Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
11 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Passive Avoidance |
Goesagainst natural environmental preference to avoid shock. Rat must withhold aresponse. (withholdgoing in preferred dark area). |
|
|
Active Avoidance |
Learns to avoid shock based on presentation of cues - rat must make a response to avoid shock |
|
|
Shuttle Avoidance |
learnsto avoid shock based on cues which are dependent on location of mouse inapparatus - learns to monitor for cues wherever it is. |
|
|
Species Specific Defense reactions (Bolles, 1971) |
E.g - fight/flight/freeze Animals learn to respond to stimuli associated with pain through classical conditioning - SSDR of flight good for active avoidance as animal likely to want to move away from aversive stimulus. Avoidance responses that match up with natural SSDR more easily learned. |
|
|
Bolles & Fanselow, 1980 - Model of fear andpain |
Fear can cause a variety of SSDR's including inhibition of pain to allow animal to defend itself/recover |
|
|
Problems with the SSDR Theory |
1) it is difficult to train animals on non- SSDR responses. 2) avoidance learning faster when desired response alleviates aversive US 3) conditioned fear doesn't extinguish easily |
|
|
Two factor theory (Miller-Mowrer, 1960) |
Two-Process Learning Theory suggests that being able to reduce exposureto conditioned warning signals is reinforcing. In active avoidance animals learn to escape the secondarily aversive signalling stimuli - adaptive anticipation - they are motivated to reduce fear - better to escape sight than fangs. Factor 1) pavlovian fear conditioning factor 2) once response to avoid shock learned, it terminates the signal too - reinforcement through fear reduction |
|
|
Classic test of Miller-Mowrertheory (Kamin, 1956) |
1) Standard escape avoidance -response avoided - terminated shock and buzzer. - Highest level of learning. 2) US avoidance: Could not terminate buzzer but could avoidshock. - Some learning 3) CS termination: Could terminate buzzer but could not avoidshock – Some learning 4) Classical conditioning: same buzzer-shock pairings but responding hadno effect on exposure to buzzer or shock – No avoidance learning. |
|
|
Fear of warning signals |
Fear of the warning declines after extensivetraining on the signal although intermediate training on signal results inhigher fear of warning. It is thought that if the animal is highly trained tothe signal they are more relaxed as know exactly what to expect/how to respond. |
|
|
A “free-operant” avoidance procedure (Sidman, 1953) |
Animals learn responses that delay scheduledshock despite there being no explicit warning signal – at face value this goesagainst the 2 factor model (as it clearly doesn’t rely on fear of signal being importantin reinforcement). HOWEVER passage of time may be used as a cue, eventhough it’s an internal cue it is still a cue. |
|
|
Two factor theory and conditioned inhibition |
Light -> food Light +tone -> no food The light isexcitatory and tone inhibitory. In avoidance learning, making the responsemight act as a conditioned inhibitor. Explains why fear doesn’textinguish. The conditioned inhibitor protects the conditioned fear from extinction. |
