1. Nature of the Conditioned Response Chapter 5 1

2. The Stimulus Substitution Theory 2  Originally suggested by Pavlov  Stimulus substitution theory  Pairings of the CS and the UCS enable the CS to later elicit the US representation. So, the CS is treated as if it were the US.

3. 3

4. But ……………… 4  In many cases the CR and UCR are not the same  Problem 1: In some cases the CR and UCR seem opposite each other.  Problem 2: And sometimes the CR changes over the interstimulus interval.

5. 5  Wagner’s SOP theory invokes the concept that the UCS elicits two states of memory activity (two components)  A primary A1 memory (dealing with a present US)  A secondary A2 memory (thinking about a future US)  CS always elicits A2 memory of the US  A2 memory is sometimes linked to non-opponent response (salivation)  A2 memory is sometimes linked to an opponent response (drug tolerance)  Problem 1 Solved Sometimes-Opponent Process Theory

6. Affective Extension of SOP (AESOP) 6  Developed by Wagner and Brandon to explain the inconsistencies that SOP could not explain  It is based on the idea that there are two distinct UCR sequences  A sensory sequence  An emotive sequence CS Fear (optimal ISI, long) Blink (optimal ISI, short)

7. 7  The sensory and emotive attributes of an unconditioned stimulus activate separate response sequences  The latency of the sensory and emotive activity sequences can also differ  This leads to different optimal CS-UCS intervals for the emotive and sensory components

8. 8  There are several important aspects of AESOP  A CS may activate a strong sensory CR but only a weak emotive CR (or vice versa) This can explain the lack of correspondence between response measures of conditioning  A sensory A2 neural activity may elicit a discrete response (blink), while the emotive A2 neural activity may produce a diffuse reaction (fear)  Problem 2 Solved