriptively termed .m‘wm —_ ._ ___ _ - u the response "investigatory reflex" while Razran (1961) spoke of the 0R as "...being more preparatory than consummatory--more preadaptive than adaptive..." and as serving "...a function not unlike cognition". Hence, the 0R may be thought of as a response which placed the organism in an optimal perceptual situation such that the initiation of a sub- sequent adaptive course of behavior is facilitated. Direct evidence regarding enhancement of perceptual discrimination during an OR is provided by Sokolov (1960), while indirect evidence demonstrating increasingly fine electrophysiological responses resulting from either reticular (Lindsley, 1958) or subcortical (Chang, 1960) stimulation or from direct stimulation of the receptors (Sokolov, 1960) has also been reported. In a very dramatic study (Sokolov, 1960) a subject's intensity threshold for a light stimulus was determined. Fol— lowing this procedure, a test stimulus was given consisting of the same light stimulus but at an intensity below the predetermined level. The subject gave no response. An auditory stimulus was then presented which elicited the usual OR, and it was quickly followed by the subthreshold light stimulus which the subject then reported perceiving. Less direct evidence for the facilitation of perception during an OR is presented by Lindsley (1958), who reported that a pair of light flashes 50 msec. apart, which normally evoked a single response from the visual cortex of the cat, evoked two responses after reticular stim- ulation. In another animal study, Sokolov (1960) reported an increment in the electroretinogram response to a light stimulus following elicita- tion of an OR by an auditory stimulus. Chang (1960) showed that an OR elicited by light stimulation caused an increase in the response to electrical stimulation of the lateral geniculate body. Thus, it may ectj be argued that stimulation eliciting the OR increases the activity of the nervous system, and an increase of such activity facilitates res- ponsiveness to subsequent stimulation. A quite different situation results from a very high level of stimulation. According to Sokolov (1963), intense stimulation elicits the defensive reflex (DR) which functions to attenuate the effect of such stimulation. In this sense, it serves a role exactly opposite to that served by the 0R. Physiologically, the OR and the DR are very much alike, although recent evidence (Raskin et. al., in press) has suggested that the two may be distinguished on the basis of cardiac changes and certain types of electrodermal responses. Behaviorally, the OR is associated with the active seeking of stimulation, while the DR may involve either withdrawal or immobilization reactions. (Sokolov, 1963). A great deal of work related to unconditioned responses has been done in Western laboratories. Some of it, of course, represents an extension of the traditional Russian physiological approach (Dykman, Reese, Galbrecht, 6 Thomasson, 1959; Galbrecht, Dykman, Reese, 8 Suzuki, 1965; Maltzman 8 Raskin, 1965; Stein, 1966; Uno 6 Grings, 1965; Zimny 8 Kienstra, 1967; Zimny 8 Schwabe, 1965). For the most part, however, related work performed outside Russia has not specifically stressed the response to novel stimulation and the corresponding shift in sensory thresholds. Davis and his collaborators (Davis 6 Buchwald, 1957; Davis, Buchwald, 5 Frankmann, 1955), although devoting much re- search to the study of unconditioned responses to both simple and com- plex stimulation, have been primarily interested in patterns of autonomic activity and how these may be related to states of motivation or arousal. 6 This theoretical framework has led to experimental procedures and methods of data analysis which, although interesting, are of limited usefulness in the study of the OR. A recent research program having much in common with the 0R concept has dealt with the perceptual disparity response (Grings, 1960; Grings, 1965). Interest in this work has centered around the notion of the man- ipulation of set. Typically, a perceptual disparity test trial consis- ting of an unexpected stimulus presented to the subject follows an ac- quisition period during which a particular expectancy has been estab- lished. In one such arrangement (Grings, 1960) movement to the first position of a two position lever signaled a tone during acquisition, while movement to the second position signaled a light. A perceptual disparity trial consisted of presenting the tone when §_was expecting the light. The difference in magnitude of GSR between the disparity test trial and the last acquisition tone trial represents the amount of perceptual disparity. A general result of disparity studies is that the magnitude of the disparity response is a positive function of the number of acquisi- tion trials (Grings, 1960). Although these experiments are described in terms of cognitive variables such as expectancy and set, the simi- larity between the perceptual disparity response and the OR is imme- diately apparent. A disparity trial represents a novel stimulus, and the novelty factor is increased (as a function of probability) in a situation where a large number of similar acquisition trials are presented. In connection with the perceptual disparity response, the rela- tionship between the magnitude of the disparity response and the amount of difference in stimulus intensity between the test and acqui- sition stimuli has been investigated. Kimmel (1960) conditioned a GSR to noise paired with shock in five groups of SE differing only with respect to the intensity of the CS. CS acquisition intensities used were 35 dB, 55dB, 75 dB, 95 dB, and 115 dB, and three CS intensities (#5 dB, 75 dB, 105 dB) were used during extinction. An equal number of §§_from each of the five original groups was extinguished at each intensity. The GSR to the first extinction trial, which represented a novel stimulus, was plotted as a function of the intensity differ- ence between acquisition and extinction 083. The §§_experiencing the greatest intensity change from acquisition to extinction gave the largest disparity responses. Grinland White (1965) using light stimuli of varying wave-lengths confirmed these results by showing that GSRS occuring on test trials were a monotonic function of amount of stimulus change. Thus, in summary, it may be concluded that perceptual disparity research has shown that the OR is elicited by novel stimulation and that the magnitude of the OR is a positive function of the degree of novelty inherent in the eliciting stimulus. Novelty, in turn, was found to be dependent upon the magnitude of the difference between the stimuli used on non—disparity and diSparity trials, and upon the probability of encountering a given stimulus at a given time and place. Some consideration has also been given to the study of individual differences in disparity behavior. Grings andiockhart (1963) showed that subjects who gave large disparity responses on a test trial be- fore extinction behaved differently during extinction with respect to their GSRs than did subjects who gave low disparity responses. The fact that individuals who differ in their reaponses to novel stimula- tion also differ in terms of other behaviors has become significant in the interpretation of individual differences in the performance of learning tasks (Maltzman 8 Raskin, 1965; Raskin, in press). The OR and learning Perhaps the greatest body of Western research related to the OR deals not so much with an interest in the actual response, but rather with theories of arousal. These are concerned with a unified reinter— pretation of behavior in terms of motivation, perception, and learning, and are compatible with OR theory and research. Theories of arousal or activation have become increasingly popular in recent years (Bindra, 1959) and represent a reaction against the drive-reduction formulations which dominated psychological thinking in the first half of this cen- tury. The research of the past twenty years has amply illustrated the interest of psychologists in behaviors capable of being reinforced with rewards not associated with traditional biological drives (Cofer 6 Appley, 196u). Much of this research has shown that stimulus change or novelty by itself can reinforce behavior and, thus, result in learning (Bindra, 1959). The fact that novel stimulation is chiefly responsible for the elicitation of an OR, coupled with the results of recent research indi— cating that novelty can reinforce behavior, has led some theorists (Berlyne, 1960; Maltzman 8 Raskin, 1965) to suggest that physiological responses comprising the OR are in some way instrumental in facilitat- ing the types of behavior referred to as learning. In this way, phy- siological studies carried out in Russia and recent Western behavioral bet 9 research dealing with learning and motivation can be seen as comple— mentary, representing the study of the same problem and differing in approach and level. Much research has shown that physiological response systems commonly associated with the OR are active during learning and that learning is adversely affected when autonomic behavior is habituated. Brown (1937) performed an experiment requiring the learning of a serial list of nonsense syllables during a GSR recording session. Results indicated that both the rate of learning nonsense syllables and the magnitude of electrodermal activity were greatest during the beginning and end of the list. Carlton 6 Vogel (1967) showed that prior habi- tuation to the CS resulted in a deficit in conditioning, while MacDonald (19u6) and Taylor (1956) reported that the formation of the OR is hin- dered if UCR adaptation is carried out before acquisition. Thus, it appears that habituation of the OR to any stimulus involved in the con- ditioning paradigm retards learning. With respect to habituation, Koepke 6 Pribram (1966) and Stern, Winokur, Stewart,6 Leonard (1963) demonstrated that slower 0R habituation rates were correlated with in- creases in the amount of spontaneous activity, and Stern, Stewart,and Winokur (1961) showed that measures of spontaneous activity are posi- tively related to measures of learning. Stern et. al. (1963) con— cluded that learning is best when the ORs to the CS and the UCS habituate slowly. The role of instructions in the facilitation of both the 0R (Lynn, 1966) and in the development of conditioned-like behavior has also been well documented (Cook 6 Harris, 1937; Grings 6 Lockhart, 1963; Raskin, in press; Silverman, 1960; Wickens, Allen, 6 Hill, 1963; 10 Wickens 6 Harding, 1967). These results suggest that the importance of perceptual factors in conditioning (Grings, 1965) can be thought of as the elicitation of the OR by means other than simple pairing of CS and UCS. Other lines of evidence have indicated that the OR is important in the learning process. Lynn (1963), in his review of Russian liter- ature on schizophrenia, reported that schizophrenics display abnormal ORs. The nature of this abnormality was usually feeble responsiveness or, in some cases, complete absence of the 0R. Luria 6 Vinogradova (1959) suggested that poor learning observed in mentally defective children is due to a malfunction of the 0R, consisting of a failure to produce an OR to a novel stimulus or a failure of habituation of an OR to a familiar or irrelevant stimulus. Finally, Vinogradova (cited in Lynn, 1966) has reported that in newly born animals, in- strumental responses cannot be conditioned before the 0R has completely developed. In view of these facts it is not surprising that individuals grouped with respect to the magnitude of their ORs and designated as high and low orienting subjects exhibited some differences in their learning (Raskin, in press). His research involved a semantic condi— tioning experiment in which high OR subjects were found to be signi- ficantly superior to low OR subjects in verbalizing the word asso- ciatively related to the UCS, and also demonstrated a higher level of conditioning and sensitization than did low 0R subjects. Thus, little doubt remains that the concept of the OR is in some way related to learning. Additional research is required, however, to more clearly specify the relationship. Furthermore, the role of the 11 DR in the learning process is unclear. Accordingly, the primary pur- pose of this study was to examine the effects of ORs and DRs in a learning situation. The OR in classical conditioning The failure to recognize the operation of the OR in studies dealing with classical conditioning of autonomic responses has resulted in some rather complex explanations of the classical conditioning pro- cess. Novel stimulation, either in the form of test trials or new stimuli presented during extinction, usually results in an increase in response magnitude (Lynn, 1966). Among other things, this increase has been described as backward conditioning (Champion 6 Jones, 1961) and pseudoconditioning or sensitization (Prokasy, Hall, 6 Fawcett, 1962.) A recent, large-scale research program (Kimmel, 1966) has at- tributed the decrease in magnitude of the CR over repeated acquisition trials to the operation of inhibition active during the interval of delay. According to Pavlov (1927), inhibition of delay consists mainly of delay in onset of CR until the presentation of the UCS, at which time the occurrence of the CR is most appropriate. One possible inter- pretation of this phenomenon is that the §_gradually acquires the ability to delay the occurrence of the CR; a process which obviously has much in common with the fixed-interval "scallop" observed in in- strumental conditioning. Kimmel has verified that inhibition of delay occurs in GSR con- ditioning, and he has extended this line of reasoning to include the effects of inhibition of delay on the UCR (Kimmel, 1965; Kimmel, 1966; Kimmel 6 Fowler, 1961; Kimmel 6 Green, 1969; Kimmel 6 Pennypacker, 12 1962). According to Kimmel, the consequence of inhibition of delay is a reduction in UCR magnitude. He further maintains that UCR reduction is a direct result of inhibition conditioned to the CS, and that this can easily be demonstrated by omitting the CS following several pair- ings of the CS with the UCS. In classical eyelid conditioning situa- tions, Kimble and Ost (1961) and Kimble and Dufort (1956) found that following the gradual diminution of the UCR, the omission of the CS resulted in an abrupt increase in the amplitude of the UCR. This, in turn, was followed by an immediate attenuation of the UCR when the CS was restored. It should be pointed out, however, that these investi- gators were not testing for conditioned inhibition and, therefore, did not include control groups necessary for the demonstration of this phenomenon. Kimmel (1965) has also suggested that the attenuation of the UCR may possibly reflect a decrease in the perceived magnitude of the UCS in situations where the UCS is noxious. Further research (Kimmel, 1967; Kimmel 6 Schultz, 196”) has failed to confirm this hypothesis and has cast some doubt on such an adaptive interpretation of the observed diminution. The attenuation of the UCR is, however, a well-documented phenomenon and has not been described in terms of any theoretical con— cept other than inhibition. A close examination of the data from several experiments in the research program of Kimmel and his associates reveals that some con- tradictory results have been obtained, although formal discussion of them is lacking. Baxter (1966) compared diminution and recovery of the UCR in delayed-conditioning and trace- conditioning groups and in appropriate unpaired control groups. Diminution of UCR was demonstrated 13 in the paired groups. The unpaired control group for the trace— conditioning group, however, showed as much decrement as the paired group. Morrow (1966) observed an increase in magnitude of GSR of control groups during extinction which in some ways resembled UCR augmentation in paired groups following CS omission. Kimmel (1967) found the magnitude of the UCR after CS omission to be greater than it was at the beginning of the experiment. These observations seem to cast doubt on the explanation of UCR diminution in terms of in- hibition and suggest that another process may be operating. Clearly, a reinterpretation of diminution might be made in terms of OR habi- tuation and dishabituation following a novel, UCS-only trial. Therefore, a further purpose of the current experiment consisted of an attempt to demonstrate that UCR diminution may be better described by OR mechanisms than by inhibitory processes. Indexes of the OR Although a great number of autonomic responses may be used as 0R indicators, the overwhelming majority of studies reported in the liter- ature employ electrodermal measures. For this reason, these measures were selected for use as 0R indexes in the present experiment. In addition to the traditional skin conductance response (SCR), the skin potential response (SPR) was recorded in order to observe how it might resemble the SCR and how its negative and positive components are affected by conditioning, UCS intensity, and the performance of a motor task. Burstein, Fenz, Bergeron, and Epstein (1965) compared SPR and SCR magnitudes to word stimuli of varying emotional value. They found that the total SPR magnitude, computed by summing the positive and 19 negative SPR components, was almost identical to the SCR magnitude regardless of the emotional value of the words. The proportion of positive and negative components comprising the entire SPR however, varied as a function of the emotional value of the stimulus. This suggested that the component reSponses are not just a function of overall response magnitude but possibly are indicative of differen- tial emotional responsiveness. Many studies (Forbes, 1936; Forbes 6 Bolles, 1936; Nakayama 6 Tagaki, 1958; Raskin et. al., in press; Uno 6 Grings, 196”; Wilcott, Darrow, 6 Siegel, 1957; Yokota, Takahaski, Kondo, 6 Fujimori, 1959) have shown that the positive SP wave is eli- cited by relatively intense stimulation, while the negative wave is more closely related to mild stimuli. Hupka and Levinger (1967) re— ported that during conditions of passivity there existed a 100% cor- respondence between SCR and negative SPR, and motor activity reduced the correspondence to 50%. Although physiological mechanisms of the SP response are far from clear, most work has indicated that the posi- tive component is somehow related to higher levels of arousal brought a about by either more intense stimulation or by the performance of a task. Thus, so-called emotional or ideational stimuli may be important in the elicitation of some components of the SP response and unimpor— tant for others. Therefore, observations were made on the data col- lected in this experiment regarding the effects of various stimulus manipulations on the elicitation of positive and negative skin po- tential components and the possible relationships between these two responses and the SCR. CHAPTER II STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Very little research has studied the precise role of uncondi- tioned responses such as the OR and the DR in the conditioning pro- cess. Even less work has attempted to describe conditioned response dynamics in terms of OR mechanisms. The present experiment repre- sented an attack on these problems. The OR and the DR in classical conditioning In this experiment, OR and DR effects were studied in paired conditioning groups and in unpaired control groups. In the paired groups a tone was used as the CS and a white noise was used as the UCS. The control groups received the same stimulation in an un- paired fashion. In both the paired and unpaired groups some E3 were required to perform a task at the onset of the noise. This procedure provided signal value to the noise and consistently eli- cited an OR. Thus, any differences observed between the task and the no-task groups could be attributed to the elicitation of the 0R. Further, the intensity of the noise was varied so that some §§_re- ceived a noxious noise, and others received a very mild noise. Previous research (Raskin et. al., in press) had shown that the noxious noise used in this study was of sufficient intensity to 15 that - l6 elicit a DR. Therefore, it was assumed that DR effects would on the average be observed in groups receiving high intensity noise. The effects of task performance and high intensity stimulation on the responses to the tone were examined in the paired and unpaired groups. In this way, the roles of the OR and DR in conditioning could be studied. The effects of the stimulus manipulations described above were also examined with respect to the response to the noise. Differences between the task and no-task groups, could be related to the consis- tent elicitation of the OR in the task groups and differences between high and low noise intensity groups could be attributed to the effects of the operation of the DR in the high intensity groups. The differ- ential effects of task performance and intensity on the response to the noise in paired and unpaired groups was studied, in order to determine how these responses were related to responses to the tone. The effects of novel stimulation during conditioning A recent research program (Kimmel, 1966) has examined the role of novel stimulation during conditioning. Experiments in this program have focused on the problem of conditioned inhibition. Typically, UCR decrement was observed in conditioning and was described in terms of inhibition conditioned to the CS. UCS-only trials, presented at the end of the acquisition series, elicited responses larger than those elicited by the UCS during paired trials. Thus, it was hypothesized that the omission of the CS removed the inhibition that was depressing UCR magnitude. Obviously, UCR diminution and recovery may be accounted for in 17 terms of OR theory. Decreases in UCR magnitude over trials may represent the habituation of the OR, and recovery of the response in a UCS—only trial may be simply the elicitation of an OR to a novel or unexpected stimulus. This experiment attempted to establish a situation in which the inhibition hypothesis and OR theory would lead to different predictions. Groups receiving paired CS—UCS trials were compared with groups receiving unpaired presentations of the same stimulation. UCS-only trials were administered to all groups at the end of the paired or unpaired stimulus sequence. According to the inhibition hypothesis, response decrement and recovery was not expected to the stimulus analogous to the UCS in the unpaired groups. Since conditioning could not take place in these groups and UCR decrement could occur only in the paired groups, the conditioned inhibition description could be eliminated. Further, differences between paired and unpaired group responses to UCS-only trials would not be expected, since removal of inhibition in paired groups would, presumably, result in responses equivalent to those of groups in which inhibition never developed. Different predictions were made on the basis of OR theory. Since habituation of the OR occurs, response decrement in both paired and unpaired groups during the initial trials was predicted. Fur- thermore, since a novel stimulus produces an OR, and since UCS-only trials in unpaired groups did not represent a novel stimulus distin- guishable from previous trials, increased response magnitude on UCS- only trials was expected only in the paired groups. In summary, conditioned inhibition predicted response decrement in only the paired groups, and OR theory predicted decrement in both 18 groups. Differences between response magnitudes on UCS-only trials were predicted on the basis of OR theory, while the conditioned inhibition hypothesis predicted that no differences in UCS—only trial magnitudes would occur. Comparison of autonomic indexes This study also examined two autonomic indexes of orienting be— havior, the skin conductance response and the skin potential response. Although formal analyses correlating the activity of the two responses were not performed, the differential effects of the various stimulus manipulations on the positive and negative skin potential waves and the similarities between one or both of these components and the skin conductance response were considered. CHAPTER III METHOD Subjects Ninety-six Michigan State University male undergraduates en- rolled in introductory psychology courses volunteered to serve as §§° For their participation in the experiment, the §§_received extra course credit. The §§_ranged between 17 and 2% years of age except for three §§_whose ages were 29, 33, and 40. A total of 12 §§_were replaced; 6 because of §_error, 2 due to equipment failure, 2 because excessive movement artifact in their autonomic response records rendered the records unreadable, and 2 because they displayed cardiovascular abnormalities. Design The experiment employed a 2 X 2 X 2 factorial design with pair- ing (or no pairing), motor task (or no motor task) associated with UCS onset, and UCS intensity (60 or 120 dB) representing the three independent variables. Twelve subjects were assigned to each of the eight experimental conditions. As they arrived for the experiment, §§ were assigned to one of the experimental conditions on the basis of a random running order prepared before the start of the experiment. Forty-eight §§_were run in the paired groups and half of these were 19 20 required to lift their foot from a pedal in response to the UCS. In each of the two resulting groups, half the §§_were run using a UCS intensity of 60 dB while the other half received the 120 dB intensity. The same arrangement was used for the unpaired groups. Paired groups received a total of 15 tone-noise trials in which tone offset corresponded to noise onset. The duration of the tone or CS was 5 sec. while that of the noise or UCS was .5 sec. Randomly varied intertrial intervals of 30, 37.5, #5, 52.5, and 60 sec. with a mean of #5 sec. were used. Unpaired groups received 15 noises with time relationships between successive noises the same as those in the paired groups and the 15 tones were interspersed randomly between them. Restrictions were placed on tone presentations; no more than two tones intervened between two successive noises, the first stimulus in each session was always a tone, and at least 5 sec. of silence in- tervened between any two succeeding stimuli (see Appendix A for stimu- lus sequences and intervals in paired and unpaired groups). At the conclusion of this series of stimuli, all groups were administered 2 UCS-only trials to test for the effects of novel stimu- lation. The entire stimulation session lasted 13 minutes. Apparatus The S was seated in a comfortable armchair located in a room adjoining the equipment room. Automatic presentation and timing of stimuli was achieved by using a system of electromechanical relays controlled by a punched paper tape read by a Teletype tape reader. The CS consisted of a 1000 Hz tone at 60 dB which was produced by an Eico model 377 audio generator. The UCS was a white noise of either th! tis the 1 to 5g 21 60 or 120 dB produced by a Marietta 29-21 white noise generator. Stimuli were amplified by a Dyna Mark IV amplifier and presented to S through Sharp HA-lO earphones. A Breul and Kjaer model 2203 sound level meter and model 4152 artificial ear were used to measure stimu- lus intensities (A scale) at the earphones. The ambient noise level of the room was 37 dB. Skin potential and skin conductance were recorded through Beckman Biopotential silver-silver chloride electrodes attached to the skin with adhesive collars. Skin sites from which recordings were taken were cleaned with 70% ethanol before the electrodes were attached. Contact with the skin was made with Beckman electrode paste. A con- stant current of 40 PA was supplied through the skin conductance electrodes which were placed in the center of the palmar and dorsal surfaces of the right hand. The active skin potential electrode was placed on the thenar eminence of the left hand and the reference electrode was placed on the left forearm 3 to 5 cm. below the elbow. Care was taken to partially remove the top layer of the skin below the reference electrode by rubbing it vigorously with a Kimwipe tissue. All recordings were made on a Beckman Type R Dynograph at l a paper speed of 5 mm/sec. 1In addition to the skin resistance and skin potential responses, the heart rate and cephalic vasomotor responses were recorded. The data from these responses were not analyzed and will not be referred to again in this report. 22 Some §§_were required to perform a motor task during the experi- ment. They were required to rest their right foot on a Footral Type MA foot pedal having a travel distance of 3 mm. and requiring a force of 200 grams to completely depress. They were instructed to release the foot pedal as soon as they heard a UCS.2 Procedure The equipment was calibrated before §_came to the experiment. After §_was seated, the recording electrodes were applied in the manner previously described, earphones were secured, and a ground lead was attached to S: The §_then checked to see that all responses were being properly recorded and returned to read the instructions to the §_(see Instructions, Appendix B). The §§ in the unpaired groups were informed that they would hear an unrelated series of noises and tones, and SE in the paired groups were told that noises immediately followed the tones. In addition, SE in motor-task groups were instructed to keep the foot pedal depressed at all times and to lift their foot from the pedal when they heard the UCS. All §§_were asked to sit as still as possible in order to keep movement artifacts at a minimum. After determining that instructions were understood by the S) E left §_and initiated the automatic preprogrammed stimulus sequence. During the experimental session §_cou1d watch §_through a one-way mirror. 2Task reaction times were recorded on an electronic timer and left unanalyzed since the actual performance of the task was impor- tant and not the speed of response. The reaction times did, however, provide a check on whether or not the §§_were performing the task properly during the experiment. from ”3765 Of iht 23 Scoring of electrodermal responses Skin conductance responses were defined as abrupt decreases in resistance level beginning between .8 and 5.0 sec. after stimulus onset. Response magnitude was measured as the maximum increase in conductance prior to any increase or stabilization of the resistance level. If a response occurring in the appropriate interval was super- imposed on a spontaneous response, the magnitude of the response was measured from the first change in the slope of the tracing to its maximum point as defined above. Skin conductance responses were calculated as the log of conductance change (Raskin, in press). Skin potential responses were defined as rapid changes in potential with onsets in the same time range as skin conductance responses. Since the skin potential response was a complex response consisting of alternating positive and negative potentials, as many as three waves were scored for each response. More typical, however, were responses with one or two waves. The magnitude of the first wave was measured between the point at which the skin potential abruptly began to change following stimulus onset, to the peak change before any movement toward the opposite direction occurred. The magnitude of the second wave was scored from the peak of the first wave to the peak of the second wave. Similarly, third wave magnitude was measured between the peaks of the second and third waves. When second or third waves occurred, they were scored only if the latency of the peak of each wave following the first was no greater than 3 sec. from the peak of the immediately preceding wave. Also, when three waves occurred, the third wave was scored only if it exceeded the level of the first wave. Skin potential pen deflections were converted to 29 millivolts change and analyses were performed separately for the posi- tive and negative components. Detailed scoring procedures for both skin potential and GSR responses may be found in Appendix C. lrn inter“ CHAPTER IV RESULTS Analyses of variance were used to compare the responses of the various groups employed in this experiment. Skin conductance, positive skin potential, and negative skin potential responses to both the tone and the noise were analyzed. In addition, the response magnitudes of all groups on UCS-only trials were compared in terms of the three dif— ferent responses. Summaries of all analyses of variance are presented in Appendix D. Skin conductance responses UCR magnitude Mean SCR magnitude for the initial 15 trials for all groups is plotted in Figure 1. In general, task performance had the effect of increasing res- ponse magnitude, §_(l, 88) = 17.95, p_(.001, as did high UCS intensity, 5 (l, 88) = 82.04, p (.001 (Appendix D, Table 1). Pairing had no main effect. However, a significant Pairing X Intensity interaction, E (1, 88) = 9.06, P. < .01, revealed that with the so as ucs the paired groups had smaller responses than the unpaired groups while the reverse was true for the 120 dB groups. Thus, it appeared that the different intensity levels had different effects on the UCR in terms of response magnitude. 25 1, ~-—,- (loq conductance change) MEAN SCR 26 2'6 22 0-6 0-2 p p p v W Responses to tone ( UCS intensity = 60 dB ) O Unpaired O Unpaired - Task '3 Paired I Panred- Task A 4A 4A A r 4— T Responses 10 60 dB UCS 2-6 2-2‘ Fig. l. _ Responses to tone Responses to [20 dB UCS (ucs intensity= :20 d8) " D O M L .\/\/ O L. r | 2 5 4 ‘ ‘2 4 5 Test trials BLOCKS OF 3 TRIALS The skin conductance response to the CS and UCS for both inten— sities of UCS for blocks of three trials and UCS-only test trials. .- -_ _ e m eraser-'23..- "an . .1 r 27 A significant Task X Intensity interaction, §_(l, 88) = 9.76, p_< .01, showed that the performance of a task had a relatively stronger effect on the response magnitudes of §§_who received the lower UCS intensity. At 60 dB, task performance greatly increased UCR magnitude, whereas, at 120 dB task performance produced a small increase in the unpaired condition. All other reliable effects may be described in terms of varying habituation rates. Among groups receiving the 60 dB UCS, both Paired and Unpaired no-task groups showed habituation, while only the Unpaired- No-Task group showed habituation among groups receiving the 120 dB UCS. Responses in task groups showed no habituation in either the 60 or the 120 dB groups. These observations were supported by a significant Pairing X Task X Intensity X Trials interaction, §_(1u, 1232) = 1.83, p_<..05. Thus, it may be concluded that the performance of a task pre- vented habituation in all situations, while high intensity prevented habituation only in paired groups. Responses to the tone Responses to the tone are also graphically presented in Figure 1. Each of the main effects had a reliable in- fluence on the magnitude of responses to the tone. Groups performing a task had responses of greater magnitude than no-task groups and groups receiving high intensity noises had greater responses than groups receiving low intensity noises. These observations were sup- ported by a significant Task effect, 5 (l, 88) = 9.11%, p 4 .01, and a significant Intensity effect, §_(l, 88) = 38.01, p34 .001 (Appendix D, Table 2). Pairing also had a significant effect, §_(l, 88) = 9.69, p<.01, as demonstrated by the fact that S_s in paired groups had larger responses than §§_in unpaired groups. 28 Inspection of Figure 1 further showed that the Pairing effect was largely a result of a significant Pairing X Intensity effect, 5 (l, 88) = 11.21, p_<:.01.The §§_in paired and unpaired conditions showed similar responses in the 60 dB UCS groups, while pairing pro- duced a large increase in response magnitude in the 120 dB groups. Summarizing the results of the response to the tone, it appeared that at 60 dB pairing had no effect on the magnitude of responses to the tone. However, performance of a task in the 60 dB groups resulted in SCRs of greater magnitude. In the 120 dB groups as in the 60 dB groups performance of a task served to produce larger responses, as indicated by the comparison between Unpaired-Task and Unpaired-No-Task groups. On the other hand, paired 120 dB groups responded differently from the paired 60 dB groups. In the case of the higher UCS intensity, Paired group responses even larger than those obtained in the Unpaired- Task group were observed. A comparison of the responses to the tone with the response to the noise, showed that the rank order of the various groups in terms of response magnitude was the same for both stimuli. In other words, for all groups the magnitude of the response to the tone appeared to be related to the magnitude of the response to the noise. In task groups and in high-UCS intensity groups where large responses to the noise were observed, large responses to the tone were also found. For example, §§_in task groups receiving the low intensity UCS gave larger responses to both the noise and the tone than §§ in the no-task groups. In groups receiving the 120 dB UCS, the paired groups gave larger responses to both stimuli than the unpaired groups. Thus, it was clear that magnitude of responses to the tone was not independent 29 of UCR magnitude. Skin potential responses UCR magnitude Figures 2 and 3 present the results of the posi- tive andnegative skin potential responses to the noise. §§_performing a task and those receiving the high UCS intensity produced positive responses of greater magnitude than §§_in the no-task and low UCS groups, respectively. These observations were supported by signifi- cant Task, _1: (l, 88) a 5.85, p<.05, and Intensity, E (1, 88) a 19.38, pg<.001, effects (Appendix D, Table 3). The only reliable pairing effect on the positive response was the Pairing X Trials interaction, 5 (11+, 1232) = 3.08,- p_<.001. Inspection of Figure 2, however, indi- cated that the interaction effect may have been a result of the lower starting points observed in the paired groups rather than the amount of response decrement taking place over trials. With respect to the negative component, Sp in paired groups produced smaller responses than §§ in unpaired groups. This was true at both UCS intensities and was supported by a significant Pairing effect, §_(l, 88) g 19.02, p3¢.01 (Appendix D, Table 4). The analysis of the negative response also revealed the presence of a reliable Task X Intensity interaction. 5 (1, 88) = 20.76, p<.001. This re- sult appeared to be due to the fact that task groups receiving the 60 dB UCS gave larger negative responses than the corresponding no- task groups, while the no-task groups responses were greater with the 120 dB UCS. In summary, pairing produced a decrease in both positive and negative SP response magnitude. The decrease was observed over all (millivolts) MEAN SPR 30 ( UCS intensity = 60 r O Unpaired .0 . O Unpaired-Task 9" D Paired 8» I Poured-Task 7. 6h 5. 4- 3L 2t . Responses to tone as) _ Responses to 60 dB UCS Nupmmumwa - Responses to tone . ( UCS intensity= IZO dB) A BLOCKS OF 3 TRIALS Fig. 2. The positive skin potential response to the CS and UCS for Test trials both intensities of UCS for blocks of three trials and UCS-only test trials. ’3' “in,“ i“,. v u . I. I1. .IIIA . lift 'a- I’m? I I 31 . Responses to tone . Responses to 60 d8 UCS - (UCS intensity: 60 dB) . o Unpaired . . o Unpanod- Task _ - D Paired I Paired - Task 6 . 5- I 0 4r - A 3r . E 2‘ . 'é .. ‘3 E K O. (n - I' Z 5 Responses to tone Responses to I20 dB UCS z ( UCS intensity= IZO dB ) r 6 ' _ 5 - F 4 u L O 3F 0 2 , i I . l 2 3 4 5 Test "Ids BLOCKS OF 3 TRIALS Fig. 3. The negative skin potential response to the CS and UCS for both intensities of UCS for blocks of three trials and UCS—only test trials. 32 trials in the negative response, but appeared only in the early trials in the positive response. The high UCS intensity condition and the performance of a task, on the other hand, had differential effects on the positive and negative responses. The presence of either or both of these conditions produced positive responses of larger magnitude. Negative responses of larger magnitude were produced either by the performance of a task when the 60 dB UCS was employed, or by the 120 dB UCS when no task was performed. The combination of both the high UCS intensity and the task, however, produced a decrement in the magnitude of the negative response. Responses to the tone The results of the positive skin potential responses to the tone are graphically represented in Figure 2. Of the main effects Pairing, 5(1, 88)<1.00, and Task, 3 (1, 88) = 1.21, p).25, had no influence on the positive response to the tone. Intensity did have a reliable effect. Groups which received the high intensity UCS had larger positive response to the tone than groups which received the low intensity UCS, §_(l, 88) = 5.10, p2:.05, (Appendix D, Table 5). Further, intensity had a differential effect on responses of paired groups, as shown by a significant Pairing X Intensity interaction, E (1, 88) = H.91, p_4(.05. This significant effect resulted from the fact that the paired group responses were larger than the unpaired group res— ponses in the 120 dB groups, while no differences existed in terms of pairing in the 60 dB groups. All other reliable effects with respect to the positive response were related to varying rates of habituation. A Pairing X Trials effect, §_(1u, 1232) = 2.10, Ef<'059 was obtained which was largely due to the presence of greater paired group responses in the early trials. Furthermore, the low UCS intensity groups habituated 33 at a faster rate and showed more response decrement over trials than did the high UCS intensity groups 5 (14, 1232) = 2.84, p_ <.01. Finally, a significant Pairing X Intensity X Trials interaction, F (14, 1232) = 1.75, p:<.05, was a consequence of the fact that the res- ponses of the paired groups were consistently greater over trials than the reSponses of the unpaired groups in the 60 dB condition, while the opposite was true of groups receiving the high intensity UCS. The negative SP responses to the tone are shown in Figure 3. Task groups which received the 60 dB UCS had relatively larger nega- tive responses than task groups which received the 120 dB UCS. This was supported by a significant Task X Intensity effect, E_(l, 88) = 9.23, p:<.01, (Appendix D, Table 6). No other reliable effects were observed with respect to negative responses to the tone except a significant Trials effect, P (l, 88) = 9.21, 24.01, indicating an overall decrease in magnitude of the response over trials. UCR magpitude on test trials Skin conductance response The question of whether inhibition conditioned to the CS or OR dynamics could best account for the UCR recovery phenomenon was tested by administering two UCS-only trials following the initial 15 acquisition trials. The mean SCR for these two trials is shown for all groups in Figure 1. The response magni- tudes of all groups on test trials were compared. Statistical com- parisons were based on between-groups differences on test trials only. Paired groups produced larger responses than unpaired groups, §_(l, 88) = 5.78, p<.05, and groups receiving the high UCS intensity produced larger responses than groups receiving the low UCS intensity, 34 §_(1, 88) = 32.19, p:¢.001. Task groups also gave larger responses than no-task groups, P (l, 88) = 25.77, p<.001. (Appendix D, Table 7). No other reliable results were obtained. Generally, unpaired group reSponse magnitudes on UCS-only trials were found to be very similar to response magnitudes reached by these groups during acquisition. Paired groups, on the other hand, were greater on UCS-only trials than they were on the last paired trial. This differential effect of UCS—only trials on magnitude of response in paired and unpaired groups is partially supported by the signifi- cant Pairing effect obtained from the comparison of between-groups differences on test-trials. Skin potential response Mean SP test-trial responses are plotted in Figures 2 and 3. The performance of a task, I: (1, 88) = 8.38, p < .01, and the high intensity UCS, E (l, 88) = 13.46, p<.001, produced larger positive resPonses, (Appendix D, Table 8). With respect to the negative response, low intensity task groups gave larger responses than corresponding no-task groups, while the responses of high intensity groups performing a task were smaller than the responses of the no-task groups. A significant Task X Intensity interaction, §_(l, 88) = 13.07, p:<.001, supported this observation (Appendix D, Table 9). CHAPTER V DISCUSSION OR and DR effects duripgrconditionipg The effects of ORs and DRs on conditioning were studied in this experiment by comparing the responses of various groups in which ORs or DRs were elicited by appropriate stimulation in a conditioning situation. ORs were sustained throughout the course of an experimental session by instructing Bi to perform a task at UCS onset. The DRs were elicited by using a very intense stimulus which had previously been shown to elicit DRs (Raskin et. al., 1968). The effects of these stimuli on paired and unpaired groups were studied. A tone which served as the CS in paired groups was presented but not paired with the UCS in control groups. The responses to the tone in the paired and unpaired control groups provided a basis on which to evaluate the effects of ORs and DRs in conditioning. Skin conductance response. The OR and DR effects were most clearly observed in skin conductance responses to the tone. In the 60 dB groups, responses of larger magnitude were produced to the tone by BB performing a task at the onset of the noise. This was true for both the Paired-Task and Unpaired-Task groups. Furthermore, almost identi- cal rates of habituation were observed in the Paired-No—Task and Unpaired- NO-Task groups, showing that pairing had no important effects in the 60 dB groups. Greater responses did occur in both task groups, however, because 35 SO! SO.‘ V6 8“ 0V M 36 some stimuli presented to these groups possessed signal value which served to prevent the habituation of the OR. Since tones were identi- cal in both task and no-task groups, it must be assumed that the pre- vention of OR habituation was due to the effects of the task. The re- sults of the 60 dB responses to the UCS confirmed this assumption. These results showed that responses of task groups did not habituate over trials while responses of no—task groups showed very rapid decre- ment. Thus, responses to stimuli posessing signal value showed no habituation and, conversely, responses to nonésignal value stimuli showed significant decrement. From these results, it may be concluded that the UCS, when it was capable of consistently eliciting an OR, re- sulted in an increased level of activation which had the effect of in- creasing responsiveness to all stimuli. In this sense, the effect of the task seemed to be that of increasing the response magnitude to all stimuli. In the past, larger reaponses resulting from pairing operations were called true CRs (Kimmel, 1964; Lockhart 6 Grings, 1963), while larger responses to stimuli not paired with a UCS were referred to as sensitized or pseudoconditioned responses (Stewart, Stern, Winokur, 6 Fredman, 1961). This way of differentiating a true CR from a pseudo— conditioned response has been accepted by most psychologists. The results of the 60 dB task groups of the present experiment suggested an alternate interpretation of sensitized responses. Since all groups at 60 dB started at approximately the same point, it appeared that sensitized responses may be better understood in terms of prevention of OR habituation. Response magnitudes of Paired-Task and Unpaired- Task groups were found to be approximately equal. If the results were 37 to be described in terms of sensitization and conditioning, the Paired- Task group responses would be attributed to conditioning, while the Unpaired-Task group responses would be described as sensitization. Clearly an interpretation based on the prevention of OR habituation was more parsimonious and appeared to better describe the situation. Groups receiving the high UCS intensity responded differently with respect to the tone than did groups receiving the low UCS inten- sity. In this case, a strong pairing effect was observed such that paired groups had larger responses than unpaired groups in both task and no-task conditions. Since the task obviously had no effect in producing these large responses in the paired groups, the effects could only be due to the pairing factor, and therefore, were termed CRs. The fact that intensity had a differential effect on the response magnitudes of paired-task and paired-no-task groups to the tone sug— gested that differences in UCRs may have occurred at high and low UCS intensities. Previous research had shown that the 120 dB stimulus used in this experiment was capable of eliciting a DR (Raskin et. al., 1968). Thus, it is possible that the pairing effects observed in the 120 dB groups resulted from the presence of a DR which was elicited by the high intensity UCS. If a DR did occur in this case, it served to facilitate conditioning. The results of the skin conductance re3ponse to the UCS further supported the assumption that ORs and DRs were elicited by high and low intensity UCSs, respectively. In the 60 dB groups, paired-group responses were smaller than unpaired group responses. Presumably, the greater degree of uncertainty in the unpaired conditions was 38 responsible for larger magnitude responses. Since uncertainty may be thought of as representing a degree of novelty (Lynn, 1966), it was not surprising that §§_in the unpaired groups gave larger ORs than §§_in the paired groups. In the 120 dB groups, the opposite results were obtained. Thus, on the basis of these data it seemed safe to assume that ORs occurred with low UCS intensities and DRs occurred at high UCS intensities. In the past the role of the DR in conditioning was unclear. Since the function of this reflex is to attenuate high levels of stimulation, it appeared reasonable to assume that learning was hindered in the presence of DRs. The results of this study sug- gested an alternate formulation of the DR. Since potentially harmful stimulation elicited the DR, it was important for the subject to be able to recognize stimuli which predicted the onset of potentially harmful stimulation. By knowing when potentially harmful stimuli were going to occur, the subject may have responded in ways which better prepared him to receive this type of stimulation. Thus, a reflex allow- ing for better perception and learning in this situation may have been of great adaptive significance. In this way the DR may be thought of as serving a dual function consisting of the attenuation of the effects of noxious stimulation, and the facilitation of learning or perception of an event which signals the occurrence of the noxious stimulus. Skin potential response. It has been shown that the positive and negative SP components interact by appearing to cancel each other in an unpredictable fashion (Holmquest 6 Edelberg, 1964). Further, a reliable method of separating the individual contributions of the positive and negative potentials has yet to be established. Undoubtedly, this expe: cont: the nega A fu was With than wit} 39 this source of error contributed to the skin potential results in this experiment, and served to obscure some of the effects. For example, contrary to the pattern of most autonomic responses, the magnitude of the negative skin potential response to the noise increased over trials. This finding may have been a result of decreasing attenuation of the negative component due to gradual habituation of the positive component. A further illustration of positive and negative component interaction was observed in the comparison of task and no-task group responses. With a UCS of 60 dB, the negative response of task groups was greater than that of the no-task groups. The opposite results were obtained with the 120 dB UCS. In view of the fact that the positive response was directly related to intensity and task effects, this outcome was not surprising. The combined effects of these two variables on the positive wave produced a proportionally larger UCR, which may have obscured the negative wave and resulted in the appearance of negative response attenuation at 120 dB. A similar but somewhat less clear result was obtained with respect to positive and negative SP res— ponses to the tone. Thus, little doubt remained that a large source of error due to positive and negative response interaction influenced the SPR results. Nevertheless, some results showed interesting OR and DR effects. The results of the positive SP response to the tone resembled in some ways the SCR to the tone. In the low intensity groups, responses to the tone were greatest in the task groups, while paired group res- ponses were greater in the 120 dB groups. This result appeared similar to the SCR results dealing with the effects of the OR and DR in low and high intensity groups respectively. It should be emphasized that exJ' int 40 these positive SP response effects were not reliable effects and only represented tendencies. It did, however, appear significant that the SCR and the positive SPR were similar, even to this extent. A similar relationship between the SCR and the positive SPR existed with respect to responses to UCSs. Under conditions of low intensity stimulation, the positive SP responses of the unpaired groups were of greater magnitude than the paired group responses. Al- though this relationship was not completely reversed at the high UCS intensity, as it was in the SCR, a trend developed over trials which showed that in later trials responses in paired groups were relatively greater than responses in unpaired groups. Once again, all these SP results were not statistically significant. Negative SP responses showed some of the same results, however, the correspondence between this component and either the SCR or the positive SP component was very small. Magnitude of negative responses of the task groups to both the tone and the noise were larger than responses in no-task groups. As with the SCR and the positive SP res- ponse, this negative SP response result may have been due to the eli- citation of the OR in low UCS intensity groups. The effects of inten- sity on the negative SP response were unclear and in no way resembled those of the other responses. Therefore, the DR effect on the negative SP response could not be determined. Effects of novel stimuli during conditioning Inhibition conditioned to the CS and illustrations of the UCR recovery phenomenon have been previously demonstrated only in terms of the skin conductance response (Kimmel, 1966). Examination of skin cond this Comp inte both decz deve eitI NOI‘I ins ses obs dec Ac< 1h 41 conductance UCR magnitudes during acquisition and on test trials in this experiment failed to provide support for the inhibition hypothesis. Comparison of Paired and Unpaired-No-Task groups receiving the low UCS intensity showed that response to the noise decreased over trials in both groups. The inhibition hypothesis would have predicted greater decrement in the Paired group, since no conditioned inhibition could develop in the Unpaired group. Further, no decrement was observed in either task group. While it is true that the Paired-Task group res- ponded less than the corresponding Unpaired group, no evidence of a gradual development of smaller magnitude responses was observed in the Paired group. Examination of the individual trial means revealed that the Paired-Task group simply started at a lower level and maintained that level through the duration of the acquisition series. This result Would not have been predicted by the inhibition hypothesis. Further- more, the effect could not have been due to conditioning produced by instructions since no evidence of conditioning was observed in groups receiving the 60 dB UCS. Different results were obtained with respon- ses to the high UCS intensity. In this case response decrement was observed only in the Unpaired-No—Task group. Thus, the results of decrement in the response to the noise over trials were contradictory to those predicted by the inhibition hypothesis. Kimmel (1966) also has discussed inhibition of the CR by the CS. According to conditioned inhibition theory, the CS acquires the abi- lity to inhibit the CR as well as the UCR. If paired and unpaired groups were compared with respect to the magnitude of tone response, conditioned inhibition theory would predict that the paired group would show greater response decrement than the unpaired groups. This pI‘E in dec in: OC‘: the thi V01. anc ID! 1116‘ 42 prediction would be based on the fact that no conditioning could occur in the unpaired groups, thus eliminating the possibility of conditioned inhibition. Results of responses to the tone in this experiment showed decrement over trials in all paired and unpaired groups, thereby cast- ing further doubt on the conditioned inhibition formulation. Increments in magnitudes of responses to the noise on test trials occurred only in the paired groups. A significant difference between the response of paired and unpaired groups on test trials supported this observation. Again, the conditioned inhibition hypothesis, which would have predicted no differences between the responses of paired and unpaired groups, failed to account for the results. The results of this experiment may be described in terms of OR theory. The decrement observed in responses to the tone over trials may be attributed to the effects of habituation of the OR resulting from repeated stimulus presentations. In the paired high intensity groups, where CRs developed, response decrement was actually less than that observed in other groups. This result is in accord with OR theory since responses to stimuli acquiring signal value through conditioning habituate less than responses to neutral stimuli. The same conclusions may be applied to the decrement observed with res- pect to responses to the tone. Comparison of paired and unpaired no- task groups revealed that decrement over trials was not dependent on the pairing variable. In general, habituation did not occur in task or in high intensity groups. Thus, as with the response to the tone, habituation of the response to the noise appeared to depend upon whether or not the stimulus possessed signal value. Obviously, in this experiment, stimuli requiring the performance of a task and high intensity stimuli possessed signal value. Finally, augmented paired p01 rep! ent of was mi 1111 Th 43 group responses on test trials presumably resulted from the novelty represented by a UCS-only trial whereas the test trials represented no discriminable change for the unpaired groups. The results of the skin conductance response could be described entirely in terms of OR theory and, therefore, an OR interpretation of the results was supported. The conditioned inhibition hypothesis was contradicted with respect to magnitude of tone responses and noise responses during the acquisition series of trials, and by mag- nitudes of responses of paired and unpaired groups during test trials. Thus, doubt was cast upon the concept of inhibition during conditioning. The results of the skin potential response were not as clear as the SCR data. Probably, this was partly due to interaction between the two SP components as previously described. The OR theory, however, still seemed more appropriate in describing some of the results than did the inhibition hypothesis. For example, although no differential effects due to pairing could be observed on test trials, the positive SP response underwent habituation in all groups. Since pairing ef- fects were entirely lacking, this result may be accounted for by OR theory, and can in no way be described in terms of conditioned inhi- bition. Different results were obtained with respect to pairing effects on the negative SP response. As in the positive SP response, no pairing effects were observed on test trials. Pairing, however, did have an effect during the acquisition trials. In the Paired-No-Task 60 dB group, it appeared that gradual development of inhibition might ade— quately describe the obtained results. The response magnitude of the Paired-No-Task group gradually decreased over trials while the response of th level sible fail For obse task lows the) test gre qui 10v L44 of the analogous Unpaired group remained at approximately the same level. It may be argued that inhibition due to pairing was respon- sible for the lower responses of the Paired-No-Task 60 dB group. This argument may be discounted, since the conditioned inhibition fails to account for any other result of the negative SP response. For example, no evidence of gradually developing inhibition was observed in the 60 dB Paired—Task group, although, as in the no- task groups, response magnitudes of §§_in this Paired group were lower than those of BE in the correSponding Unpaired group. Fur- thermore, the examination of individual trial means showed that the test trial response magnitude of the Paired-No-Task 60 dB group was greater than the response magnitude of this group on the first ac- quisition trial. The negative SP response magnitude to the 120 dB stimulus was- lower in the paired groups, but the effect again appeared to be present from the start of the experimental session. Thus, skin potential responses could be partially described in terms of OR theory, but they provided no support for the conditioned inhibition hypothesis. Comparison of skin conductance and skin potential responses The proper analysis of differences and similarities between these two responses should be made on the basis of comparisons of wave forms within subjects. Since only mean data were analyzed in this study, firm conclusions dealing with relationships between SP and SR cannot be made and, therefore, no formal analyses were attempted. Despite this drawback, however, there is little doubt that mean data comparisons may I ship: funn tion that nega 120 can and of the fox 45 may provide some useful information regarding the possible relation- ships between the two response systems, and they suggest areas for future research. With this qualification, some interesting observa- tions were made with respect to the results of both responses. The most common effect observed in both the SPR and the SCR was that of response decrement as a function of trials. In all but the negative SP response to the noise and the SCR to the noise in the 120 dB groups, clear evidence of habituation was found which indi- cated that both responses reflect the presence of common processes. A striking result was the amount of similarity between the SCR and the positive skin potential response with respect to magnitude of responses to the tone. The SC and the positive SP reSponses to the tone were influenced in relatively like manner by pairing, per- formance of a motor task, and noise intensity. Less correspondence between the two response systems occurred with respect to responses to the noise. However, as with responses to the tone, the similar- ities were greatest between the SCR and the positive SP component. Magnitude of both these responses was elevated in motor task groups and in high noise intensity groups. Intensity had little effect on the negative SP response. Furthermore, task groups showed larger responses than no-task groups at 60 dB, while the opposite rela- tionship was observed when a 120 dB noise was used. Of course, this may be a result of positive and negative response interaction. However, the fact remains that SCR effects were to a large extent reflected in the activity of the positive SP response. 46 Implicatigps for future research This study has attempted to describe the effects of ORs and DRs in the conditioning process. These effects were especially clear with respect to the skin conductance response. The results of the skin potential response supported interpretations made on the basis of the SCR in some cases, but not in others. Additional research is required to clarify the relationship between these two electro- dermal responses. Of particular interest in this respect is the fact that similarities between the SCR and the positive SP response were much greater than those between either of these responses and the negative SP response. Perhaps research dealing with the study of the correspondence between SP and SC wave forms, compared within S3, may help to clear up some of the ambiguities reported with res- pect to the SP response. In general, the results of this study supported the notion that positive skin potential responses wererelated to high levels of ac- tivation brought about by the performance of a task of by intense levels of stimulation. The negative response was smaller in magni— tude, and differences between responses to the various conditions were not great. These results confirmed recent evidence regarding the effects of stimulus intensity on the magnitude of SP components (Raskin, et. al, 1968). In light of this, the similarities reported between the positive SP reSponse and the SCR take on added signifi- cance. Wave-form research dealing with the SCR and the SPR might, therefore, take into account the effects of high and low levels of activation. 47 From the results of responses to novel stimulation during con- ditioning, it should be clear that the existence of theoretical con— cepts like pseudoconditioning and sensitization will be supported when tests for these effects involve the presentation of novel stimuli. In the past, the use of extinction stimuli discriminably different from acquisition stimuli resulted in augmented responses assumed to represent pseudoconditioning (Prokasy, et. a1, 1962) or sensitization (Harris, 1941). Backward conditioning has also been demonstrated when CS-only test trials were interspersed between UCS-CS acquisition trials (Spooner 6 Kellogg, 1947). Thus, additional research along these lines may lead to the reinterpretation of classical conditioning phenomena which is required if the extension of the OR position is to take place. BIBLIOGRAPHY Be: BI; BIBLIOGRAPHY Baxter, R. Conditioned diminution of the unconditioned response in trace and delayed classical conditioning.’ J. exp. Psychol., 1966, 1;, 447-451. Berlyne, D. B. Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1960. Bindra, D. Motivatiop: A systematic reinterpretation. New York: Ronald Press, 1959. Brown, C. H. The relation of magnitude of GSR and resistance levels to the role of learning. J. exp. Psychol., 1937, 329 262-278. Burstein, K. R., Fenz, W. D., Bergeron, J., 6 Epstein, S. A comparison of skin potential and skin resistance responses as measures of emotional responsivity. ngchophysiology, 1965, 23 14-24. Carlton, Peter L. 6 Vogel, J. R. Habituation and conditioning. g: comp. physiol. Psychol., 1967, 63) 348-351. Champion, R. A. 6 Jones, J. E. Forward, backward and pseudoconditioning Of GSR. Jo expo PSYChOJ-o, 1961, 6—2’ 58.61. Chang, H. T. Some observations on the excitability changes of cortical and subcortical neurons and their possible significance in the process of conditioning. In H. Jasper 6 G. D. Smirnov (Eds.), the Moscow Colloquium on electroencephalography of higher nervous activity. EEG Clin. Neurophysiol., 1960. Cofer, C. N. 6 Appley, M. H. Motivation: Theory and research. New York: John Wiley 6 Sons, 1964. Cook, S. W., 6 Harris, R. E. The verbal conditioning of the galvanic skin reflex. J. exp. Psychol., 1937, 213 202-210. Coombs, C. H. Adaptation of the GSR to auditory stimuli. J. exp. Psychol., 1938, 23, 244-268. Davis, R. C. Factors affecting the galvanic skin response. Arch. Psychol., 1930. Whole no. 115. Davis, R. C. 6 Buchwald, A. M. An exploration of somatic response patterns: stimulus and sex differences. W. Psychol., 1957, 50, 34—42. “‘ 48 For Fox Ga] H1 49 Davis, R. C., Buchwald, A. M. 6 Frankmann, R.W. Autonomic and muscu- lar responses and their relation to simple stimuli. Psychol. Monogr., 1955, 623 1-71. Dykman, R. A. Toward a theory of classical conditioning: cognitive, emotional and motor components of the conditioned response. In B. Maher (Ed.), Experimental approaches to personality, Vol. II. New York: Academic Press, 1965. Dykman, R. A., Reese, W.(3., Galbrecht, C.R., 6 Thomasson, P. T. Psychophysiological reactions to novel stimuli: Measurement, 'adaptation, and relationship of psychological and physiological variables in the normal human. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 1959, 223 43-107. Forbes, T. W. Skin potential and impedance responses with recurring shock stimulation. Amer. J. Physi01., 1936, 117, 189-199. Forbes, T. W. 6 Bolles, M. Correlation of the re3ponse potentials of the skin with'exciting" and "non-exciting" stimuli. J., Physiol., 1936, 23 273-285. Galbrecht, C. R., Dykman, R. A., Reese, W. G., 6 Suzuki, T. Intra- session extinction of the components of the orienting reflex. J. exp. Psychol., 1965, 22) 589-597. Grim, P. F. 6 White, S. H. Effects of stimulus change upon GSR and reaction time. J. eXp. Psychol., 1965, 623 276-281. Grings, W. W. Preparatory set variables in the classical conditioning of autonomic responses. Psychol. Rev., 1960, p2, 243-252. Grings, W. W. Verbal-perceptual factors in the conditioning of auto- nomic responses. In Prokasy, W. F. Classical Conditioning. New York, 1965. Pp 71-89. Grings, W. W. 6 Lockhart, R. A. Effects of "anxiety"1essening instruc- tions and differentiated set development on extinction of GSR. J. exp. Psychol. 1963, 6E) 292-299. Harris, J. D. Forward conditioning, backward conditioning, pseudocon- ditioning, and adaptation to the conditioned stimulus. J. exp. Holmquest, D. and Edelberg, R. Problems in the analysis of the endo- somatic galvanic skin response. Psychophysiology, 1964, 13 48-54. Hupka, R. B. 6 Levinger, G. Within subject corresPondence between skin conductance and skin potential under conditions of activity and passivity. Psychophysiology, 1967, 4) 161-167. 50 Kimble, G. A. 6 Dufort, R. H. The associative factor in eyelid con- ditioning. J. exp. Psychol., 1956, 523 386-391. Kimble, G. A. 6 Ost, J. W. P. A conditioned inhibitory process in eyelid conditioning. J. exp. Psychol., 1961, E1: 150-156. Kimmel, Ellen. Judgements of UCS intensity and diminution of UCR in classical GSR conditioning. J. exp. Psychol., 1967, 23, 532-543. Kimmel, H. D. The relationship between direction and amount of stimu- lus change of perceptual disparity response. J. exp. Psychol., 1960, 52, 68-72. Kimmel, H. D. Further analysis of GSR conditioning. A reply to Stewart, Stern, Winokur, 6 Fredman.’ Psychol. Rev., 1964, 1;, 160-164. Kimmel, H. D. Instrumental factors~in classical conditioning. In Prokasy, W. F. (Ed.) Classical Conditioning. New York: Appleton- Century Crofts, 1965. Kimmel, H.D. Inhibition of the UCR in classical conditioning. Psychol. Rev., 1966, 3, 232-240. Kimmel, H. D. 6 Fowler, R. L. The relationship between inhibition re- sulting from compound stimulus presentations and number of rein- forcements. Off. Naval Res. tech. Rep., 1961, No. 3 (Contract NONR 580-09). Kimmel, H. D. 6 Green, W. A. Disinhibition of GSR conditioning as a function of the number of CS—UCS trials and temporal location of the novel stimulus. J. exp. Psychol., 1964, fig, 567-572. Kimmel, H. D. 6 Pennypacker, H. S. Conditioned diminution of the UCR as a function of the number of reinforcements. J. exp. Psychol., 1952, 8_4, 20-23. Kimmel, H. D. 6 Shultz, C. A. GSR magnitude and judgements of shock intensity as a function of physical intensity of shock. Psycho- nomic Science, 1964, l, 17-18. Koepke, Jean E. 6 Pribram, K. H. Habituation of GSR as a function of stimulus duration and spontaneous activity. J. copp. physiol. Psychol., 1966, 61, 442-448. Lindsley, D.B. The reticular system and perceptual discrimination. In H. H. Jasper, et. al. (Eds.) Reticular formation of the brain. London, Churchill. 1958. Lockhart, R. A. 6 Grings, W. W. Comments on "An analysis of GSR con- ditioning." Psychol. Rev.,1963, 10, 562-564. 51 Luria, A. R. 6 Vinogradova, O. S. An objective investigation of the dynamics of semantic systems.‘ Brit. J. Psychol., 1959, 50, 89-105. Lynn, R. Attention, apppsal, and the orientation reaction. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1966. Lynn, R. Russian theory and research in schizophrenia. Psychol. Bull., 1963, 523 89-105. MacDonald, A. The effect of adaptation of the UCS upon formation of conditioned avoidance responses. J. exp. Psychol., 1946, EE' l-l2. Maltzman, I. 6 Raskin, D. C. Effects of individual differences in the OR on conditioning and complex processes. J. exp. res. Personality, 1955, _1_, 1-16. Morrow, M. C. Recovery of conditioned UCR diminution following extinc- tion. J. exp. Psychol., 1966, 11, 884-888. Nakayama, T. 6 Takagi, K. Two components involved in the GSR. Japanese Journal of Physiology, 1958, 8, 21-30. Pavlov, I. P. Conditioned reflexes. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1927. Peeke, Shirley C. 6 Grings, W. W. Magnitude of UCR as a function of variability in CS-UCS relationship. J. exp. Psychol., 1968, 21) 64-69. Porter, J. M. Backward conditioning of the eyelid response. J. exp. Psychol., 1938, 33, 403—410. Prokasy, W. F., Hall, J. F., 6 Fawcett, J. T. Adaptation, sensitiza- tion, forward and backward conditioning and pseudoconditioning of GSR. Psychol. Reports, 1962, 12, 103-106. Raskin, D. C. Semantic conditioning and generalization of autonomic responses. J. exp. Psychol., in press. Raskin, D. C., Kotses, H., 6 Bever, J. Autonomic indicators of orienting and defensive reflexes. J. exp. Psychol., in press. Razran, G. The observable unconscious and the inferable conscious in current Soviet Psychophysiology: Interoceptive conditioning, semantic conditioning, and the orienting reflex. Psychol. Rev., 1951, g, 81-145. Silverman, R. E. Eliminating a conditioned GSR by the reduction of experimental anxiety. J. exp. Psychol., 1960, 59, 122-125. Sokolov, E. N. Neuronal models and the orienting reflex. In M. A. B. Brazier (Ed.), Central nervous system and behavior. New York: Josiah Macey, Jr. Foundation, 1960. 52 Sokolov, E. N. Percgption and the conditioned reflex. New York: MacMillan, 1963. Spooner, A. 6 Kellogg, W. N. The backward conditioning curve. Amer. J. Psychol., 1947, 29, 321-334. Stein, L. Habituation and stimulus novelty: A model based on classical conditioning. Psychol. Rev., 1966, 13, 352-356. Stern, J. A., Stewart, M. A., 6 Winokur, G. An investigation of some relationships between various measures of the GSR. J. Psychosom. Res., 1961, 53 215-223. Stern, J. A., Winokur, G., Stewart, M. A. 6 Leonard, C. Electrodermal conditioning: some further correlates. J. nerv. ment. Dis., 1963, 137, 479-486. "'_"_' "" " Stewart, M. A., Stern, J. A., Winokur, G., 6 Fredman, S. An analysis of GSR conditioning. Psychol. Rev.,1961, £8,60-67. Taylor, J. A. Level of conditioning and intensity of adaptation stimulus. J. exp. Psychol., 1956, §_1_, 127-130. Uno, T. 6 Grings, W. W. Autonomic components of orienting behavior. Psychophysiology, 1965, A, 311-321. Wickens, D. D., Allen, C. K., 6 Hill, F. A. Effect of instructions and UCS intensity on extinction of conditioned GSR. J. exp. Psychol., 1963, 66, 235—240. Wickens, D.D., 6 Harding, G. B. Effects of ISI, forwarning and instruc- tions on extinction of GSR. J. exp. Psychol., 1967, 11' 363-369. Wilcott, R. C., Darrow, C. W., 6 Siegel, A. Uniphasic and diphasic wave forms of the skin potential response. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1957, 59, 217-219. Williams, J. A. Novelty, GSR and stimulus generalization. Canad. J. Psychol., 1963, ll, 52-51. _— Yokota, T., Takahashi, T., Kondo, M., 6 Fujimori, B. Studies of the diphasic wave form of the GSR. EEG and clin. Neurophysiol., 1959, ii, 687-696. Zimny, G. H. 6 Kienstra, R. A. Orienting and defensive responses to electric shock. Psychophysiology, 1967, 3) 351-361. Zimny, G. H. 6 Schwabe, L. W. Stimulus change and habituation of the 0R. Psychophysiology, 1965, 2, 103-115. UCS trial number APPENDIX A STIMULUS SEQUENCE Unpaired groups start 14" silence 5" tone 10" silence 8" noise ll" silence 5" tone 7" silence 5"tone 10" silence k" noise 60" silence 8" noise l2" silence 5" tone 15" silence 5" tone 15" silence %" noise 28" silence 5" tone l2" silence %" noise 52" silence 8" noise 45" silence 5" tone 10" silence 8" noise l7" silence 5" tone 8" silence %" noise 53 Paired groups start 24" silence 5" tone 8" noise 33" silence 5" tone %" noise 55" silence 5" tone 8" noise 47" silence 5" tone 8" noise 40" silence 5" tone %" noise 47" silence 5" tone %" noise 55" silence 5" tone 8" noise 25" silence 5" tone %" noise UCS trial number 10 11 12 13 14 15 UCS-only test trials 16 17 54 Unpaired groups 38" 1:" 23" 5" 24" k" 30" 18" 5" 8" 5n 9" 15" 8" 5n 5" 5" 7" 15" 60" 12" 5" 8" 5" 8" $5" 32" IE" 38" 15" 30" silence noise silence tone silence noise silence noise silence tone silence tone silence noise silence tone silence tone silence noise silence noise silence tone silence tone silence noise silence noise silence noise silence Paired gpoups 33" 5" a" 47" 5" 15" 25" 5" a" 45" 5" $5" 25" 5" k" 5 5" 5" $5" 33" 5" 35" 52" 8|! 38" lg" 30" silence tone noise silence tone noise silence tone noise silence tone noise silence tone noise silence tone noise silence tone noise silence noise silence noise silence APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL GROUPS UNPAIRED GROUP These pickups measure changes in the circulatory system and in the skin which occur to various types of stimulation. We are interested in studying the effects of auditory stimulation, in the form of tones and noises, on relaxation. Since the pickups are also sensitive to body movements, we would like you to sit quietly and move as little as possible. It is important that you be relaxed and as still as possible, especially your hands and head, so please try to get comfortable before the experiment begins. Please keep your hands on the armrests. We shall watch you through this window so that we can take account of any movements you might make and thereby correct our recordings. You will hear a series of tones and noises separated by intervals of silence. The noises and the tones will not be related in any way. The tones will sound like beep and the noises will sound like shhh. The noises may be very loud but do not be alarmed. Even the loudest noise you may hear will not cause you any harm. We would like you to just sit back and relax, but do not fall asleep. Any questions? UNPAIRED-TASK GROUP These pickups measure changes in the circulatory system and in the skin which occur to various types of stimulation. We are interested 55 ff 56 in studying the effects of auditory stimulation, in the form of tones and noises, on relaxation. Since the pickups are also sensitive to body movements, we would like you to sit quietly and move as little as possible. It is important that you be relaxed and as still as possible, especially your hands and head, so please try to get com- fortable before the experiment begins. Please keep your hands on the armrests. We shall watch you through this window so that we can take account of any movements you might make and thereby correct our recordings. You will hear a series of tones and noises separated by inter- vals of silence. The noises and the tones will not be related in any way. The tones will sound like beep and the noises will sound like shhh. The noises may be very loud but do not be alarmed. Even the loudest noise you may hear will not cause you any harm. In addition to measuring your physiological responses to stimu- lation, we are also interested in how quickly you can react to a stimulus. We would like you to lift your foot from this pedal as quickly as you can whenever you hear the noise come on. Lift your foot every time you hear the noise but do not lift it when you hear the tones. That is to say, lift your foot only when you hear the shhh. You must keep your foot on the pedal in between noises and then lift it off the pedal as quickly as you can as soon as you hear the noise. We would like you to just sit back and relax, but do not fall asleep. Any questions? 57 PAIRED GROUPS These pickups measure changes in the circulatory system and in the skin which occur to various types of stimulation. We are in- terested in studying the effects of auditory stimulation, in the form of tones and noises, on relaxation. Since the pickups are also sensi- tive to body movements, we would like you to sit quietly and move as little as possible. It is important that you be relaxed and as still .1 as possible, especially your hands and head, so please try to get com- fortable before the experiment begins. Please keep your hands on the armrests. We shall watch you through this window so that we can take account of any movements you might make and thereby correct our . I? 2 recordings. You will hear a series of tones and noises separated by inter- vals of silence. The noises will immediately follow the tones. The tones will sound like beep and the noises will sound like shhh. The noises may be very loud but do not be alarmed. Even the loudest noise you may hear will not cause you any harm. We would like you to just sit back and relax, but do not fall asleep. Any questions? PAIRED-TASK GROUPS These pickups measure changes in the circulatory system and in the skin which occur to various types of stimulation. We are inter- ested in studying the effects of auditory stimulation, in the form of tones and noises, on relaxation. Since the pickups are also sensi- tive to body movements, we would like you to sit quietly and move as little as possible. It is important that you be relaxed and as still 58 as possible, especially your hands and head, so please try to get com- fortable before the experiment begins. Please keep your hands on the armrests. We shall watch you through this window so that we can take account of any movements you might make and thereby correct our re- cordings. You will hear a series of tones and noises separated by inter- vals of silence. The noises will immediately follow the tones. The tones will sound like beep and noises will sound like shhh. The noises may be very loud but do not be alarmed. Even the loudest noise you may hear will not cause you any harm. In addition to measuring your physiological responses to stimu- lation, we are also interested in how quickly you can react to a stimu- lus. We would like you to lift your foot from this pedal as quickly as you can whenever you hear the noise come on. Lift your foot every time you hear the noise but do not lift it when you hear the tones. That is to say, lift your foot only when you hear the shhh. You must keep your foot on the pedal in between noises and then lift it off the pedal as quickly as you can as soon as you hear the noise. We would like you to just sit back and relax, but do not fall asleep. Any questions? .- .. 4 Q ‘ . .v \ r APPENDIX C SCORING PROCEDURES Skin Potential Responses For each skin potential response the base level (BL) and one, two, or three peaks (P1, P2, P3) were scored. A value of zero (0) was assigned to the center line and values of twenty—five (25) were assigned to both the bottom and top lines of the skin potential channel with negative being up. BL was measured at the point of response onset and peaks at maximum response levels in either direction. A response was defined as activity having a BL between 0.8 to 5.0 seconds after stimulus onset. Latencies were not scored. For a point to be scored as P2 it had to occur less than three seconds after P1. Likewise P3 had to follow P2 by no more than three seconds. The only exception to this dealt with very rapid and large P3 waves. If P3 occurred more than three seconds after P2 but the slope of the tracing at some point between P2 and P3 was greater than 50 degrees, P3 was scored where the slope first began to decrease. Also, P3 had to be greater than Pl. If a response occurred during a shift in base level P1 was scored as the distance between the peak (p) and the line (1) the record would show if no response were made. The distance between p and l was added to BL to get P1. 59 ..:-.-a:, . 60 In the case of slow initial waves P1 was scored where the slope changed. In conditioning groups, if P2 occurred after the onset of the UCS it was scored as usual as long as it was obvious that a response to the UCS had not affected it. If no response occurred BL was scored where it normally would have occurred. If no previous responses occurred BL was scored at 1.5 sec. following stimulus onset. Skin Conductance Response Values for base level (BL) and peak (P) were scored for each response. The bottom and top lines of the GSR channel were respec- tively assigned values of zero (0) and fifty (50). BL was scored at the point where the response began and P was measured at the maxi- mum level of the response. Responses were defined as activity with BL falling between 0.8 to 5.0 seconds after stimulus onset. P was scored at the maximum response level prior to any decrease or stabilization of the tracing. If no response occurred, BL was scored where it normally would have occurred,and if no previous responses occurred, BL was scored at 1.5 sec. from stimulus onset. If a stimulus occurred during a spontaneous response, BL was scored at the first change in the tracing's slope (if this point coin- cided with the subject's typical BL latency) and P was scored at the maximum level. If BL was not obvious it was scored at the point where it would normally have occurred as indicated by prior latencies. APPENDIX D STATISTICAL TESTS Table 1. Analysis of variance summary table for SCR to UCS (15 trials). Source gf_ MS F ;: Pairing (P) 1 2.189