Search

This report describes relationships between the Edelberg recovery measure, latency, rise time, and amplitude measures of GSR response to cued, uncued, and disparity USs. Under cued and uncued conditions all temporal measures were independent of amplitude. Rise time and recovery measures were highly correlated under all conditions, while correlations between latency and rise time or amplitude were quite weak, suggesting that latency and rise time-recovery are partly under the control of different mechanisms. When US was unexpected (disparity), latency remained independent of amplitude, but significant correlations developed between amplitude and the temporal measures of rise time and recovery. Latency and recovery, but not rise time or amplitude, distinguished between disparity and non-disparity conditions. The results demonstrate the need and utility for more complete response specification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When the CS-US interval is longer than the latency of an autonomic response, multiple responses are obtained both during and after the CS-US interval on acquisition test or extinction trials. Certain terminologic, methodologic and conceptual problems concerning this multiple response phenomenon are outlined. A nontheoretical and, we hope, unambiguous terminology is presented. Methodologic problems concerning multiple-response measurement, between- and within- subject designs, trace and delay paradigms, intramodal and intermodal paradigms, and incompleteness of data presentation are discussed. It is felt that empirical analysis of the multiple response phenomenon will have important ramifications for our understanding of autonomic behavior in the classical conditioning situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Relations between galvanic skin response (GSR) and other variables during learning of a shock-avoidance task were observed. Ss operated a four-position switch as cued by visual stimuli: one always shocked, one never shocked, and two associated with switch positions which avoided the shock. Forty-eight Ss formed successive subgroups which exhibited: (1) progressively better avoidance learning with increased awareness instruction and (2) significantly decreased GSR when the correct avoidance had been learned. Analyses were made to differentiate autonomic responding due to reinforcement (i.e. number of shocks received) from that due to expectancy (anticipation of avoidance). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]