Cited by 58Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Partial reinforcement effects in classical aversive conditioning in rabbits and human beings.

Leonard, Dale W.·1975·Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

Abstract

The partial reinforcement extinction effect (the PREE) in classical aversive conditioning was investigated in 2 experiments. In the first, the nictitating membrane responses of 120 rabbits were conditioned at a 250-msec. interstimulus interval (ISI) under continuous reinforcement, partial reinforcement with the unconditioned stimulus (US) omitted (Group PO), or partial reinforcement with the US delayed to 1,500 msec. (Group PD). These 3 groups were factorially extinguished under US-Omitted, US-Unpaired, or US-Delayed extinction regimens. A significant PREE was obtained, but only for PO training and US-Omitted extinction. The second experiment, employing human subjects in a masked eye blink conditioning task, produced parallel results. A general discrimination view of the classical PREE seems applicable, but one in which neither cognitive factors nor intertrial conditioning of reinforcement aftereffects play a significant role.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/h0076419

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Such effects may have occurred for the physiological measures during extinction because of the use of a partial reinforcement schedule during acquisition, which is known to slow down extinction.

    “Such effects may have occurred for the physiological measures during extinction because of the use of a partial reinforcement schedule during acquisition, which is known to slow down extinction (Leonard 1975).”
  • The time it takes participants to learn that a contingency change has occurred may differ depending on the reinforcement rate used during the prior acquisition phase.

    “However, the time it takes participants to learn that a contingency change has occurred may differ depending on the reinforcement rate used during the prior acquisition phase (78,79).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leonard, D. W.
Corresponding author
Leonard, Dale W.
Venue
Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology
Published
1975
Volume
88
Issue
2
Pages
596-608
ISSN
0021-9940 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2008238339
Cited by
58
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
partial reinforcement extinction effect, nictitating membrane response, eyeblink conditioning, extinction, discrimination learning, rabbits, research participants, interstimulus interval
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Animals, Avoidance Learning, Conditioning, Classical, Conditioning, Eyelid, Discrimination Learning, Electroshock, Extinction, Psychological, Humans, Perceptual Masking, Rabbits, Reaction Time, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reinforcement Schedule, Time Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review