classical conditioning

(redirected from Respondent conditioning)
Also found in: Dictionary, Medical, Legal, Financial, Encyclopedia.
Graphic Thesaurus  🔍
Display ON
Animation ON
  • noun

Words related to classical conditioning

conditioning that pairs a neutral stimulus with a stimulus that evokes a reflex

Related Words

References in periodicals archive ?
Respondent conditioning basically involves the contiguous pairing of the eliciting unconditioned stimulus with some other neutral stimulus called the conditioned stimulus.
Pairing a conditioned stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus is referred to as first-order respondent conditioning. It has been shown experimentally that second-order, third-order, or in general, higher-order respondent conditioning is possible.
In the respondent conditioning paradigm, this term refers to the relation between the probability of an unconditioned stimulus (US) appearing in a trial given that a conditioned stimulus (CS) also occurred, p(US/CS), and the probability of the same US occurring given that the CS did not occur in that trial, p(US/ no CS).
In vivo exposure is a technique that draws directly from the concepts of respondent conditioning, respondent extinction, and learning theory and it has shown efficacy in treating a wide range of anxiety disorders.
Traditionally, operant conditioning has focused exclusively on procedure (a) and respondent conditioning on procedure (b).
He was briefed on the general nature of the study but not informed of the functions of the conditioned stimuli and was ignorant of respondent conditioning processes.
On the other hand, according to the biobehavioral approach, the selective unit of the respondent conditioning is an environment--action relation, and this conditioning process is compatible with LTP.
In that study, Roche and Barnes (1997; Experiment 4) exposed three male and three female undergraduate subjects to a respondent conditioning procedure in which a sexually explicit and nonsexual film clips were paired with presentations of nonsense syllables B1 and B2, respectively.
(1.) Consistent with our previous publications in this area, we have included the suffix "type" to indicate that the respondent training procedure described in this article differs considerably from traditional respondent conditioning experiments.
The primary focus of our research has been on the development of a biobehavioral conditioning model of ET based on current medical research and employing contemporary principles of behavior analysis and respondent conditioning (Forsythe & Eifert, 1998; Forsythe & Chorpita, 1996; Poppen, 1998).
It is important to note that this effect, at least in theory, required what is sometimes called second-order respondent conditioning (see Catania, 1998).
A mild electric shock applied to each subject's forearm then served as an unconditional stimulus (US) that followed presentations of B1 (i.e., respondent conditioning).
The earliest debate as to whether operant and respondent conditioning are two fundamentally distinct learning processes consisted of a series of exchanges between Konorski and Miller (1937a, 1937b) and Skinner (1935, 1937).
Early behavior therapists approached the problem of emotion, and specifically fear, as one of simple Pavlovian or respondent conditioning. According to this view, any neutral stimulus (NS) paired with an unpleasant event or aversive unconditioned stimulus (UCS) that elicits a strong negative emotional unconditioned response (UCR) will later function as a conditioned stimulus (CS) that can elicit a negative conditioned response (CR; e.g., "anxiety") more or less similar to the original UCR.
1 We have included the suffix "type" to indicate that the respondent training procedure described in this paper departs somewhat from traditional respondent conditioning experiments.