Cited by 110Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Contextual associations in trace conditioning

Open access
Marlin, Nancy A.·1981·Animal Learning & Behavior

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03209784

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Longer trace intervals make the US less predictable and result in greater context conditioning.

    “The longer the duration of the trace interval, the less predictable the US becomes, resulting in greater context conditioning (Marlin, 1981).”

    From Phasic vs Sustained Fear in Rats and Humans: Role of the Extended Amygdala in Fear vs Anxiety (2010) · cites this paper as Marlin, 1981

    The paper’s summary (INTERSTIMULUS INTERVAL (SEC), page not available) says that increasing trace intervals reduce conditioning to the CS and increase conditioning to contextual cues. It does not say that the US becomes less predictable; the discussion instead calls the CS “perfectly predictive of the US” and emphasizes its changing temporal relationship to the US. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. GORMEZANO, I. Investigations of defense and reward conditioning in the rabbit. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972.
  2. PAVLOV, I. P. Conditioned ref/exes. London: Oxford University Press, 1927.
  3. In C. M. Locurto, H. S. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.), Auto- shaping and conditioning theory. New York: Academic Press, 1981.
  4. WAGNER, A. R. Priming in STM: An information-processing mechanism for self-generated or retrieval-generated depression in performance. In T. J. Tighe & R. N. Leaton (Eds.), Habitua- tion. Perspectives from child development, animal behavior, and neurophysiology. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1976. (Manuscript received March 18, 1981; revision accepted for publication July 29, 1981.)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marlin, N. A.
Affiliations
Missouri University of Science and Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Marlin, Nancy A.
Venue
Animal Learning & Behavior
Published
1981-12
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
519-523
ISSN
  • 0090-4996 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5830
OpenAlex
W2079355354
Cited by
109
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Animal Learning & Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
trace conditioning, contextual fear, contextual associations, trace interval, avoidance behavior, fear conditioning

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