↓ Skip to main content

Intertrial unconditioned stimuli differentially impact trace conditioning

Overview of attention for article published in Learning & Behavior, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intertrial unconditioned stimuli differentially impact trace conditioning
Published in
Learning & Behavior, August 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13420-016-0240-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Douglas A. Williams, Travis P. Todd, Chrissy M. Chubala, Elliot A. Ludvig

Abstract

Three experiments assessed how appetitive conditioning in rats changes over the duration of a trace conditioned stimulus (CS) when unsignaled unconditioned stimuli (USs) are introduced into the intertrial interval. In Experiment 1, a target US occurred at a fixed time either shortly before (embedded), shortly after (trace), or at the same time (delay) as the offset of a 120-s CS. During the CS, responding was most suppressed by intertrial USs in the trace group, less so in the delay group, and least in the embedded group. Unreinforced probe trials revealed a bell-shaped curve centered on the normal US arrival time during the trace interval, suggesting that temporally specific learning occurred both with and without intertrial USs. Experiments 2a and 2b confirmed that the bulk of the trace CS became inhibitory when intertrial USs were scheduled, as measured by summation and retardation tests, even though CS offset evoked a temporally precise conditioned response. Thus, an inhibitory CS may give rise to new stimuli specifically linked to its termination, which are excitatory. A modification to the microstimulus temporal difference model is offered to account for the data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 13%
Unknown 7 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 25%
Professor 1 13%
Researcher 1 13%
Student > Master 1 13%
Unknown 3 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 38%
Computer Science 1 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 13%
Unknown 3 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 November 2017.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Learning & Behavior
#564
of 904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,264
of 381,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Learning & Behavior
#8
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 381,572 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.