Citation
The contribution of nonassociative factors to cebus monkey eyelid conditioning performance

Material Information

Title:
The contribution of nonassociative factors to cebus monkey eyelid conditioning performance
Creator:
Cook, William Andrew, 1942-
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1968
Language:
English
Physical Description:
viii, 83 leaves : illus. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Experimental psychology ( jstor )
Experimentation ( jstor )
Eyelids ( jstor )
Factorial design ( jstor )
Factorials ( jstor )
Linear models ( jstor )
Monkeys ( jstor )
Paradigms ( jstor )
Psychology ( jstor )
Response rates ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF ( lcsh )
Eyelid conditioning ( lcsh )
Monkeys ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis - University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 77-83.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available on World Wide Web
General Note:
Manuscript copy.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
022051765 ( AlephBibNum )
13447206 ( OCLC )
ACY4654 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text






THE CONTRIBUTION OF NONASSOCIATIVE
FACTORS TO CEBUS MONKEY EYELID
CONDITIONING PERFORMANCE










By
WILLIAM ANDREW COOK


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY










UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1968


































TO LYTN AND KONTY












ACKNO'LBDC L I `71-F


I am especially indebted to Dr. F. S. PennyDacker

who, in addition to being a conscientious employer and

chairman, has been a good friend. Without his unwaivering

support and patient guidance this project would not have

reached completion.

I want to sincerely thank Dr. Bradford N. Bunnell,

Dr. C. Michael Levy, Dr. William Mendenhall, and Dr. Wise

B. Webb for the special efforts they have made to insure that

I have acquired in my graduate career the skills and knowledge

necessary to make a useful contribution to the profession of

psychology, and for their assistance in the development of

this dissertation.

I would like to acknowledge the staff and facilities

of the University of Florida computing center for their

significant role in analysis of this study. I am especially

grateful to Edwin Bradley for his assistance and for the use

of his regression program, UP STAT 10.

I would like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance

given so cheerfully by my wife, Lynn, and by Gale Lee who so

ably typed and retyped the various phases of this study.

This research was jointly suonorted by TUnited States

Public Health Service Grants MH-08S87 and -H-06379.










TABLE OF CONTENTS



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................ 1i i

LIST OF TABLES ......................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................... vi

INTRODUCTION ...........................................

METHOD ..................................... .......... 12

RESULTS ........... .......... ........ ... .............. 24

DISCUSSIO ............................................. 59

SUMMARY ................................................ 69

APPFE' IX A ........................................... 71

APPENDIX B ............................................. 73

APPENDIX C ............................ ........ ....... 75

OREFERENCES ...... ............................... ....... 77

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................... ............... ...












LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Overall Experimental Design .................. 16

2 Factorial Paradigms for Stage 2 ................ 17











LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page

1 Monkey Restraining Chair and Headholder ........ 13

2 Off-trial Response Rate as a Function of
Blocks of 25 Trials in Stage 1 ................. 26

3 Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for
Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a
Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the
CS-UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 2 ......... 28

4 Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for
Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a
Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the
CS/UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 2 ......... 29

5 Mean Uncorrected On-trial Response Rate as
a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials in Stage 2 ... 30

6 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for
Regression on Off-trial Response Rate as
a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for
the CS-UCS Factorial Experiment in
Stage 2 ........................................ 31

7 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for
Regression on Off-trial Response Rate as a
Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the
CS/UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 2 ......... 33

8 Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for
Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a
Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the
CS-UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 3
with Stage 2 Treatments Continued .............. 37

9 Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for
Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a
Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the
CS-UCS Factorial Exoeriment in Stoae 3
for Ss Shifted to CS-UCS ....................... 3






LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.)


Figure Page

10 Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for
Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a
Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the
CS/UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 3
with Stage 2 Treatments Continued .............. 39

11 Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for
Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a
Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the
CS/UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 3
for Ss Shifted to CS-UCS ....................... 40

12 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for
Regression on Off-trial Response Rate as
a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the
CS-UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 3 with
Stage 2 Treatments Continued .................... 41

13 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for
Regression on Off-trial Response Rate
,as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials
for the CS-UCS Factorial Experiment in
Stage 3 for Ss Shifted to CS-UCS ............... 42

14 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for
Regression on Off-trial Response Rate as a
Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the
CS/UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 3
with Stage 2 Treatments Continued .............. 43

15 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for
Regression on Off-trial Response Rate as a
Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the
CS/UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 3 for
Ss Shifted to CS-UCS ........................... 44

16 Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for
Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a.
Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the
CS-UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 4
with Stage 2 Treatments Continued in
Stage 3 ...............**** *....... ............ 49

17 Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for
Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a
Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the
CS-UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 4 for
Ss Shifted to CS-UCS in Stage 3 ................ 50


vii





LIST OF FIGURES count. )


Figure Pare

18 Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for
Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a Function
on Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS/UCS Factorial
Experiment in Stage 4 with Stage 2 Treatments
Continued in Stage 3 .......................... 51

19 Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for
Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a
Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS/UCS
Factorial Experiment in Stage 4 for Ss Shifted
to CS-UCS in Stage 3......... ............... 52

20 On-trial Resnonse Rate Corrected for
Regression on Off-trial Res-onse Rate as
a Function on Blocks of 25 Trials for
the CS-UCS Factorial Ex eriment in
Stage Li with Stage 2 Treatments Continued
in Stage 3 .................................... 53

21 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for
Regression on Off-trial Response Rate
as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials
for the CS-UCS "actorial T::-orinent in
Stage 4 for Ss Shifted to CS-UCS in
Stage 3 ....................................... 5L

22 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for
Regression on Off-trial Response Rate as a
Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the
CS/UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 4 with
Stage 2 Treatments Continued in Stage 3 ....... 55

23 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for Re-
gression on Off-trial Response Rate as a
Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the
CS/UCS Factorial Exoeriment in Stage 4 for
Ss Shifted to CS-UCS in Stage 3 ............... 56


viii












INTRODUCTION


The traditional definition of classical conditioning

is in terms of the classic experiment of Pavlov--

". . the intake of food (UCS) by the animal
takes place simultaneously with the action of
a neutral stimulus which has been hitherto in
no way related to food, the neutral stimulus
(CS) readily acquires the property of eliciting
the same reaction in the animal as would food
itself." (Pavlov, 1927, p. 26)

However, there are some serious difficulties with defining

the supposedly associative process, classical conditioning,

in such simple terms. These difficulties are of three

basic types. For most of the responses used in conditioning

studies there are few, if any, absolutely neutral stimuli.

Secondly, in addition to true conditioning, certain non-

associative processes are active in the conditioning

situation which also result in an increased rate of responding.

Thirdly, in most types of classical conditioning, the situation

is further complicated by the possibility of the spontaneous

occurrence of the "conditioned" response. We shall briefly

consider the past research on each of these contaminating

factors.

Orienting Responses

Novel stimuli tend to elicit an orienting response;

and not infrequently, the response which is being conditioned

is one of the components of the generalized orienting response.

1




2

Hence, the "neutral" stimulus may elicit the very response

being conditioned. This phenomenon has been found in con-

ditioning of the eyelid (Hilgard, 1934), galvanic skin

response (GSR) (Prokasy & Ebel, 1967), salivation (Kotaki

& Miyata, 1958; Pavlov, 1927), and cardiac reflexes (Zeaman

& Smith, 1954). The orienting response component (OR) can

sometimes be distinguished from the true conditioned

response (CR) by the form or latency of the response. Such

ORs have been isolated for eyelid conditioning (Hilgard,

1934) and for GSR conditioning where a relatively long CS-UCS

interval is used (Prokasy & Ebel, 1967; Stewart, Stern,

Winokur, & Fredman, 1961).

In most other cases it has been assumed that the

novelty of the CS is decreased over the first few condition-

ing trials or over a short series of adaptation (CS alone)

trials. Thus, by reducing the novelty of the CS, the likeli-

hood of the occurrence of the OR is assumed to be sufficiently

reduced as to eliminate the OR as a contaminating factor.

However, Korn and Welch (1962) have shown that, at least in

the case of the GSR, the effect of adaptation trials is only

partially effective and is also unstable. In the last half

of 25 light-only trials these investigators found a residual

response rate of 50o. Although Kimmel and Goldstein (1967)

found a residual effect of GSR adaptation trials from one

session to another, their data still showed considerable

recovery between sessions. This latter finding suggests

that studies using more than one session would require





3

adaptation prior to each session--the effects of such a

procedure would not then be clearly distinguishable from

partial reinforcement. Furthermore, it has been shown ,.

Grant, Hake, and Schneider (1948) for the eyelid response and

Carlton and Vogel (1967) for the conditioned emotional res-

ponse (CER), that habituation to the CS seriously impairs

conditioning. The results of Grant et al. (1948) cannot be

attributed to the removal of the ORs since they compared only

responses of latencies longer than that of an OR.

It should be pointed out here that the eyeblink OR

to a tone has not been demarcated for conditioning in the

cebus monkey. It is possible that the response, if it

exists, may differ either in latency or in form from that

found in human eyeblink conditioning.

Pseudoconditioning and Sensitization

In addition to the difficulties mentioned above in

regard to adaptation, several studies have shown an increase

in both frequency and amplitude of the OR with the introduc-

tion of the UCS. This increment has sometimes been referred

to as pseudoconditioning (Martin, 1962) or as sensitization

(Wendt, 1933). The term pseudoconditioning will be used here

in a broader context meaning all response increments which

are not solely "a function of the repetition of the condi-

tioned and unconditioned stimuli in Drecise relationship"

(Hilgard & Marquis, 1940, p. 42). Hull (1934) used the term

alpha conditioning to designate the increase in size or

frequency of the unconditioned response (UCR) to the CS or




4

the reappearance of an habituated OR resulting from the

presentation of the CS and UCS together. Several positive

instances of alpha conditioning have been reported for human

eyeblink conditioning (Bernstein, 1934; Grant & Adams, 170L:

Weber & Wendt, 1942; Wendt, 1933) and for GSR conditionin-

in humans (Gale & Stern, 1967; Stewart et al. 1961; Ziry,

Stern, & Fjeld, 1966). -Ho;%ever, there have been some

failures to find alpha conditioning in human eyeblink

conditioning (Grant, 1943a; Eilgard & Fiel, 1937; cAllister,

1953a; Weber & Wendt, 1942).

Sensitization may occur without the pairing of the

CS and UCS. It may occur after presentations of the UCS

alone or after unpaired CS and UCS presentations (CS/UCS)

(Grant & Meyer, 1941; Grether, 1937; Grosberg, 1962; arlow,

1939; T-arris, 1941a, 1941b; Martin, 1962; Sears, 193-;

Shipley, 1933; Wickens & 'ickens, 19L2; Zimny et al., 1966).

The frequency of such occurrences of this tyoe of pseudo-

conditioning has resulted in the almost standard use of a

control group which is presented both the CS and the UCS

but unpaired. There are some serious theoretical difficul-

ties with the use of this as a control, however.

Zimny et al. (1966) and Prokasy, Fall, and -awcett

(1962) have shown very different performance in extinction

for Ss receiving the CS and UCS unpaired and Ss receiving

the UCS alone. In both studies the latter group responded

at a significantly higher rate. Zimny et al. explained the

difference in terms of the Sokolovian hypothesis which





5
stresses the importance of the significance of a stimulus

which is to serve as a CS; according to this hypothesis

repeated presentations of the CS leads to a decrease in the

significance of the stimulus. The conditioning group (CS-

UCS) in both studies had a higher response probability than

the CS/UCS and UCS alone control groups during extinction.

This could be merely because the response tendency is en-

hanced more by the conditioning process than by sensitization;

or it could be that when the CS and UCS occur together, the

CS fails to lose its significance (Jouvet, 1960).

Rescorla (1967) makes the point that the CS may even

serve as a sort of safety signal in the typical paradigm in

which the CS and the UCS are presented in an unpaired

sequence. This occurs, according to Rescorla, because the

CS is only presented in the absence of the UCS. His remedy

for this situation is to present the CS and the UCS in a

truly random fashion with two independent programs.

There are yet other factors that may result in sen-

sitization of responses to the CS. Grant and his co-

workers (Grant, 1943a, 1943b; Grant, 1945; Grant & Norris,

1946; Grant, Norris, & Boissard, 1947; Grant & Norris, 1947)

found a long latency UCR to a visual CS which was sensitized

by dark adapting S:s eyes. The response, named the beta

response, was very similar in form and latency to the CS.

Grant and Norris (1947) were able to differentiate between

the latencies of the beta response and the CR by comparirn

latency distributions of Ss receiving conditioning trials in




6

either light or dark. Studies since the findings of Grant

and his co-workers have eliminated the problem of beta re-

sponding by using light adaptation rather than dark adapta-

tion. Many studies prior to that time, however, were

undoubtedly seriously contaminated by beta responses.

Spontaneous Responding

For several of the response modalities used in

classical conditioning there have been observed spontaneous

occurrences of the responses. Spontaneous responses are

particularly common in GSR conditioning (Korn & Welch, 1962)

and in salivary conditioning (Kotaki & 1Hiyata, 1958). Ost

and Lauer (1965) found spontaneous responding of such

magnitude in their canine salivary conditioning that they

analyzed their results in terms of difference scores (Inter-

stimulus salivation rate Pre-trial salivation rate).

Perhaps the limiting case of contamination by spontaneous

responding of conditioning phenomena is found in hecrt-rate

conditioning where the task is that of modification of the

rate of a continuous sequence of responses (Elack, 1965).

Spontaneous blink rate (SBR) has been the object of

attention in articles dealing with a wide variety of exoreri-

mental settings. Among these aro article deall""'- ;ih

visual-motor tasks (Drew, 1951), ease of reading (Luckiesh,

1946, 1947), illumination (Bitterman, 1948; Ponder & Kennedy,

1928), humidity (Ponder & Kennedy, 1928), effort extended in

mental work (Bitterman & Solway, 1946), ease of seeing

(Luckiesh & Moss, 1942), manifest anxiety (Doehring, 1957),





7

introversion-extraversion (Martin, 1958), neuroticism ( ranks,

1963; Martin, 1958), muscle tension (Meyer, 1953), alcohol

consumption (Franks, 1964), visual attention (Kennard S

Glaser, 1964), and instrumental conditioning (Doehring &

Ferster, 1962).

Few studies, however, have analyzed the role of

spontaneous blinking in the eyelid conditioning laboratory.

Primarily, the corrections for SBR have been indirect in

nature: Kimble (1947) used CS-only presentations as catch

trials during acquisition; McAllister (1953b) used subtraction

of the percentage of responses on the first block of trials

from the succeeding blocks; Prokasy, Ebel, and Thompson (1063),

and also Foneau (1958), counted as CRs only those responses

which overlaoped the UCS onset; Hanche and Grant (1960)

corrected for S3R by fitting a straight line to their inter-

stimulus interval function and using the deviation from the

line as the corrected measure of conditioning.

Recently, SBR itself has been measured in several

eyelid conditioning studies. Levey and Martin (1967) measured

SER prior to conditioning. It has been measured throughout

the inter-trial interval (a-ttson ?- notre, 1964; Moore &

yewman, 1964). It has also been measured during a 10 sec.

period immediately prior to the CS onset (Liokin & A'oore,

1966). In another study the number of blinks every 60 sec.

irrespective of the Dresence of a trial was counted and

STR calculated (Deaux & Deaux, 1967). The S?7 measure for

Deaux and Deaux (1967) is correlated a -riori with their




0

measure of conditioning since the former measure includes

the latter. Also, the pre-trial asure of Likin and :oore

(1966) may not be wholly independent of the coditicned re-

sponse frequency measure because of the refractory period of

the blink apparatus.

Cook (1966) measured S3R for 60 sec. before and after

each block of 25 trials in ar eyelid conditioning study

with ccbus monkeys. Despite the crudeness of the S3E

measures and the fact t S 3 fluctutes widely fro- moment

to moment (Drew, 1951: Ponder & ::7 :-"- 1928), he still got

a correlation bet"we- n inter-tr il af on-triLa respor i-

of 0.90 for accuisLtion and C.95 for extinction. Both of

these correlations were hihly significant. The high cor-

relations between SBR and frequency of Cs found by Cook

suggest that any effect wich the ex:eri mental treatments

have on S3R will be of pra.nount i-portance in determining

the frequency of CRs. Spance and Deoux (1966) and Deaux

and Deaux (1967) both found an increase in 3S2 in hur 2a Ss

which were changed from CS-UCS to CS/UCS. Deaux and Deau

(1967) also noted a significant difference in SIR during

acquisition between the four highest conditioned res.oners,

An experiment is needed which will allow the CR to

be defined, if conditioning is actually taking place, in tho

attempts to condition the blink reaction of the c ..

monkey. Hil'ard and Iara.ic (1936) in their .'-.--nt v.o

condition the rhecus monk'y rcp rted data .whiUMhwere

unlike that found in the I'tui by Cook (105f a ----7.





9

and Cook (1967) in the cebus and squirrel monkey. Instead of

the initial maximal level of responding and large within-S

variation found by the latter authors, Hilgard and Marquis

reported a smooth sigmoid curve for individual Ss beginning

at an almost zero level of responding and increasing gradually

to a level of better than 90% over several days.

The low response rate found in the monkey eyelid con-

ditioning studies of Cook (1966) and Pennypacker and Cook

(1967) suggests that the CS may actually have some inhibitory

effect which counteracts the effects of conditioning. Pos-

sible support for this hypothesis is seen in the finding

of Cook that for some blocks of trials SBR was higher than

the on-trial response rate. Mourant (1965) also found

evidence for an inhibitory effect of the CS in squirrel

monkey eyelid conditioning in that a loud CS produced con-

ditioning significantly inferior to that of a soft CS. All

three of these studies, however, had an additional result

which suggests that rather than a simple CS effect their

results reflected the interaction of the CS and the UCS. All

three studies showed an increase in response rate for some

Ss in the initial trials of extinction. This phenomenon,

labeled inhibition of reinforcement by Hovland (1936), is

not uncommon in human eyelid conditioning (Prokasy, 1958).

Hence, for a truly definitive study it is essential

that an assessment of the effect of the presence of the CS

on blink probability be provided. A measurement of the

degree to which this effect changes across time and with




10

unpaired presentation of the UCS is also needed. Yot only

does SBR appear to require investigation as a potent

variable, but the degree to which SBR interacts with all

of the above-mentioned effects seems to warrant consideration

as well. The rate of blinking can be measured either during the

CS presentations or during a comparable blank trial--on-trial

response rate (On-trial RR)--or it can be measured during

the inter-trial interval--off-trial response rate (Off-trial

RR). The comparisons outlined above require both On-trial and

Off-trial RR measurements for Ss receiving no CS, the CS

alone, and the CS and UCS--both paired (CS-UCS) and unaaired

(CS/UCS). To completely assess the interaction of the CS and

the UCS it is also necessary to include Ss which receive the

UCS only. Jensen (1961) has pointed out that the use of a

2x2 factorial design with CS presence and absence orthogonal

to UCS presence and absence would be an efficient means of

assessing the interaction of the CS and UCS on response rate.

The presence of such an interaction, depending on whether the

CS and UCS are paired or unpaired, can be taken as evidence

for associative conditioning or interactive (pseudo) condi-

tioning, respectively.

Additional important information can be derived by

following these different types of stimulation with condition-

ing trials (CS-UCS). This procedure would provide within-

S examination of the effects of the various other procedures

with conditioning. A measure of the effects of adaptation

to different stimuli on subsequent eyelid conditioning perfor-

mance would also be provided. If, for example, the CS is





11

actually a source of response inhibition in the cebus monkey

eyelid conditioning situation, then the effect of prior CS-

only presentations on conditioning would not be expected to

be the typical diminution in CR rate (Grant et al., 1948;

Prokasy et al., 1962). Instead, the CS adaptation would be

expected to decrease the inhibitory effect and thereby enhance

the CR rate.

Presentations of the UCS alone have generally been

found to impede subsequent conditioning (Brimer & Kamin,

1963; MacDonald, 1946; Taylor, 1956). However, instances of

sensitization caused by presentation of the UCS are not

uncommon (Brimer & Kamin, 1963; Prokasy, et al., 1962).

Prokasy et al. (1962), however, found the increment in re-

sponse rate due to sensitization to be short-lived as measured

by their extinction trials.











METHOD


Subjects.--The Ss were 20 male and 10 female cebus

monkeys (Cebus albifrans). They were jungle-born and ac-

quired from Tarpon Springs Zoo at Tarpon Springs, Florida

a few weeks prior to their use in the experiment.

Apparatus.--The restraining chair, programming equip-

ment, and recording method have been described previously

(Pennypacker, King, Achenbach, & Roberts, 1966). The chair

was modified by the addition of the headholder and bucket

seat seen in Figure 1. In addition to moving the microtorque

potentiometer used in recording S's eyeblink, the method of

linking the potentiometer arm to S's eyelid was changed

slightly. In the present study a piece of .01 cm. thick

copper wire was attached to the potentiometer arm by clipping

it in a small coil spring soldered to the end of the poten-

tiometer arm. The other end of the wire was bent into a

.33 cm. loop and wrapped with a piece of plastic tape. A

triangular piece of plastic tape 4 mm. high by 2 mm. wide

was stuck at its apex to the end of the wire and at its base

to the monkey's eyelid.

The experimental chamber was a Model 401-A I.A.C.

soundproof room. A 60-watt light in a conical reflector was

situated 30 cm. above and 35 cm. behind S's head to provide

12


























































Fig. 1. Monkey Restraining Chair and Headholder. a)
Full View of Chair, b) Close-up View of the Seat, c) Close-up
View of the Headholder.





14

illumination of the chamber. In addition to the programming

and recording equipment described by Pennypacker et al. (1966),

a Schmitt trigger was added to the eyeblink recording circuit.

Ey means of this trigger all closures 1.5 mm. beyond S's

baseline were automatically scored. A two-channel Texas

Instruments' printing counter and a half-second timer were

used to record the approximate duration of each inter-trial

interval and the number of blinks during that interval as

scored by the Schmitt trigger. This method provided a

simple and fairly accurate count of S's inter-trial response

rate. Latency and form measurements of the intra-trial

responses were determined by analysis of the Grass polygraph

records which were obtained as described by Pennypacker et al.

(1966).

The CS was a 1,000 Hz, 65 db (re .0002 dynes/cm2) tone

produced by a Hewlitt Packard oscillator. The tone was

delivered through two 10cm. sneakers--one mounted on each

side of the chair--14 cm. from S's ears for a duration of

1,575 msec. The background noise level provided by a ven-

tilation fan was 55 db (re .0002 dynes/cm2). The UCS was a

2.5 psi puff delivered for a duration of 100 msec. through

the system described by Pennypacker et al. (1966) except that

the source of air was a 2,400 psi cylinder of compressed air.

The inter-trial interval ranged from 26.7 to 31.7

sec. and averaged 30.0 sec. except for those Ss in the

CS/UCS condition in Stages 2 and 3. The range and mean

inter-trial interval for those Ss in the CS/UCS condition





15

were halved to equate session length for all Ss. All

inter-event intervals and durations were controlled by

Grason-Stadler programming apparatus.

Design.--The design for the entire experiment is

diagrammed in Table 1. The experiment was divided into four

consecutive stages for purposes of explication and also in

terms of the theoretical problems involved. Across all

stages the three groups of 10 Ss were treated as three ran-

domized blocks. The ten female Ss were all assigned to the

second replication. The sex effect was confounded with the

group effect.

Stage 1 was solely concerned with the changes for SBR

over time--both within days and across days. Seventy-five

consecutive measures of SBR were taken from each S for three

consecutive days. The basal SBR measured in Stage 1 was then

available to be used as a covariate to correct for individual

differences in SBR in successive stages of the experiment.

Stage 2 was primarily designed to assess the effect of

the CS and the UCS, separately as well as jointly, on SBR.

Stage 2 thus permitted the assessment of conditioning, pseudo-

conditioning, the effect of the presence of only the CS on

blink probability, and the interaction of these factors

with SBR. As is shown in Table 2, two different 2x2

factorial paradigms were constructed with CS presence and

UCS presence as factors. The CS and UCS can be presented

together either in a paired or in an unpaired paradigm.

The degree of positive interaction would reflect conditioning









TABLE 1-Overall Experimental Design


S y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 STiO. STIU.
NO STIC.
2 CS-UCS
3 CS OICY --cs-OLY
4 CS-UCS CS
5 Ucs 0...Y
5 NO UCS ONLY o --S-O"'^Y
6 CS-UCS H.Y
7 STiFULATION CS/US '- S/UCS
8 riXED ECS-UCS
9 CS-UCS CS-UCS
10 PD CS-RC _______
11 0 STS:.N.
12 CS-UCS
13 CS C.:'Y
14 > CS-"cS -- CS
15 0 S L o UCS C: .Y
iKS ONLY
16 STIULATICS-US OLY
STIF.ULATION
17 CS/UCS CS/UCS
18 faiSXED CS-UCS
19 CS-'CS CS-UCS
20 PAPSEP D CS-UCS
21 O- SI STII.
225 CO S ------------------
22 CS-UCS
23 CSCS OLYLY
24 CS-UCS CS
25 No UCS CILY
U2S OLY O --
26 o CS-UCS ONLY
27 ST8IMULATION cS/UCS ,, CS/UCS
28 ,IXED CS-UCS
29 CS-!CS CS-UCS
30 PARED (S-UCS
A 1 2 2' 3 4













TABLE 2

Factorial Paradigms for Stage 2





CS


Absent Present

no CS
stimulation only

UCS CS-UCS
only (Daired)

a.) Paired Factorial Design






CS

Absent Present

no CS
stimulation only

UCS CS/UCS
only (unpaired)

b.) Unpaired Factorial Design


UCS


UCS


Absent


Present


Absent


Present





18

in the first case and pseudoconditioning in the latter case.

Stage 2 included repeated measures on SBR and also on the

On-trial RR (response rate during CS or, for groups not

receiving CS, during a comparable blank trial). There were

trials administered each day for two consecutive days. Ad-

ditional on-trial response measures were provided at the end

of the second day of Stage 2 when Ss were presented 15
1
CS-only trials.

Stage 3 was designed to permit a comparison of the

effects on "conditioned" response rate of the five different

treatments applied in Stage 2. The treatments applied in

Stage 2 continued to be applied to half of the Ss which

previously received these treatments. This procedure pro-

vided four control conditions: no stimulation; CS only;

UCS only; and CS/UCS. Both Ss in each replication which

received CS-UCS trials in Stage 2 continued to do so. The

two 2x2 factorials in Stage 2 hence became 2x2x2 factorials

in Stage 3. Again repeated measures were employed both

across days and within days.

Stage 4, the extinction phase, was designed to detect

the actual effects on conditioning in Stage 3 caused by prior

treatment in Stage 2, with the control Ss in Stage 3 still

serving as controls of various types. Modification of SBR

by the current treatment was controlled for in Stage 4 since

all Ss received the CS alone. The same two 2x2x2 factorial


1Because of an experimenter error the procedure
actually included these test trials only for Replications
1 and 3.




19

models were used in the conceptualization and analysis of

Stage 4 that had been used in Stage 3.

In conjunction with the development of the experimental

design a linear model was constructed for each stage of the

experiment which contained, in addition to the parameters for

CS presence, UCS presence, and their interactions, parameters

for the two time variables represented by trials within days

(Trials) and days (Days) and the interaction of the time var-

iables with the treatment variables (see Appendices). The

model also included a covariate--either initial blink rate

or concurrent blink rate. The time variable was separated into

Trials and Days because of the rather typical finding that

carry-over from the last block of trials on one day to the

first block of trials on the next is incomplete. The co-

variate was included because it provides a means of separating

the contributions to response rate of the different processes.

For example, the difference in SBR between two monkeys due

to pre-experimental differences in general activity level can

be isolated from that difference in SBR produced by giving the

two Ss different treatments in Stage 2 by using the mean SBR

in the first stage, where all Ss are treated identically, as

the covariate in the second stage. To assess changes in

responding which resulted in the bowing of the curves, either

within days or across days, rather than simply linear trends,

a quadratic parameter for Trials was included, and where

there were three days, a quadratic for Days. Furthermore,

since Trials was expected to change from day to day as asymp-

totic response levels were approached, parameters were





20

included which provided for the interaction of Trials by

Days. Interaction parameters were added for the time

variables interacting with the treatment variables since the

changes across time of the effects of the treatments were

expected to differ depending upon which treatments were

involved. On the basis of prior experimentation the assumn-

tion was made that the within-S and between-S variances were

not sufficiently different to warrant distinct parameters

in the model.

The different questions which this study was designed

to answer can consequently be related to tests of coefficients

or linear combinations of coefficients in a linear model

fitted to the data. The empirical and statistical internre-

tations of some of the questions are given below for illus-

trative purposes:

1. Do UCS presentations facilitate Off-trial RR?

a. Do Ss receiving the UCS (alone or with CS, paired

or unpaired) demonstrate higher Off-trial RR

than Ss not receiving the UCS after correcting

for initial differences in SBR?

b. Is the magnitude of the coefficient for the UCS

parameter significantly greater than zero in the

linear model with Off-trial RR as the response

and with the mean SBR for each S, as measured

in Stage 1, as the covariate? This question

would apply for models fitted to either Stage 2

or Stage 3 data in either of the factorial

experiments.





21

2. Is there evidence of pseudoconditioning?

a. Is the On-trial RR for the CS/UCS factorial

experiment greater for Ss in the CS/UCS

condition than can be accounted for by adding

the effect of the CS and the UCS alone after

correction for possible effects of treatments

on Off-trial RR?

b. Is the coefficient for the CSxUCS interaction

parameter significantly greater than zero for the

model fitted to the On-trial RR in Stage 2 of

the CS/UCS factorial experiment where the Off-

trial RR of Stage 2 is the covariate?

Procedure.--Throughout the course of the experiment

all Ss were housed in individual cages with ad lib water.

They were given their daily ration of Purina monkey chow

and fresh fruit each morning.

The order in which the Ss in a given replication were

used on a given day was randomly determined. The assignment

of Ss to a given treatment was also randomized. The 10 Ss

within a replication were assigned to one of the ten different

treatments depicted in Table 1. This outline determined which

treatment each S received in Stage 2.

At the beginning of each daily session, S was.placed

in the chair and the recording equipment attached. Prior

to SER measurement each S received three daily chair adapta-

tion sessions 40 min. in length. Three days of SBR recording

were next obtained for each S. The 75 measures obtained each




22

day were made during the inter-trial interval of 76 blarnk

trials (average inter-trial interval was 30 sec.), using the

Schmitt trigger and printing counter.

In an attempt to obtain greater independence of the

Off-trial and On-trial RRs the off-trial measure was stopped

2 sec. prior to the CS or blank trial presentation. In an

attempt to minimize SBR distortion by immediate consequences

of the UCS presentation the off-trial response measure was

not begun until 1.20 sec. after the offset of the UCS or

1.30 sec. after the CS or blank trial offset.

On the day following the third SBR measurement session

Stage 2 began. The Ss received 75 trials of the condition

to which they were assigned (150 trials for the CS/UCS

condition) on that day and also on the following day. In

Stage 2 one pair of Ss in each replication received either

no stimulation (NS), the CS only (CS), the UCS only (UCS),

the CS and UCS paired (CS-UCS), or the CS and UCS unpaired

(CS/UCS). The Ss receiving the CS/UCS condition actually

had 150 trials per day--75 presentations of the CS mixed

with 75 presentations of the UCS. The order of presentation

was CS, CS, UCS, CS, CS, UCS, CS, UCS, UCS, CS, UCS, UCS,

etc. A fixed sequence was used rather than the independent

presentation of the CS and the UCS suggested by Rescorla

(1967) because of the difficulty of measuring the Off-trial

RR while using such a procedure.

After the prescribed number of trials on the second

day of Stage 2 fifteen CS-only test trials were given to





23

Ss in the first and third replications. The interval

separating the treatment trials and the test trials was of

the usual inter-trial interval length.

The three days of Stage 3 immediately followed Stage

2. In Stage 3 one member of each pair of Ss receiving the

same treatment in Stage 2 continued to receive that treat-

ment while the other S received paired CS-UCS trials. Each

S continued to receive 75 trials per day (150 trials for Ss

in the CS/UCS condition).

The three days of Stage 4 immediately followed those

of Stage 3. All Ss received 75 CS-only trials per day for

each of the three days. The inter-trial interval remained

an average of 30 sec.










RESULTS


Response Definition


Two different measures of blink rate were used in this

study. The measures differed with respect to the lengths of

their measurement periods, the time of measurement, and the

method of recording.

Off-trial RR.--Off-trial RR was the measure of S3R

taken during the inter-trial interval. The mean length of

this measurement period was 26.8 sec. The Off-trial RR was

recorded by means of the Schmitt trigger and printing

counter, the Schmitt trigger being activated by a lid closure

greater than 1.5 mm. beyond S's base line. During the course

of the experiment occasional difficulty was encountered in

maintaining a zero input to the Schmitt trigger because of the

changes in S's lid position. Thus, the most probable error

was that of counting as full blinks miniature blinks accom-

panied by an elevated base line. On other occasions, however,

the base line shifted in the other direction and responses of

1.5 mm. amplitude were not scored.

On-trial RR.--On-trial RR was the 1,600 msec. measure

of the blink rate taken from the onset of the CS to a point

30 msec. after UCS onset or during a blank trial of comparable

length. For Ss receiving the CS the On-trial RR was always




25

measured during the CS presentations, and for Ss receiving

the UCS it was always measured during the 1,600 msec. im-

mediately preceding the UCS onset. The On-trial RR was

measured by visual inspection of the Grass polygraph record.

The criterion for an On-trial response was that the response

be at least 1.5 mm. over the concurrent base line. In cases

where there were more than one response per trial, S's lid

had to return to the base line before the onset of the next

blink for the latter blink to be scored as an On-trial

response.


Stage 1


Effect of time in chair on SBR.--As measured by the

Off-trial RR the effect of time in the chair on SBR is shown

in Figure 2. An anticipated trend in SBR across trials

within days did not materialize nor was there a change in

SBR across days. The coefficients of the linear and quadratic

parameters for Trials and the linear and quadratic para-

meters for Days were all nonsignificantly different from zero

according to t tests performed on a simple linear model

fitted to Off-trial RR.2 An analysis of variance further

showed that the overall effects of Trials and Days were non-

significant.

Effect of between-S differences on SBR.--There was no

significant difference in overall Off-trial RR due to a


2For all significance tests to be reported,cc= .05.
It is recognized that because of the large number of tests
performed the power of the tests is reduced and replication
will be necessary before any conclusions can be made other
than those of a very tentative nature.
















Q)
bC


CD












r1




cO
....O




CO
\ o
S cit

























C







it
-^ h 0

.^-"^ "AC l




27

difference in S's sex. There were large individual differences

in Off-trial RR. There differences were statistically re-

liable, F (27, 232) = 18.000.


Stage 2


This stage of the experiment was of a dual nature.

It not only provided a measure of the effects of the experi-

mental stimuli on Off-trial RR (Figs. 3 & 4) but also provided

a measure of conditioning based on comparisons with control

groups--with the effect of the treatments on Off-trial RR

removed by covariance techniques (Figs. 5 & 6).

Assumption of single error component in model.--A

comparison of the within-S and between-S variance for both

the On-trial RR and Off-trial RR showed no difference between

the two. The F ratios obtained by dividing the within-S

variance into the between-S variance were nonsignificant.

Effect of UCS presentations on SBR.--The anticipated

increase in Off-trial RR due to puff presentations was found.

The US, CS/UCS, and CS-UCS conditions produced higher rates of

responding than the NS and CS conditions (Figs. 3 & 4). The

coefficient of the UCS parameter in the linear model (see

Appendix A) fitted to the Stage 2 Off-trial RR with the over-

all SBR for each S in Stage 1 as the covariate was significant

according to a t test for both the CS-UCS factorial, t (117)

6.653, and the CS/UCS factorial experiments, t (117) = 7.053.

Habituation of the UCS, a decrease in the facilitatory

effect of the UCS across trials and/or across days, is not






































F-


--'


I'
*1


3!V8 v',t~ 91~r

~JO1 C~3D~R6O) J.RVB


~------%140





C20<,r^ 1C '"120
.C 'j <;-- l,.. ^


0

r
C\.,













C CC


H E-





fO7

0
C)L



0-)








0




C~
C)C

fcr

0U








HO
C
C-
C
C' 0
' : 5
^ <












0 &


C-C-.













4-)
CC'







0 H
S<*
















0 .0 71
cqo



b C)
QHE










0-4
CO
o




-4
. ; 0
o I I C,
. o







. 0 0I
0 0
b \e D
























-4
Sq 0
o. O. .. H-


















o
\.0 0




.1 o s c



HO
1 Ct
o ;





Crt





'-----------------------------------WO !--l
<" D3










Co
r-












































I /
I



71


N" /


N
N.
>1


< <


o LI, 0 0
.s C., Co r *-C r-


K




E---
I __





LzE"
M-^


(H






0











Co
0













c,
tra






















oN





CO
-.
O

C




























0























--
liP

1e
Ci


TJ


Lra L.,
LJ-B *Q


I I I I 1 _


C3 LJ
-- C3l


~i"ii`d 35~0e3S~U




































./ Fl


\. /
\ ti
/


I I

L8U r,~rr: 0~~ld:~ Li "r:~:'~



z:~r.


0












SF-.
C6







Ol
C-

c w





cr
-_
SCE















OO
0 0
co


















00
.-4
0 E












OC)
SC)



O







O










I
CO







*O
--4





* n
00



4-1


0
Cl


0-




32

seen in Figures 3 and 4. The linear model coefficients for

the interaction of the UCS with Trials, linearly or cuadra-

tically, and with Days were all near zero.

Effect of CS presentations on SBR.--There was found

to be no reliable difference in Off-trial RR between those

Ss receiving the CS and those not. There was, however, an

interaction between the CS and UCS in the CS-UCS factorial

experiment (Fig. 3) which was not found in the CS/UCS

factorial experiment (Fig. 4). The facilitation of Off-

trial RR by the UCS was markedly attenuated by preceding

the UCS with the CS. The different results for the CS-UCS

and CS/UCS factorial experiments appear to be due to the

difference in the temporal relationship of the CS and UCS.

The linear model coefficient for the CSxUCS interaction

parameter was significantly negative for the CS-UCS factorial

experiment, t (117) = -2.351.

To determine whether or not responding was inhibited

during the CS presentation attention must be turned to the

On-trial RR data summarized in Figures 5, 6, and 7. After

removal of the effects of differences in Off-trial RR there

remained little difference in responding under the various

conditions (Figs. 6 & 7). Comparison of the NS and UCS

conditions with the CS and CS-UCS or CS/UCS conditions re-

vealed no inhibitory effect of the CS.

Pseudoconditioning.--Pseudoconditionin, would be

evidenced by higher On-trial RR for the CS/UCS condition

than predicted by adding the effects of the CS- and UCS-

alone presentations. The CSxUCS interaction, or the lack of










C\J

O C)
o 0b


Ct C

4-)





P.
to C





ct


F-4
\ 00




-4o
m c
mc6














C-4
SI C
// io II
.. \ I 0 0

i"" .




< o* co to

\o
2 "






0 0




10 I-
SI r
*. O/\
























o*




b0
'"3 -., .. .. S i .:V -, C)

Co-


Co

C)
c*tL





34

additivity of the CS and UCS effects, was negligible according

to a t test of the interaction parameter in the CS/UCS fac-

torial linear model (Fig. 7).

Conditioning.--The curves in Figure 6 show that the

CS-UCS condition produced no divergence from the simple

summation in the corrected On-trial RR of the CS and UCS

effects. If conditioning had been a slow process it might

have appeared only as an increase across trials or days

instead of an overall effect since Stage 2 was only two days

long. Analysis of the data also failed to reveal any gradual

deviation from additivity of the CS and UCS for the CS-UCS

factorial experiment. The linear model coefficients for the

CSxUCSxTrials-linear, CSxUCSxTrials-quadratic, and CSxUCSx

Days interactions were all nonsignificant.

One could assume that conditioning would be reflected

in Off-trial RR as well as in On-trial RR through generalized

fear conditioning or some such mechanism. Then it could be

argued that using Off-trial RR as the covariate camouflaged

the measure of conditioning. Considering the On-trial RR of

the CS-UCS factorial experiment with no covariate makes it

possible to determine to what extent the covariate analysis

may have camouflaged conditioning. Dropping the covariate

adjustment did not result in a significant increment in re-

sponse rate for the CS-UCS condition relative to the response

of the control conditions (Fig. 5) as might have been expected

from an inspection of the Off-trial RR curves (Fig. 3). The

coefficients for the CSxUCS interaction and for the hi-her-





35

order interactions involving the CS, UCS, Trials, and/or Days

parameters were all near zero.

Relationship between initial SBR and subsequent Off-

trial RR.--The covariate used with Off-trial RR in Stage 2

was the mean SBR measure for each S in Stage 1. It accounted

for a significant proportion of the variance in Off-trial

RR. The results of t tests of the covariate coefficients

in the models were both significant, t (117) = 6.585 for the

CS-UCS factorial experiment and t (117) = 3.857 for the

CS/UCS factorial experiment.

Relationship between On-trial and Off-trial RR.--For

both the CS-UCS and CS/UCS factorial experiments a major

Portion of the variance in On-trial RR could be accounted for

in terms of variance in the covariate, Off-trial RR. The

coefficients of the covariate parameter in the linear models

fitted to the On-trial RR of Stage 2 were significantly

greater than zero for both the CS-UCS analysis, t (117)

12.396, and for the CS/UCS analysis, t (117) = 15.446.


Stage 2 Test Trials


For the CS-only trials given at the end of Day 5 the

mean On-trial RR was .042, .250, .188, .406, and .344 while

the mean Off-trial RR was .204, .340, .241, .408, and .267

for the TS, CS, UCS, CS-UCS, and CS/UCS treatments, respective-

ly The linear model used to analyze the data includes the

first seven components and the error component of the model

in Appendix A.





36

Effect of prior CS presentations.--The analysis of the

test trial means indicates some inhibitory properties of the

CS. The Ss which had previously experienced the CS responded

more during the test trial after correction for regression on

Off-trial RR, than Ss who had not received the CS previously.

The CS parameter coefficient was significant only for the

CS/UCS factorial analysis, t (10) = 2.331.

Pseudoconditioning.--There was no evidence of a

CSxUCS interaction in the CS/UCS factorial experiment. There

was, however, strong evidence for sensitization. In both the

CS-UCS and the CS/UCS data Ss with a prior history of UCS

presentations had a higher On-trial RR after correction for

regression on Off-trial RR than Ss who had not received the

UCS, t (10) = 2.870 and t (10) = 2.859, respectively

Conditioning.--There was no evidence of a CSxUCS inter-

action in the CS-UCS analysis of the test trial data.


Stage 3


For half of the Ss (Non-shift Ss) Stage 3 was a

continuation of Stage 2 (Figs. 8, 10, 12, & 1L). By com-

bining Stage 2 and 3 for the Non-shift Ss a five-day parallel

to Stage 2 is provided but with half the number of Ss. The

other half of the Ss (Shift Ss) received the CS-UCS condition

in Stage 3 (Figs. 9, 11, 13, & 15).

Effect of UCS presentations on SBR.--As in Stage 2

there was a noticeable difference in SBR in Stage 3 between

the Non-shift Ss receiving the UCS and those not receiving







































I \\
*a -i ^1\


1a


I I
a a


Si






I I

/







a I
I
--------






['o i:o;5smE ^


rC-







C 4
cO


0C

H c




ct







C

0I O
rco





c0 *.












o C)
0
HO
OP
-1
cf-












I 0


0 0 CO

SO O
r-l









ao t








CC m
O -P





cz
!-!



[Cti


0 '..-. '


I.JY I B 'N i1 Y 'A13


Ec~a




E~a


Wm,


\e


'

































-1. < ~ -





/
I


.1


~\ ~\. <*
N/ ~
\ \
1< ~







~ jl\


S|c





S C --- N






80O G(DFl03) 2'.2 BS:COES8 "V'n'0


F-




S:



- -


--

--


0) 0

C)O











CO




cr

t0 0



C



0


CO


C-,



CI O



0'0








0 C
c^-i

IO c



















c o

C ^c
zo


C/
o u








C2
CCr



cr
.0











c ^J





































0
0
\
o


I.
I/


.I .


1

/)
*0I

0


0


0
/ *
I.<


C U? C= o CU
C, C*^ C4 -- =


U)





.HD
r 0

rH




05H C
S

Ha







80 p
C.




r)




Ocr

c6C)

0






oo



SC
a 0)
oC)









0 c?-



cbca

c o


CO
r a


0sr~

U -P,
Q) ?-


L"


j-


t I I . . .


<"-


C U-
^3- f?


t


rR-~
h"~~ ''?
II*~


HUI :'"19 17i.l


~04 Q~a~,`:3~ 31~8 arI:~ir"'3 %V8~9-3;10






40





CI-
o..o
cr




CO
cO
.u










W 0

















4-) 0
O













cJ
< ^ <; F ", ,-




0 \
tl 0
o .~ O


S<" C CO
Vo

< \ < \ < O (r )






0 U
S*U
\ 2 0















U'3 G3 31 I m
-.0 4 e











SOC!

O-d
oco
,oo \ Ou



ct 0O



+-O CO



O





X cP








































. >


i vI- o


0 4-0









aC







*C)
C x


0 r-





Qdo




0








0
bo.



0 c-
" u






p 0)








-I O



Cl)









o
CO
0 0









*NM 0
r--,
CO0
P-P4






C .D C
C )










CC e/
r-l C


"~l^








!U-t

e>^~


'._ C ',


1


3]' SlSOdSu 18VILA-1,0 NO


















C 18




bc








0-1


**. I
C**. C



;--4
C












CO C



S* ,

0 c
1 0
I* i















U\ 1 0
ICID












I -.





















co


C-
1 V5 :


--- I-- c- '

























0 CO



06
0)- r















cF-c






































I .




0\/



b .*





\ i / "<


0- o.o-O -o0


0 'I *4


Uo as NiJUO Evg 3-so0ds Ii M -SSW


0 )

0 pC

CI

C)








0



c04 0
OH




P -i
to,




C10
Ob-















0 rz
WO
03











C .


























0 ?U)
Q 0Z













oU CO











a,4
ocv
t o
?i 0



o o6

















--OP
v^ 4> ,-





fr 0C
K) ^












cM
0 OC



Co-










..ol






O .

cD
So I C
-1* I s-oK










C) x.
0

S.











04
-< ', <-

















0 .
OO




















C,-m
c- i, I










I Ott)




v co ':


o 0
w C0


O)
31Vy3SN~S3^ ~iajaO M N08S]^9H 0^

HO^ I]Dr 3 3Afl S^OG'S^ IS~l-O ^




oj CQ





45

the UCS (Figs. 8 & 10). For the Shift Ss, who were all re-

ceiving the same treatment, there was no difference between

Ss which had previously received the UCS and those who had

not (Figs. 9 & 11). This effect of UCS presence resulted in

a significantly non-zero linear combination of coefficients

for both the CS-UCS factorial experiment, t (141) = 2.253,

and the CS/UCS factorial experiment, t (141) = 2.811, where

the linear combination represented the difference between

those Non-shift Ss receiving the UCS and those not.

Effect of CS presentations on SBR.--Inspection of

Stage 3 Off-trial RR (Figs. 8 through 11) revealed no evidence

of an inhibitory effect of the CS on Off-trial RR. Inspec-

tion of the data did reveal a depressing effect of the CS

on the UCS facilitation of Off-trial RR for those Non-shift

Ss receiving the CS-UCS treatment (Fig. :3). The linear

combination of coefficients for the CSxUCS interaction for

the Non-shift condition was significantly less than zero,

t (141) = -2.577.

The On-trial RR in Stage 3 revealed a significant

difference between Non-shift Ss receiving the CS and those

not receiving it but no difference between Shift Ss who had

previously experienced the CS and those who had not (Figs.

12 through 15). For the 6 Ss who received the CS/UCS treat-

ment in Stage 2 a within-S comparison was available of On-

trial RR as measured during the CS and also during a blank

trial preceding the UCS presentation. Inspection of the

difference between these two measures revealed no effect of





46

the CS on responding. Both of these findings can be construed

as evidence against an inhibitory effect of the CS on con-

current responding.

Conditioning and oseudoconditioning.--Stage 3 produced

no evidence for either conditioning or pseudoconditioning

(Figs. 12 through 15). The CS-UCS and the CS/UCS conditions

did not produce higher corrected On-trial RR than did the

NS, CS, or UCS conditions either for the Shift or the Non-

Shift Ss. The conditioning paradigm did result in some inter-

esting increases in Off-trial RR. Of the 6 Ss which had

received conditioning in Stage 2, five showed an increase

in responding from the first to the third block of trials on

Day 6. All 6 Ss increased in Off-trial RR from the mean of

Day 6 to the mean of Day 7 (Figs. 8 & 9). The probabilities

that these events occurred by chance are less than .06 and

.03, respectively (Walsh test, Siegel, 1956, p. 83). For

those Ss receiving conditioning in Stage 2, Day 8 was the

third day of conditioning. The Shift Ss demonstrated a

similar increase on Day 8 which was also their third day of

conditioning (Fig. 11). Of the 12 Ss in the NS--CS-UCS,

CS--CS-UCS, UCS--CS-UCS, and CS/UCS--CS-UCS conditions

eleven increased in Off-trial RR from the first to the last

block of trials on Day 8. The probability of these increases

occurring by chance would be less than .01 (Walsh test,

Siegel, 1956, p. 83). The joint probability that an increase

in Off-trial RR on the third day of conditioning for both

these groups of Ss resulted from chance alone would, indeed,

be quite small.





47

Relationship between initial SBR and Off-trial RR in

Stage 3.--The covariate employed in the analysis of Off-trial

RR in Stage 3 was the mean SBR for each S in Stage 1. That

covariate accounted for a significant proportion of the

variance in Off-trial RR for both the CS-UCS analysis t (141) =

8.744, and the CS/UCS analysis, t (141) = 5.406.

Relationship between On-trial and Off-trial RR.--In

Stage 3 the Off-trial RR accounted for 59.4% of the variance

in the On-trial RR. The effect of Off-trial RR was significant

for the CS-UCS analysis, t (141) = 11.581, and for the CS/UCS

analysis, t (141) = 12.9L4.

Stages 2 and 3 combined.--The combined Non-shift data

do not provide any new insights into the data but, instead,

reiterated the findings of Stages 2 and 3 when considered

singly.

Off-trial RR data.--The UCS produced a significant

increment in Off-trial RR, t (139) = 7.618 and t (139) =

4.452 for the CS-UCS and CS/UCS factorial experiments, re-

spectively. This facilitatory effect was reduced by im-

mediately preceding the UCS with the CS. Such attenuation of

the UCS effect on Off-trial RR resulted in a significantly

large coefficient for the CSxUCS interaction parameter in

the CS-UCS factorial experiment, t (139) = -2.888.

On-trial RR data.--The combined On-trial RR data

revealed no evidence of an inhibitory effect of the CS,

conditioning, or pseudoconditioning (Figs. 12 & 14). As in

the analysis of Stages 2 and 3 alone, there was found to be a





48

substantial contribution to the variance in On-trial RR from

Off-trial RR. The covariate coefficient was significantly

greater than zero for both the CS-UCS, t (139) = 13.997, and

CS/UCS factorial experiments, t (139) = 19.223.


Stage 4


All Ss received the same treatment in Stage 4--only

CS-alone presentations. The differences between the Ss re-

ferred to differences in the stimuli previously experienced

in Stages 2 and 3.

Relationship of SBR to Off-trial RR in extinction.--The

covariate, mean SBR in Stage 1, accounted for 34.4 of the

total variance in Off-trial RR in Stage 4. The amount of the

variance accounted for in terms of the covariate was signifi-

cant both for the CS-UCS analysis, t (141) = 10.244, and the

CS/UCS analysis, t (141) 8.578.

Relationship between Off-trial and On-trial RR.--The

On-trial RR, after removal of the effect of regression on

Off-trial RR, is depicted in Figures 20, 21, 22, and 23. The

coefficient of the covariate parameter of the linear model

was significant for the CS-UCS analysis, t (141) = 13.209,

and for the CS/UCS analysis, t (141) = 14.758. The covariate

accounted for 61.6% of the variance in On-trial RR.

Carry-over from Stages 2 and 3.--Both Off-trial RR

(Figs. 16 through 19) and On-trial RR (Figs. 20 through 23)

in Stage 4 revealed no differences due to whether or not

Ss had previously experienced the CS. Only in the CS/UCS











,c








*Hc
COf
D-



--4











C ,
0t
Cr-

















Oct
CO





n C
C6 4 .




























0t






0 p
C)
1. ( r..











0 0
S ,- o

























-'p
0, ,





C O
bO 0C















0)
60
h3 (o 6
g^ Io
^n ^
?- 1 r (U
*'- 0
0 U -P
t^
^i 4- ora
^ cC ^
o ca o
^a O k
ca ( ri5

S0} 4
b O C
O.?-l
OP'm





^-i -
?- o -
*P ^
Ie 0



0 p'

(d 3


" .


Cr
.1


1 1
LD O
-


HYu 1m1m IVSIMI NO No ISSRSI9


Ma G3X o) 31va IsMods3l IvaI-jEo


-A-


*


c




m












m



N


"~:'~

ck~
















T--------t


Q



9P'
f




















0p
OC)
Cdb-





















0 S0
0 pU
-PO
a ) .



















0
a0a
5















E .,.
I
.
0'
1 W NIf -,







.o





















CO-
K,-/ o *




C
U 05
sd -A-M V -O O- Kl



















*1-<











c4-)






Hci








0 x
.0
V3-










Dll








0o ;-4
CO





0. bc








4-!
Hc






o a 0












0-0- .-A











* 0 -0 N
0 0
I0 0,D












.o0 C




*OO



Oc
Flo-


-- -(D-
S-00
-^i "3 or E ^
.g 4- or
^^ cC CM
^ 0 r; a
-i w h
<3 1 <1 ^ e s. 6 / *CO CO

\ ;/* ^






































N
N .
N
.. \


*. \
. 0
0
i
0


A


- N
N
7.
/


.314,
0 N
.* o \







31 10I I O OISS 9









0A GODIUM 31iV 3 "SOdS3J 15M1-:


*P 0




CO


rO:







-4
El


-I 0





C"



C14
CO







cca
to












03 C
4 0











0
-- OCt,
,41 4H


















0o
CO


-P




















0 ,- )
Z CO
c)



















oM4
44











0o0 to
CC








S ' 0 (T;
^ -1 CO
ea ^^~
- racdco
c: T-
0 ^ *












O

O4-)



*to







* O H2
-4

* IC






bc,


C r





o ?
E-












*. {I
S 0













4-)0
" I 0 0






11) M 0
C "-
,-- O 'r-
CCo











"" --0 U 3 L 0-
31VN/ II fI ON r

























bo no
O~ 13 \ I-O 0 bO

bO c
S1-3













C.) .,
c tf











..--F;
cf-drC





































d. ~ ..







I.


4-Q -Z


I .


4.
\ /" .








I I



31V0 3SDO )SI3 %1m l-ijO MNO O0SSS13?393


t1O-J G3DS_^O 31VtJ 3 .'IS O

O-bO
0 --
OCo
OU)




0 C



(LI

v





0

O)
N c





0 .. r
CC4
























O 0
O G




P cU
O
4-3 ( M
0 f-l
- ~' (U r
OPT-
r 05i





- ~ P, 0 4


)
0


S


0 0







4-)


to!
r- 0T
CMOE(


I












mO-
O -)



CO








0
* *H

*C
S ol o
..o



0 E
p- 0



0**
.. A-"' -. Oc1






/ __

S4-) 4-



0 ". o






N N









*H Zo
ro o 0





S.) S *
4-H -
^{3 '' N -o oP



<,-- S








N ,



~ 4 .4- 0
4s. cS a i1"5a b?- *
^ 0 ~~cr;^
F T-
<}o~~~~t <. ^ wc u^
*^o ''* w N ^
<\ s-^C4 ^0^ *** ^^ r, 0 cdr1

%!ton 'i'l '<3. >a ~ P-0 ?






































C ~ *?

4/


31VU 3SNMOdS3U 1VMPI-1'O NO NOISS13933


N1OJ G3D3R O)1 O 3mIv ImSodSg iVi-NO


* I


-a


U-_
0




' 0
-a


C)
Ou
0.
PCO













O
to













0
?E-























C/)
0 c
O3













0 0




bO -4


-qco 9o
-N O
















l(D
CC ..
ci1
O CO
COU

















c6
0 ,

uO
-P T-l




o < r
P- -





-b~l C






-I -


`-d


<^^





57

analysis of the Off-trial RR was there a significant difference

due to prior experience with the UCS, t (141) = 2.834. The

Ss which had received the UCS in Stage 2, either alone or

unpaired with the CS, responded at a higher rate during

the Stage 4 inter-trial interval than Ss who had not received

the UCS in Stage 2 (Figs. 18 & 19). There were no significant

interactions indicating that either the conditioning paradigm

or the pseudoconditioning paradigm had affected extinction

performance.


Other Behavioral Measures


Latency of responses.--Preliminary analysis of the

latency distributions of the On-trial responses with Chi

Square contingency tests revealed no differences due to

treatments and no trends through the stages of the experiment.

On the basis of these results more detailed analyses were not

conducted.

Struggling and emotionality.--A record was kept of

the behavior of each S during his removal from his home cage,

transportation to the experimental room, and placement in the

restraining chair. No differences were observed between Ss

receiving the various treatments or between the various

stages of the experiment. There was little evidence of

habituation to handling or placement in the chair. The Ss

showed a small decrease in fighting the chair during the

first part of the three days of chair adaptation. The re-

duction in struggling did not continue throughout the study,





58
however. Subjects were struggling as much on Day 11 as

they were on Day 1, the day following chair adaptation.











DISCUSSION


The major finding of this study was that cebus monkey

eyelid conditioning performance was significantly influenced

by the Off-trial RR which was in turn a function of the type

of stimulation the monkey received. This finding is of

primary methodological importance for future classical

conditioning studies, particularly with the cebus monkey

eyelid response. For decades eyelid conditioning studies

have been conducted with organisms ranging on the phylogenetic

scale from the frog to man; and these studies have, for the

most part, ignored off-trial responding. The results of

Stages 2, 3, and 4 clearly demonstrate that a casual obser-

vation of spontaneous responding prior to any stimulation

(such as the measure made in Stage 1) is not an adequate con-

trol since the spontaneous response rate may be altered by

stimulation.

The results from the studies conducted in human eyelid

conditioning using a measure of off-trial responding have

not provided a clear picture of the effects of the condi-

tioning or control paradigms on Off-trial RR. Deaux and

Deaux (1966) found a marked but temporary increase in Off-

trial RR upon increasing the UCS intensity during a series of

conditioning trials. They also found a significant and pro-

longed increase in Off-trial RR when Ss were shifted from a

59





60

CS-UCS paradigm to a CS/UCS paradigm. This result is in

contrast to that of Moore and Newman (1964) who reported no

effect on off-trial responding due to the changing of several

variables. Moore and Newman failed to find any difference

in Off-trial RR between Ss receiving high or low UCS inten-

sity, 50' or 100, reinforcement, and high or low CS and

inter-trial interval stimulus similarity. It is possible

that the latter result is due in part to the particular

nature of their experiment. The discrepancy between the

results of Moore and Newman and those of Deaux and Deaux

suggests a need for further exploration of the interaction

of CS and inter-trial interval stimulus similarity with other

aspects of the conditioning situation. Another explanation

of this discrepancy is possible. Since Moore and Newman

used overall mean response rate as their measure of condi-

tioning, it is possible that their failure to find an effect

of UCS intensity manipulations on Off-trial RR is due the

rapid habituation to the effects of UCS presentations.

MacDonald (1946) fourd that although SBR increased signifi-

cantly after only 5 UCS-alone presentations, after 50 trials

the SBR had returned to the initial level. In the Deaux

and Deaux (1966) study the effect on Off-trial RR produced

by a shift in UCS intensity was also only temporary.

The apparent differences in the effects on Off-trial

RR of the different treatments involved in the studies of

Deaux and Deaux (1966) and Moore and Newman (1964) emphasize

the need for large-scale experimentation in human eyelid





61

conditioning oriented toward determining the interaction

of Off-trial RR with the variables which have been tradi-

tionally manipulated. Such issues as the effect of the

ready signal on the unpaired-UCS-presentation phenomena (Kimble

& Ost, 1961) may find new interpretation in the light of

knowledge about the effect of unpaired presentations on

Off-trial RR. In addition to the increment in Off-trial RR

found by Deaux and Deaux (1966) when shifting to CS/UCS

presentations, the results of both Stages 2 and 3 in the

present study showed a significant dampening effect of the

UCS facilitation of the Off-trial RR by preceding the UCS

with the CS. Those concerned with the issue of drive level--

either anxiety level (Spence, 1964) or UCS intensity (Spence,

Haggard, & Ross, 1958)--on conditioning may need to pay

greater attention to the possible influence of Off-trial RR

on conditioning measures. The standard control procedure

of just rejecting those Ss who have an abnormally high SBR

(Taylor, 1951) doesn't seem to be adequate considering the

often found positive correlation between anxiety and SBR

(Doehring, 1957).

The strikingly clear demonstration of eyelid condi-

tioning in the rhesus monkey by Hilgard and Marquis (1936)

seems at first to be in contradiction to the results of this

study and the prior studies in this laboratory using cebus

and squirrel monkeys. The difference can not easily be ac-

counted for in terms of learning ability since, at least for

the cebus monkey, Koch (1935) has shown that the cebus monkey




62

performed in a comparable manner to the rhesus monkey on

several complicated problem-solving tasks. The difference

is possibly a methodological one. For the On-trial PR for

the six monkeys that received five days of classical con-

ditioning, the daily means were .281, .311, .310, .45L, and

.378. The increasing linear trend seen in these data is

significant, F (1, 25) = 6.2912. Upon correction for Off-

trial RR and comparison with the appropriate control groups,

this trend disappears and the acquisition data fail to pro-

vide direct evidence for conditioning. The linear trend

found in the uncorrected data in this study was much smaller

than the effect found by Hildard and Marquis (1936), however.

Future experimentation should take into consideration another

methodological difference between this study and theirs--

Hilgard and Marquis used a light for the CS instead of a

tone. The finding in Stages 2 and 3 that Off-trial RR was

affected less by the presence of the UCS when the CS pre-

cedes the UCS suggests that perhaps some sort of preparatory

response may be occurring in the presence of CS which

diminishes the noxiousness of the UCS. This attenuating

effect might be resulting from classical conditioning of some

response other than the eyelid reflex. Kimmel (1965) has

discussed the possibility of an adaptive aspect of classical

conditioning, and noted that UCR diminution is a frequent

phenomenon in classical conditioning (Kimmel & Pennypacker,

1962; Morrow, 1966). On the other hand, the acquisition of a

preparatory response could occur through instrumental condi-

tioning. A third alternative is available; it may be that





63

the CS already elicits some sort of preparatory response

prior to the conditioning situation. This latter issue can

probably be most easily resolved by measuring simultaneously

other general responses such as the EMG or EEG. Measures of

on-trial responding other than rate or latency which would

not tend to be so completely masked by a high Off-trial RR

might provide not only the answer to the existence of a

preparatory response but also may demonstrate true eyelid

conditioning.

In GSR conditioning where spontaneous responding is

given more attention than in eyeblink conditioning the most

generally used measure is one of CR amplitude. Pennypacker

(1964) has found CR magnitude, or area, to be superior to

amplitude, latency, and frequency measures for a set of

eyelid conditioning data on which he compared the different

measures. Particularly for organisms with relatively high

Off-trial RRs some such measures should receive strong

consideration. If future experimentation continues to

reveal significant effects on Off-trial RR of the treatments

used to study conditioning, then increasing emphasis will

have to be placed in general on response measures other

than those related to frequency.

The Ss used in this study showed little or no

habituation to the restraining chair for the duration of the

experiment. The animals were still highly stressed when

introduced into the experimental setting on the first day of

the experiment and remained that way throughout the experiment.




64

This highly emotional state is not the state under which

conditioning trials are generally administered. This problem

is particularly serious for eyelid conditioning because the

blink reflex reflects general arousal level and is also con-

committant to struggling. Hence, a generalization from the

results of this study to classical conditioning as a whole

might be a serious over-generalization. The negative results

of the present study might be construed, however, as support

for the existence of an optimal drive level above which

eyelid conditioning becomes less likely to occur.

Jouvet's (1960) comments on the importance of chronic

experimentation seem most applicable to cebus monkey eyelid

conditioning. If attempts at eyelid conditioning are to be

continued with the cebus monkey, techniques should be

developed which allow conditioning to be assessed in a situa-

tion to which the monkey has been more thoroughly habituated.

Either modification of the chair such that S can live in it

during the experiment or use of a free-ranging situation may

be involved. The latter possibility might be accomplished by

using implanted electrodes which could be used to monitor EMG

and, also, to deliver a shock UCS.

The 15 CS-only test trials at the end of Stage 2 indi-

cated that there was an increase in On-trial RR due to sensi-

tization. The effect, if real, must be quite short-lived since

there was no evidence for sensitization in the Stage 3 shift

data or in the Stage 4 extinction data. The data were treated

in 25-trial blocks in the negative instances and in a 15-trial

block in the positive instance which suggests rapid habituation.




65

Evidence against an inhibitory effect of the CS in

Stage 3 outweighs the small amount of evidence for it.

Furthermore, in the Stage 2 test trials there was no clear-

out evidence of a UCR to the tone in either the frequency or

the latency measures.

The analysis of the Off-trial RR used in this study

indicated that, in general, the CSxUCS interaction was in the

opposite direction to that which one would expect if condi-

tioning had occurred and had been reflected in Off-trial RR.

The finding that an increase in Off-trial RR did occur in the

CS-UCS condition with a certain temporal pattern poses certain

questions. A discussion of these questions may be parti-

cularly useful in anticipating problems which may accompany

future use of the Off-trial RR as a covariate.

An hypothesis stating that the similarity in the On-

trial RR and Off-trial RR for the CS-UCS treatment results from

both of them reflecting learning has certain intuitive appeal.

If this were the case, the covariate analysis would be can-

celling the very effect which it is supposed to extricate. A

counter hypothesis, the one justifying the use of the co-

variate analysis in this study, is more complex and perhaps

less familiar. Involved are the assumptions that:

1. In addition to whatever else it measures, On-trial

RR measures S's operant level of responding as does

Off-trial RR; and

2. Classical conditioning, if and when it occurs,

results only in an increase in On-trial RR.





66

The first assumption is not difficult to justify logically.

Surely for the NS and UCS conditions the two measures are

equivalent. The other stimulus conditions involving the CS

should not destroy that equivalence unless those stimulus

conditions are altering the response contingencies. These

changes would then reflect the effects of the stimulus condi-

tions more accurately than the absolute rate of responding.

The second assumption must be justified experimentally and

would require a rigorous analysis of the Off-trial RR.

The first hypothesis could be stated in terms of two

stages. Classical conditioning could be hypothesized to

occur first,thereby elevating the response rate during the

inter-stimulus interval. This increased responding im-

mediately prior to the UCS could then result, through operant

conditioning, in an increase in the operant level of respond-

ing. There are several aspects of the data which are not

in agreement with this explanation. The above development

seems to imply that On-trial RR should not only increase

first but also, to whatever extent On-trial RR is a sample

of the operant response level, show a greater increase than

Off-trial RR. The data show, instead, that On-trial RR and

Off-trial RR change together and the changes are of the same

magnitude. These aspects of the data seem to support the

alternative hypothesis involved with the use of the covariate.

With regard to that hypothesis if one argues that it is an

increase in the operant level that is being measured by

both On- and Off-trial RR, then it is difficult to explain





67

why the increase occurred only for the CS-UCS condition and

why this increase had an apparently consistent time course.

It is known, however, that preceding the UCS with the CS

reduces the facilitatory effect of the UCS on the operant

rate according to the results of Stage 2 and the Non-shift

portion of Stage 3. If one assumes that CS adaptation acted

to reduce the attenuating effect of the CS, then the consis-

tency of the increase in Off-trial RR and the fact that Ss who

had the CS-alone condition in Stage 2 didn't show a marked

increase on the third day of conditioning in Stage 3 can be

accounted for in nonassociative terms. In fact, one of the

3 Ss in the CS--CS-UCS condition showed a decrease on the

third day of conditioning. This argument is not, however, in

agreement with the finding that the CS/UCS Ss in Stage 2

demonstrated a large Off-trial RR increase on the third day

of conditioning. Such an argument would seem to imply that

the increase in Off-trial RR would be more gradual--occurring

over each of the first three days of conditioning.

Future studies will have to cope with these problems

for which there are no simple explanations. Studies con-

cerned primarily with SBR as affected by experimental variables

such as inter-trial interval, the ratio of chair adaptation

time to length of the conditioning session, or, perhaps, UCS

intensity may be necessary to determine the nature of changes

in operant level during the course of conditioning. This

study strongly suggests that future classical conditioning

studies will have to deal with spontaneous responding and





68

the problems that accompany it. Future studies must also

consider conditioning not in isolation but within a frame-

work such as that provided by the CS-UCS factorial analysis

used in the present study.









SUMMARY


It was hypothesized that in eyelid conditioning of the

cebus monkey spontaneous blink rate (SBR) was a variable of

considerable importance in determining on-trial response rate

(On-trial RR) and that it was in turn influenced by the stimuli

presented to S. The means used to assess conditioning was a

2x2 factorial design with CS and UCS presence and absence as

orthogonal factors. The Ss were 30 cebus monkeys (Cebus albi-

frons). Following SER measurement, groups of 6 Ss each were

given either NS, CS, UCS, CS-UCS, or CS/UCS treatments for

two days with On-trial and Off-trial RR measured. Half of the

SS in each group then received CS-UCS trials for three days

while the other half continued to receive the control treat-

ments. All Ss were then given three days of extinction.

The results of the experiment revealed a significant

contribution to the On-trial RR variance due to Off-trial RR.

The Off-trial RR was furthermore found to be significantly

affected by the treatments used to assess conditioning. A

reliable finding was that preceding the UCS with a CS de-

creased the facilitory effect of the UCS on Off-trial RR. No

significant interaction of CS and UCS presence on On-trial RR

was found evidencing conditioning or Pseudo-conditioning.

The results were discussed in the context of other eye-

lid conditioning studies which have measured SBR. Some impli-

cations for future experimentation were discussed.


































APPENDICES


































APPENDIX A


LINEAR MODEL FOR STAGE 2










APPENDIX A


LINEAR MODEL FOR STAGE 2


y = a0 + alxI + a2x2 + a3xlx2+ a4x3 + a5x4+ a6x5 +

2
a7x6 +ag + 7 a9x7 + al0xlx6 + allx2x6 + al2x1x2x6 +

2 2
al3x1x7 + al4x2x7 + al5xlx2x7 + al6xlx7 + al7x2x7 -

2 2
al8x1x2x7 + al9x6x7 + a20x6x7 + a21xlx6x7 + a2x2x26x7 +


2 2 2
a23x1x2x6x7 +a24xlx6x7 + a25x2x6x7 + a26x1x2x6x7 + e

X1 = -1, for CS Absent
+1, for CS Present

-1, for UCS Absent
2 +1, for UCS Present

S-1, for Replication 1 or 3
3 = +1, for Replication 2

-1, for Replication 1 or 2
x4 +1, for Replication 3

x5 = Actual value of the covariate

-1, for Day 4
6 +1, for Day 5

-1, for Block of Trials 1
7 = 0 for Block of Trials 2
+1, for Block of Trials 3
2
e is distributed normally with mean 0 and variance 2

ei, ej independent, 1 = j.


































APPENDIX B


LINEAR MODEL FOR STAGES 3 AND 4






APPENDIX B


LINEAR MODEL FOR STAGES 3 AND 4

y = a0+ alx+ a2x2 + a3x1x2 + a4x + a5x4 + a6x5 +
2 2
a7x6 + a8x7 + a9x + al0x8 + allx8 + al2x1x7 +
2 2 2
a13X2x7 + a7lxlx27 +- a5x1x + a16x2x7 + a17x1x2x7 +
2 2
al8x1x8 + al9x2x8 + a20xlx2x8 + a2xlx + a22x2x8 +
2 2 2 2 2
a23x1x2x8 + a24x7x8 + a25xx8 + a26x7x8 + a27x7x8 +

a28x1x7x8 + a20x2x7x8 + a30xlx2x7x8 + a31xlx7x8 +
2 2 2 2
a32x2x7x8 + a33xlx2x7x8 + a34xlx x8 + a35x2x7 +
a36x1x2xxg + aD7xlx x + a38x2x x + a39x1x2x"x2 +

a40xlx6 + a4lx2x6 + a42xlx2x6 + a43x6x7 + . +

a72x6x1x2x x + e

X = -1, for CS Absent
1 1, for CS Present

x -1, for UCS Absent
2 +1, for UCS Present

x= -1, for Reoli+cation 1 or 3
x3 +1, for Replication 2

-1, for Replication 1 or 2
"4 = +1, for Replication 3

x5 = Actual value of the covariate

x = -1, for same treatment in Stage 3 as in Stage 2
6 +1, for shift to CS-UCS in Stage 3

-1, for Day 1
x7 0, for Day 2
+1, for Day 3

-1, for Block of Trials 1
S= 0, for Block of Trials 2
+1, for Block of Trials 3


e is distributed normally with mean 0 and variance c2
ei, ej independent, 1 = j.































APPENDIX C


LINEAR MODEL FOR STAGES 2 and 3 COMBINED






APPENDIX C

LINEAR MODEL FOR STAGES 2 AND 3 COMBINED


y = a0+ alx1+ a2x2+ a3x1x2+ a4x3+ a5x4+ a6x5+ a7x6+
a8xg+ a9x4+ al0xg+ alxl7+ al2x+ al3x1l6+
22
a14x1xg+ a15xlx 7+ a16xx ;H a17x2x6+ al8x2x +
2 2
al9x2x7+ a20x2x7+ a21x1X2x6+ a22xlx2x6+
a23x1x2x7+ a24x1x2x2+ a25x6x7+ a26x6x2

a27x2x7+ + 8x a29x1x6x7 a30x1x6x-
2 2 2 2
a31x1x6x7+ a32x1x6x7+ a33x2x6x7+ a34x2x6x7+

2 2 2
a39xlx2x6x7+ a40x1x2x6x7+ e

x1 = -1, for CS Absent
+1, for CS Present

x2 = -1, for UCS Absent
+1, for UCS Present

3 = -1, for Replication 1 or 3
+1, for Replication 2

X4 = -1, for Replication 1 or 2
+1, for Replication 3

Actual Value of the Covariate
x5 = -2, for Day 4
-1, for Day 5

0, for Day 6
x6 = 1, for Day 7
2, for Day 8

-1, for Block of Trials 1
x7 = 0, for Block of Trials 2
+1, for Block of Trials 3

e is distributed normally with mean 0 and variance a2

ei, independent of ej, i = j











REFERENCES


Bernstein, A.L. Temporal factors in the formation of con-
ditioned eyelid reactions in human subjects. Journal
of General Psychology, 1934, 10, 173-197.

Bitterman, M. E. Lighting and visual efficiency: the present
status of research. Illumination Engineering, 1948,
43, 906-922.

Bitterman, M. E., & Solway, E. The relation between frequency
of blinking and effort expended in mental work.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1946, 36, 134-136.

Black, A.H. Cardiac conditioning in curarized dogs: the
relationship between heart rate and skeletal behaviour.
In W. F. Prokasy (Ed.), Classical conditioning: a
symposium. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965.
Pp. 20-47.

Boneau, A. The interstimulus interval and the latency of
the conditioned eyelid response. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology, 1958, 56, 464-472.

Brimer, C. J., & Kamin, L.J. Disinhibition, habituation,
sensitization, and the conditioned emotional response.
Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology,
1963, 56, 508-516.

Carlton, P.L., & Vogel, J.R. Habituation and conditioning.
Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology,
1967, 63, 348-351.

Cook, W. A. The role of UCS type and intensity in classical
conditioning of the eyelid reflex in the cebus monkey.
Unpublished master's thesis, University of Florida,
1966.

Deaux, E., & Deaux, Kay K. Effect of extinction trials on
spontaneous blinking. Psychonomic Science, 1967, 7,
73-74.

Doehring, D. G. The relation between manifest anxiety and
rate of eyeblink in a stress situation. Research Pro-
ject NM 13 10 99, Subtask 1, Report :To. 6, U. S. Naval
School of Aviation Medicine, Pensacola, Florida, 1957.






Doehring, D.G., & Ferster, C.B. Psychological and physi-
ological responses in a human operant conditioning
situation. Psychological Record, 1962, 12, 251-261.

Drew, G.C. Variations in reflex blink-rate during visual-
motor tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1951, 3, 73-88.

Franks, C.M. Ocular movements and spontaneous blink rate
as functions of personality. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 1963, 16, 178.

Franks, C.M. The effects of alcohol upon fluctuation in
perspective, blink rate, and eye movements. Quarterly
Journal of the Study of Alcohol, 1964, 25, 56-67.

Gale, E.N., & Stern, J.A. Conditioning of the electro-
dermal orienting response. Psychophysiology, 1967,
3, 291-301.

Grant, D.A. The pseudo-conditioned eyelid response. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 1943 (a), 32, 139-149.

Grant, D.A. Sensitization and association in eyelid
conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1943 (b), 32, 201-212.

Grant, D.A. A sensitized eyelid reaction related to the
conditioned eyelid response. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1945, 35, 393-402.

Grant, D.A., & Adams, J.K. Alpha conditioning in the eyelid.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1944, 34, 136-142.

Grant, D.A., Hake, H.W., & Schneider, D.E. Effects of
repeated pre-testing with conditioned stimulus upon
extinction of the contitioned eyelid response.
American Journal of Psychology, 1948, 61, 243-246.

Grant, D.A., & Meyer, H.I. The formation of generalized
response sets during repeated electric shock stimula-
tion. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1941, 24, 21-38.

Grant, D.A., & Norris, Eugenia B. Dark adaptation as a
factor in the sensitization of the beta-response of
the eyelid to light. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1946, 36, 390-397.

Grant, D.A., & Norris, Eugenia B. Eyelid conditioning as
influenced by the presence of sensitized beta-res-
ponses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1947,
37, 423-433.






Grant, D.A., Norris, Eugenia B., & Boissard, Suzanne. Dark
adaptation and the pseudo-conditioned eyelid response.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1947, 37, 434-439.

Grether, W.F. Pseudo-conditioning without paired stimulation
encountered in attempted backward conditioning.
Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1937, 25, 91-96.

Grosberg, J.M. Pseudo-conditioning, drive reduction, and
the acquired fear drive hypothesis. Psychological
Record, 1962, 12, 299-307.

Hanche, W.J., & Grant, D.A. Onset versus termination of a
stimulus as the CS in eyelid conditioning. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 1960, 59, 19-26.

Harlow, H.F. Pseudo-conditioned responses in the cat.
Psychological Bulletin, 1939, 36, 625.

Harris, J.D. Forward conditioning, backward conditioning,
pseudo-conditioning, and adaptation to the conditioned
stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1941
(a), 28, 491-502.

Harris, J.D. An analysis of certain nonassociative factors
inherent in avoidance conditioning in the rat.
Psychological Bulletin, 1941 (b), 38, 572.

Hilgard, E.R. The latency of conditioned eyelid reactions:
reply to Dr. Cason. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1934, 17, 899-908.

Hilgard, E.R., & Biel, W.C. Reflex sensitization and condi-
tioning of eyelid responses at intervals near simul-
taneity. Journal of General Psychology, 1937, 16,
223-234.

Hilgard, E.R., & Marquis, D.G. Conditioned eyelid responses
in monkeys, with a comparison of dog, monkey, and man.
Psychological Monographs, 1936, 47, 186-198.

Hilgard, E.R., & Marquis, D.G. Conditioning and learning.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1940.

Hovland, C.I. Inhibition of reinforcement and phenomena
of experimental extinction. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 1936, 22, 430-433.

Hull, C.L. Learning II: the factor of the conditioned reflex.
In C. Murchison (Ed.), A handbook of general experi-
mental psychology. Worc~ester: Clark Ulniv. Press,
W1934 Pp."3e2-455.






Jensen, D.D. Operationism and the question, "is this
behavior learned or innate?" Behaviour, 1961, 17,
1-8.

Jouvet, M. Les approaches neurologiques les processes d'ap-
prentisage. Biologie Medicale, 1960, 49, 282-360.

Kennard, D.W., & Glaser, G.H. An analysis of eyelid move-
ments. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1964,
139, 31-4.

Kimble, G.A. Conditioning as a function of the time between
conditioned and unconditioned stimuli. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 1947, 37, 1-15.

Kimble, G.A., & Ost, J.W.P. Influence of unpaired UCS ore-
sentations on eyelid conditions. Psychology Reports,
1961, 9, 239-205.

Kimmel, H.D., Instrumental inhibitory factors in classical
conditioning. In W.F. Prokasy (Ed.), Classical
conditioning: a symposium. New York: ADpleton-
Century-Crofts, 1965. Pp. 148-171.

Kimmel, H.D., & Pennypacker, H.S. Conditioned diminution of
the unconditioned response as a function of the number
of reinforcements. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1962, 65, 20-23.

Kimmel, H.D.. & Goldstein, A.J. Retention of habituation of
the GSR to visual and auditory stimulation. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 73, 401-404.

Koch, A.M. The limits of learning ability in cebus monkeys.
Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1935, 17, 165-234.

Korn, S.J., & Welch, L. CRs fact and artifact. Journal
of Psychology, 1962, 53, 301-309.

Kotaki, Y., & Miyata, Y. Our seventeen years of research
on conditioned responses in man. Psychologia, 1958,
1, 158-165.

Levey, A.B., & Martin, I. Reflex sensitivity and the
conditioned eyelid response. Psychonomic Science,
1967, 8, 153-154.

Lipkin, S.G., & Moore, J.W. Eyelid trace conditioning,
CS intensity, CS-UCS interval, and a correction for
"spontaneous" blinking. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1966, 72, 216-220.

Luckiesh, M. Comments on criteria of ease of reading.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1946, 36, 180-182.







Luckiesh, M. Reading and the rate of blinking. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 1947, 37, 266-288.

Luckiesh, M., & Moss, F.K. Reading as a visual task. New
York: MacMillan, 1942.

MacDonald, Annette. The effect of adaptation to the un-
conditioned stimulus upon formation of conditioned
avoidance responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1946, 36, 1-12.

Martin, Irene. Blink rate and muscle tension. Journal of
Mental Science, 1958, 104, 123-132.

Martin, Irene. GSR conditioning and pseudoconditioning.
British Journal of Psychology, 1962, 53, 365-371.

Mattson, Michaela, & Moore, J.W. Intertrial responding
and CS intensity in classical eyelid conditioning.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964, 68, 396-401.

McAllister, W.R. Adaptation of the original response to a
conditioned stimulus. Iowa Academy of Sciences, 1953
(a), 60, 534-539.

McAllister, W.R. Eyelid conditioning as a function of the
CS-UCS interval. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1953 (b), 45, 417-422.

Mendenhall, W. Introduction to linear models in the design
and analysis of experiments. Belmont, Calif.:Wadsworth,
1968.

Meyer, D.R. On the interaction of simultaneous responses.
Psychological Bulletin, 1953, 50, 204-241.

Moore, J.W., & Newman, F.L. On trial and intertrial res-
ponding in eyelid conditioning as a function of US-
intensity, percentage reinforcement, and the similarity
between the CS and intertrial stimulus. Psychonomic
Science, 1964, 1, 213-214.

Morrow, M.C. Recovery of conditioned UCS diminution following
extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966,
71, 884-888.

Mourant, R.R. Eyelid conditioning in monkeys as a function
of CS intensity. Unpublished master's thesis,
University of Florida, 1965.

Ost, J.W.P., & Lauer, D.W. Some investigations of classical
salivary conditioning in the dog. In W.F. Prokasy
(Ed.), Classical conditioning: a symposium. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965. Pp. 192-207.






Pavlov, I.P. Conditioned reflexes. London: Oxford University
Press, 1927. Reprinted by New York: Dover, 1960.

Pennypacker, H.S. Measurement of the conditioned eyelid re-
flex. Science, 1964, 144, 1248-1249.

Pennypacker, H.S., & Cook, W.A. Acquisition and extinction
of the conditioned eyelid response in the squirrel
monkey as functions of the CS-UCS interval. Psychologi-
cal Reports, 1967, 20, 1235-1243.

Pennypacker, H.S., King, F.A., Achenbach, K.E., & Roberts, L.
An apparatus and procedure for conditioning the eye-
blink reflex in the squirrel monkey. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1966, 9, 601-604.

Ponder, E., & Kennedy, W.P. On the act of blinking.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Physiology, 1928,
18, 89-110.

Prokasy, W.F. Extinction and spontaneous recovery of
conditioned eyelid responses as a function of amount
of acquisition and extinction training. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 1958, 56, 319-324.7

Prokasy, W.F., & Ebel, H.C. Three components of the classi-
cally conditioned GSR. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1967, 73, 247-256.

Prokasy, W.F., Ebel, H.C., & Thompson, D.D. Response shaping
at long interstimulus intervals in classical eyelid
conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1963, 66, 138-1 1.

Prokasy, W.F., Hall, J.F., & Fawcett, J.T. Adaptation,
sensitization, forward and backward conditioning, and
pseudoconditioning of the GSR. Psychological Reports,
1962, 10, 103-106.

Rescorla, R.A. Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control
procedures. Psychological Review, 1967, 74, 71-80.

Sears, R.R. Effect of optic lobo ablation on the visuo-
motor behavior of goldfish. Journal of Comparative
Psychology, 1934, 17, 233-265.

Shipley, W.C. An apparent transfer of conditioning. Journal
of General Psychology, 1933, 8, 382-391.

Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral
sciences. York, Pa.: ; .ple Press, 1950. Pp. 83-86.

Spence, K.W. Anxiety (drive) level and performance in eyelid
conditioning. Psychology Bulletin, 1964, 61, 129-139.






Spence, K.W., & Deaux, E. Conditioning (habit growth) in
the absence of CRs. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 6,
61-62.

Spence, K.W., Haggard, D.F., & Ross, L.E. UCS intensity and
the associative (habit) strength of the eyelid CR.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 55, 404-411.

Stewart, M.A.,Stern, J.A., Winokur, G., & Fredman, S. An
analysis of GSR conditioning. Psychological Review,
1961, 68, 60-67.

Taylor, J.A. The relationship of anxiety to the conditioned
eyelid response. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1951, 4i, 81-92.

Taylor, J.A. Level of conditioning and intensity of the
adaptation stimulus. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. 1956, 51, 127-130.

Weber, Henrietta, & Wendt, G.R. Conditioning of eyelid
closure with various conditions of reinforcement.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1942, 30, 114-124.

Wendt, G.R. Types of conditioned reaction. Psychological
Bulletin, 1933, 30, 563.

Wickens, D.D., & Wickens, Carol D. Some factors related
to pseudoconditioning. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1942, 31, 518-526.

Zeaman, D., & Smith, R.W. Review of some recent findings
in human cardiac conditioning. In W.F. Prokasy (Ed.),
Classical conditioning: a symposium. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1954. Pp. 378-418.

Zimny, G.H., Stern, J.A., & Fjeld, S.P. Effects of CS and
UCS relationships on electrodermal response and heart
rate. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 72,
177-181.













BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


William Andrew Cook was born on November 19, 19h2,

at Tampa, Florida. He attended public schools in Florida

and graduated in June, 1960, from Sarasota High School. In

April, 1964, he received the degree of Bachelor of Science

from the University of Florida. He has been a research

assistant for Dr. H.S. Pennypacker in the Department of

Psychology while he has pursued his work toward his graduate

degrees. He received his Master of Science degree in

April, 1966, from the University of Florida. In :arch, 1967,

he was awarded a Post-doctoral Fellowship by the National

Institute of Health to study under Dr. William K. Estes at

Stanford University in California. He will activate this

fellowship in January, 1968.

William Andrew Cook is married to the former Lynn

Anne Rader and is the father of a son, William Montgomery

Cook. He is a member of Psi Chi.










This dissertation was prepared under the direction

of the candidate's supervisory committee and has been

approved by all members of that committee. It was submitted

to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the

Graduate Council, and was approved as partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.



March, 1968 /


Dean, Coll e of Arts and
Sciences





Dean, Graduate School



Super sory Committee:




Sairman









/-/




Full Text

PAGE 1

THE CONTRIBUTION OF NONASSOCIATIVE FACTORS TO CEBUS MONKEY EYELID CONDITIONING PERFORMANCE By WILLIAM ANDREW COOK A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1968

PAGE 2

11

PAGE 3

TO LYl^T AND MONTY

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am especially indebted to Dr. E. S. Pennyr>acl-:er who, in addition to being a conscientious employer and chairman, has been a good friend. Without his unwaivering support and patient guidance this project would not have reached completion. I want to sincerely thank Dr. Bradford N. Bunnell, Dr. C. Michael Levy, Dr. VJilliam ?';endenhall , and Dr. Wilse B. Webb for the snecial efforts they have made to Insure that I have acnulred in my graduate career the skills and knowledge necessary to make a useful contribution to the orofession of psychology, and for their assistance in the develoDment of this dissertation. I would like to acknowledge the staff and facilities of the University of Florida computing center for their significant role in analysis of this study. I am esT?eclally grateful to Edwin Bradley for his assistance and for the use of his regression program, UF STA.T 10. 1 would like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance given so cheerfully by my wife, Lynn, and by Gale Lee T\^ho so ably tyned and. retyped the various phases of this study. This research was jointly suD-norted by United States Public Health Service Grants MH-0888? and HF-06379. ill

PAGE 5

TABLE 0? CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES vi INTRODUCTION 1 METHOD 12 RESULTS 2k DISCUSSION ^q SUI^NARY 6o APPE^HDIX A 71 APPENDIX B 73 APPENDIX C 75 REFERENCES yy lOGRAPHICAL SKETCH git o IV

PAGE 6

LIST OF TAJ=,L5S Table Page 1 Overall Experimental Design -j_5 2 Factorial Paradigms for Stage 2 1^ V

PAGE 7

LIST OF FIGURES Figure " Page 1 Monkey Restraining Chair and. Headholder 13 2 Off-trial Response Rate as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials in Stage 1 26 3 Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a. Function of Blocks of 2 5 Trials for the CS-UCS Factorial Experiment In Stage 2 28 ^ Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS/UCS Factorial Fx-Deriraent in Stage 2 29 5 Mean Uncorrected On-trial Response Rate as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials in Stage 2 ... 30 6 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Off-trial Response Rate as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS-UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 2 31 7 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Off-trial Response Rate as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS/UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 2 33 8 Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS-UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 3 vfith Stage 2 Treatments Continued 37 9 Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a Function of Blocks of 2 5 Trials for the CS-UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 3 for Ss Shifted to CS-UCS 3S vl

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.) Figure Page 10 Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS/UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 3 with Stage 2 Treatments Continued 39 11 Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS/UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 3 for Ss Shifted to CS-UCS ko 12 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Off-trial Response Rate as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS-UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 3 with Stage 2 Treatments Continued ii-l 13 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Off-trial Response Rate ^s a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS-UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 3 for Ss Shifted to CS-UCS I4-Z 14 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Off -trial Response Rate as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS/UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 3 with Stage 2 Treatments Continued 43 15 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Off-trial Response Rate as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS/UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 3 for Ss Shifted to CS-UCS 2|.lj. 16 Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS-UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage ^ with Stage 2 Treatments Continued in Stage 3 ^+9 17 Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS-UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 4 for Ss Shifted to CS-UCS in Stage 3 50 vii

PAGE 9

LIST 0? FIGURES (CONT.) Figure Page 18 Off -trial Response Hate Corrected for Regression on Initial Blink: Rate as a Function on Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS/UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage ifwith Stage 2 Treatments Continued in Stage 3 51 19 Off-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Initial Blink Rate as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS/UCS Factorial FxperiTnent in Stage ^ for Ss Shifted to CS-l'CS in" Stage 3 7.... 52 20 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Off-trial ResDonse Rate as a Function on Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS-UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage 4 with Stage 2 Treatments Continued in Stage 3 o 53 21 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Off-trial Response Rate as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS-UCS "factorial Experiment in Stage ^ for Ss Shifted to CS-UCS in Stage 3 5^ 22 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Off-trial Response Rate as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS/UCS Factorial Experiment in Stage ^ with Stage 2 Treatm.ents Continued in Stage 3 55 23 On-trial Response Rate Corrected for Regression on Off-trial Resr)onse Rate as a Function of Blocks of 25 Trials for the CS/UCS Factorial Ex-oeriraent in Stage ^ for Ss Shifted to CS-UCS in Stage 3 <6 vili

PAGE 10

INTRODUCTION The traditional definition of classical conditioning is in terras of the classic experiment of Pavlov — "... the intake of food (UCS) by the animal takes place sinultaneously with the section of a neutral stinulus I'lhich has been hitherto in no way related to food, the neutral stimul-us (CS) readily acquires the property of eliciting the same reaction in the animal as would food itself." (Pavlov, 192?, p. 26) However, there are some serious difficulties -'rith defining the supposedly associative process, classical conditioning, in such simple terms. These difficulties are of three basic types. For most of the responses used in conditioning studies there are few, if any, absolutely neutral stimuli. Secondly, in addition to true conditioning, certain nonassociative processes are active in the conditioning situation which 8,lso result in an increased rate of responding. Thirdly, in most types of classical conditioning, the situation is further complicated by the possibility of the spontaneous occurrence of the "conditioned" response, vie shall briefly consider the past research on each of these contaminating fa.ctors. Orienting Responses Novel stimuli tend to elicit an orienting response; and not infrequently, the response which is being conditioned is one of the components of the generalized orienting response. 1

PAGE 11

2 Hence, the "neutral" stlnulus may elicit the very response "being conditioned. This pheno:nenon has "been found in conditioning of the eyelid (Hllgard, 193^) . galvanic skin response (GSR) (Prokasy & Ebel, 196?) . salivation (Xotaki & Mlyata, 1958; Pavlov, 1927) , and cardiac reflexes (Zearian 5; Smith, 195^^) • The orientir-g response component (OH) can sometimes be distinguished from the true conditioned response (CR) "by the form or latency of the response. Such ORs have been isolated for eyelid conditioning (Eilgard, 193^) a-3. for GSR conditioning vj-here a relatively long CS-UCS interval is used (Prokasy & Ebel, 19^7; Stex'fart, Stern, Winokur, & Fredman, 19^1) . In most other cases it has been assumed that fne novelty of the C5 is decreased over the first fev: conditioning trials or over a short series of adaptation (CS alone) trials. Thus, by reducing the novelty of the CS , the likelihood of the occurrence of the OH is assumed to be sufficiently reduced as to eliminate the OR as a contaminating factor. However, Korn and Welch (1962) have shown that, at least in the case of the GSR, the effect of adaptation trials is only partially effective and is also unstable. In the last half of 25 light-only trials these investigators found a residual response rate of 50"^. Although Kimmel and Goldstein (1967) found a residual effect of GSR adaptation trials from one session to another, their data still showed considerable recovery between sessions. This latter finding suggests that studies using more than one session vrould reauire

PAGE 12

3 adaptation prior to each session — the effects of such a procedure would not then be clearly distinguishable from partial reinforcement. Furthermore, it has been shoT/m by Grant, Hake, and Schneider (19^8) for the eyelid response and Carlton and Vogel (196?) for the conditioned emotional response (CER), that habituation to the CS seriously impairs conditioning. The results of Grant et al. (19^3) cannot be attributed to the removal of the ORs since they compared only responses of latencies longer than that of an OR. It should be pointed out here that the eyeblink OR to a tone has not been demarcated for conditioning in the cebus monkey. It is possible that the response, if it exists, may differ either in latency or in form from that found in human eyeblink conditioning. Pseudoconditioning and Sensitization In addition to the difficulties mentioned above in regard to adaptation, several studies have sho'ATn an increase in both frequency and amplitude of the OR with the introduction of the UCS. This increment has sometimes been referred to as pseudoconditioning (Martin, 19^2) or as sensitization (Wendt, 1933)* The term pseudoconditioning viill be used here in a broader context meaning all response increm.ents which are not solely "a function of the repetition of the conditioned and unconditioned stimuli in precise relationshir)" (Hilgard ?c Marquis, 19^-0, p. k2) . Hull (103-^) used the term alpha conditioning to designate the increase in size or frequency of the unconditioned response (UCR) to the CS or

PAGE 13

the reappearance of an ha'bltuated OH resulting fron the presentation of the CS and UCS together. Several -cositive instances of alpha conditioning have been reported for huiiian eyeblinic conditioning (Bernstein, 193^; Grant & Adaiiis, 19ii-if; Weber & Wendt, 19^2; Wendt, 1933) and for GSR conditionins in humans (Gale & Stern, 1967; Stewart et al. , 1961; 7A"r.j, Stern, & Fjeld, I966) . Hot-rever, there have been some failures to find alpha conditioning in human eyeblink conditioning (Grant, 19^3a! Hilgard & ?iel, 1937; McAllister, 1953a; Weber & Wendt, 19''+2). Sensitization ma.v occur vrithout the pairing of the CS and UCS. It ma^;occur after presentations of the UCS alone or after unpaired CS and UCS presentations (CS/UCS) (Grant & Meyer, 19^1; Grether, 1937; Grosberg, 1962; Harlow, 1939; Harris, 19^1a, 19^1b; Martin, 1962; Sears, 193^; Shipley, 1933: Wickens & Wickens, 19ii2; Zimny et al. , I966) . The frequency of such occurrences of this tyDe of pseudoconditioning has resulted in the almost standard use of a control group vrhich is presented both the CS and the UCS but unpaired. There are some serious theoretical difficulties v:ith the use of this as a control, however. Zimny et_ al . (I966) and Frokasy, Hall, and "awcett (1962) have sho^m very different performance in extinction for 3s receiving: the CS and UCS unpaired and Ss receiving the UCS alone. In both studies the latter group res-oonded at a significantly higher rate. Zimny et al. explained the difference in term.s of the Sokolovian hyDothesls v:hich

PAGE 14

5 stresses the importance of the significance of a stimulus which is to serve as a Co ; according to this hypothesis repeated presentations of the CS leads to a decrease in the significance of the stimulus. The conditioning group (CSUCS) in both studies had a higher response probability than the CS/UCS and UC3 alone control groups during extinction. This could be merely because the response tendency is enhanced more by the conditioning process than by sensitization; or it could be that when the CS and UCS occur together, the CS falls to lose its significance (Jouvet, i960). Re scoria (196?) makes the point that the CS may even serve as a sort of safety signal in the typical paradigm in which the CS and the UCS are presented in an unpaired sequence. This occurs, according to Rescorla, because the CS is only presented in the absence of the UCS. His remedy for this situation is to present the CS and the UCS in a truly random fashion with two independent programs. There are yet other factors that may result in sensitization of responses to the CS . Grant and his coworkers (Grant, 19^+3^, 19^3^; Grant, 19^5; Grant & Norris, 19-^6; Grant, Norris, & Boissard, 19^-}-7; Grant & Norris, 19^4-7) found a long latency UCR to a visual CS %^hich vras sensitized by dark adapting S's eyes. The response, named the beta response, vras very similar in form and latency to the CR. Grant and Norris (19^7) V7ere able to differentiate between the latencies of the beta response and the GR by comparing latency distributions of Ss receiving conditioning trials in

PAGE 15

6 either light or dark. Studies since the findings of Grant and his co-workers have eliminated the problem of beta responding by using light adaptation rather than dark adaptation. Many studies prior to that time, hovrever, ^-ere undoubtedly seriously contaminated by beta responses. Spontaneous Responding For several of the response modalities used in classical conditioning there have been observed spontaneous occurrences of the responses. Spontaneous responses are particularly common in GSR conditioning (Korn & Welch, 1962) and in salivary conditioning (Kotaki & Miyata, 1953). Ost and Lauer (I965) found spontaneous responding of such magnitude in their canine salivary conditioning that they analyzed their results in terms of difference scores (Interstimulus salivation rate Pre-trial salivation rate) . Perhaps the limiting case of contamination by spontaneous responding of conditioning phenomena is found in hesirt-rate conditioning where the task is that of modification of the rate of a continuous sequence of responses (Black, I965). Spontaneous blink rate (SBR) has been the object of attention in articles dealing with a wide variety of ex-oerimental settings. Amon?; these are articles dealing with visual-motor tasks (Drew, 1951) . ease of reading (Luckiesh, 19^-+6, 19^+7), illumination (Bitterman, 19^8; Fonder & Kennedy, 1928), humidity (Ponder & Kennedy, 1928), effort expended in mental work (Bitterman & Solway, 19^1-6) , ease of seeing (Luckiesh & Koss, 19^2), manifest anxiety (Doehring, 1957),

PAGE 16

introversion-extraversion (Martin, 195^0 > neurotlclsm (^^ranks, 1963; Martin, 1958). muscle tension (Meyer, 1953). alcohol consumption (Franks, 196^^), visual attention (Kennard §; Glaser, 196^1-) , and instrumental conditioning; (Doehrinc; & Ferster, I962) . Few studies, however, have analyzed the role of spontaneous blinking in the eyelid conditioning la"boratory. Primarily, the corrections for SBR have been indirect in nature: Kimble (19*^7) used CS-only presentations as catch trials during acquisition; McA.llister (1953ti) used subtraction of the percentage of responses on the first block of trials from the succeeding blocks; Prokasy, Ebel, and Thompson (1963)» and also Poneau (195°) . counted as CRs only those responses which overlapped the UCS onset; Planche and Grant (I96O) corrected for SBR by fitting a straight line to their interstimulus interval function and using the d.eviation from the line as the corrected measure of conditioning. Recently, SER itself has been measured in several eyelid conditioning studies. Levey and Martin (196?) measured SER prior to conditioning. It has been measured throughout the inter-trial interval (Matt son & Moore, 196^-; Moore & Ne^-raian, 196-^). It has also been measured during a 10 sec. period im^mediately prior to the CS onset (Llt)kin & Moore, 1966). In another study the number of blinks every 60 sec. irrespective of the "oresence of a trial was counted and SER calculated (Deauz &. Deaux, 196?) . The SER measure for Deaux and Deauz (196?) is correlated a ririorT with their

PAGE 17

8 measure of conditioning sines the foriner measure includes the latter. Also, the pre-trial neasure of Lip-vin and Moore (1966) •z.^'j not "oe wholly independent of th? conditioned response frequency measure "because of the refractory period of the iDlink apparatus. Cook (1966) measured S3R for 60 sec. before and after each block of 25 trials in an eyelid conditionir-g study ^cith cebus monkeys. Despite the crudeness of the S3H measures and the fact that S3R fluctuates >:idely from moment to moment (Dre-.'r, 1951: Ponder & Kennedy, 192S) , he still got a correlation bett-reen Inter-trlal and on-trial responding of 0.90 for acquisition and 0.95 for extinction. Both of these correlations were highly significant. The high correlations betvxeen SEH and frequency of CRs found by Cook suggest that any effect which the experimental treatments have on S3H will be of param.ount importance in determining the frequency of CRs. Spence and Deaux (I966) and Deaux and Deaux (I967) both found an increase in S33 in human Ss x-j-hich were changed from CS-UCS to CS/UCS. Deaux and Deaux (1967) also noted a significant difference in SDH during acquisition between the four highest conditioned responders. An experiment is needed which will allow the CR to be defined, if conditionin,g is actually taking place, in the attempts to condition the blink reaction of the cebus monkey. Hilgard and Karquis (1936) in their attempt to condition the rheouc monlcey reported data whic!i-were much unlike that found in the studies oj Cook (I966) and FennyTDacker

PAGE 18

9 and Cook (196?) In the cebus and squirrel monkey. Instead of the initial maximal level of responding and large wlthin-S variation found by the latter authors, Hilgard and Marquis reported a smooth sigmoid curve for individual Ss beginning at an almost zero level of responding and increasing gradually to a level of better than 90% over several days. The low response rate found in the monkey eyelid conditioning studies of Cook (I966) and Pennypacker and Cook (1967) suggests that the CS may actually have some Inhibitory effect which counteracts the effects of conditioning. Possible support for this hypothesis is seen in the finding of Cook that for some blocks of trials SBR was higher than the ontrial response rate. Mourant (I965) also found evidence for an inhibitory effect of the CS in squirrel monkey eyelid conditioning in that a loud CS produced conditioning significantly inferior to that of a soft CS. All three of these studies, however, had an additional result which suggests that rather than a simple CS effect their results reflected the interaction of the CS and the UCS. All three studies showed an Increase in response rate for some Ss in the initial trials of extinction. This phenomenon, labeled inhibition of reinforcement by Hovland (1936) , is not uncommon in human eyelid conditioning (Prokasy, 1958). Hence, for a truly definitive study it is essential that an assessment of the effect of the presence of the CS on blink probability be provided. A measurement of the degree to which this effect changes across time and with

PAGE 19

10 unpaired presentation of the UCS is also needed. Not onlydoes S3R appear to require investigation as a potent variable, "but the degree to 7:hich S3H interacts with all of the above -mentioned effects seems to warrant consideration as well. The rate of blinl-iing can be measured either during the CS presentations or during a comparable blank trial — on-trial response rate (Ontrial RH) — or it can be measured during the inter-trial interval — off-trial response rate (Off-trial RR) . The comparisons outlined above require both On-trial and Off-trial RR measurements for Ss receiving no CS , the CS alone, and the CS and UCS — both paired (CS-UCS) and unpaired (CS/UCS). To completely assess the interaction of the CS and the UCS it is also necessary to include Ss which receive the UCS only. Jensen (I96I) has pointed out that the use of a 2x2 factorial design with CS presence and absence orthogonal to UCS presence and absence would be an efficient means of assessing the Interaction of the CS and UCS on response rate. The presence of such an interaction, depending on vjhether the CS and UCS are paired or unpaired, can be taken as evidence for associative conditioning or interactive (pseudo) conditioning, respectively. Additional important information can be derived by following these different types of stimulation with conditioning trials (CS-UCS). This procedure would provide withinS examination of the effects of the various other procedures with conditioning. A measure of the effects of adaptation to different stimuli on subsequent eyelid conditioning performance would also be provided. If, for example, the CS is

PAGE 20

11 actually a source of response inhibition in the celDus monkey eyelid conditioning situation, then the effect of prior CSonly presentations on conditioning would not "be expected to be the typical diminution in CR rate (Grant et al. , 19^8; ' Prokasy et al. , 1962). Instead, the CS adaptation would be expected to decrease the inhibitory effect and thereby enhance the CR rate. Presentations of the UCS alone have generally been found to impede subsequent conditioning (Brimer & Kamin, 1963; MacDonald, 19^6; Taylor, 195^). However, instances of sensitization caused by presentation of the UCS are not uncommon (Brimer & Kamin, 19^3; Prokasy, et al. , I962) . Prokasy e_t al. (I962) , however, found the increment in response rate due to sensitization to be short-lived as measured by their extinction trials.

PAGE 21

METHOD Subjects . — The S_s were 20 male and 10 female cebus monkeys ( Cebus alblfrans ) . They were jungle-born and acquired from Tarpon Springs Zoo at Tarpon Springs, Florida a few weeks prior to their use in the experiment. Apparatus . — The restraining chair, programming equipment, and recording method have been described previously (Pennypacker, King, Achenbach, & Roberts, I966) . The chair was modified by the addition of the headholder and bucket seat seen in Figure 1. In addition to moving the microtorque potentiometer used in recording S's eyeblink, the method of linking the potentiometer arm to S's eyelid was changed slightly. In the present study a piece of .01 cm. thick copper wire was attached to the potentiometer arm by clipping it in a small coil spring soldered to the end of the potentiometer arm. The other end of the wire was bent into a ,33 cm. loop and t-nrapped with a piece of plastic tape. A triangular piece of plastic tape ^ mm. high by 2 mm. v;ide V7as stuck at its apex to the end of the wire and at its base to the monkey's eyelid. The experimental chamber was a Model -^Ol-A I.A.C. soundproof room. A 60-v7att light in a conical reflector was situated 30 cm. above and 35 cm. behind S's head to provide 12

PAGE 22

13 11 rrJ^^'J". I^onkey Restrainins Chair and Keadholder. a) V,-, /l^'^S^'^'i^'';,^^ Close-up View of the Seat, c) Close-up view of tne Headnolder,

PAGE 23

Ik illunilnatlon of the chamber. In addition to the programming and recording equipment described by Pennypacker e_t al. (I966) , a Schmitt trigger was added to the eyeblink recording circuit. Ey means of this trigger all closures I.5 mm. beyond S's baseline were automatically scored. A two-channel Texas Instruments' printing counter and a half-second timer x-^'ere used to record the approximate duration of each inter-trial interval and the number of blinks during that interval as scored by the Schmitt trigger. This method provided a simple and fairly accurate count of S's inter-trial response rate. Latency and form measurements of the intra-trial responses were determined by analysis of the Grass polygraph records which were obtained as described by Pennypacker et al. (I966). The CS was a 1,000 Hz, 65 db (re .0002 dynes/cm^) tone produced by a Hewlitt Packard oscillator. The tone vras delivered through two 10 cm. speakers — one mounted on each side of the chair — 1^cm. from S's ears for a duration of 1,575 msec. The background noise level provided by a ventilation fan was 55 db (re .0002 dynes/cm^) . The UCS was a 2.5 psi TDuff delivered for a duration of 100 msec, through the system described by Pennypacker e^ al. (I966) except that the source of air was a 2,^1-00 psi cylinder of compressed air. The inter-trial interval ranged from 26.? to 31.7 sec. and averaged 30. sec. except for those Ss in the CS/UCS condition in Stages 2 and 3. The range and mean inter-trial interval for those 3s in the CS/ucS condition

PAGE 24

15 were halved to equate session length for all Ss. All inter-event intervals and durations were controlled "by Grason-Stadler programinins apparatus. Design . — The design for the entire experiment is diagrammed in Table 1. The experiment was divided into four consecutive stages for purposes of explication and also in terms of the theoretical problems involved. Across all stages the three groups of 10 Ss were treated as three randomized blocks. The ten female Ss x-rere all assigned to the second replication. The sex effect was confounded with the group effect. Stage 1 was solely concerned with the changes for SBR over time — both within days and across days. Seventy-five consecutive measures of SBR were taken from each S for three consecutive days. The basal SBR measured in Stage 1 was then available to be used as a covariate to correct for individual differences in SBR in successive stages of the experiment. Stage 2 was primarily designed to assess the effect of the CS and the UCS, separately as xrell as jointly, on SBR. Stage 2 thus permitted the assessment of conditioning, pseudoconditioning, the effect of the presence of only the CS on blink probability, and the interaction of these factors with SBR. As is shown in Table 2, two different 2x2 factorial paradigms were constructed with CS presence and UCS presence as factors. The CS and UCS can be presented together either in a paired or in an unpaired paradigm. The degree of positive interaction would reflect conditioning

PAGE 25

16 TABLE l-Overall Experimental Design \Dcy S3\

PAGE 26

1? TABLE 2 Factorial Paradigms for Stage 2 UCS

PAGE 27

18 in the first case and pseudoconditioning in the latter case. Stage 2 included repeated measures on S3R and also on the On-trial RR (response rate during CS or, for groups not receiving CS , during a comparable blank trial). There is^ere trials administered each day for two consecutive days. Additional on-trial response measures -were provided at the end of the second day of Stage 2 when Ss were presented 15 CS-only trials. Stage 3 '-''S-S designed to permit a comparison of the effects on "conditioned" response rate of the five different treatments applied in Stage 2. The treatments applied in Stage 2 continued to be applied to half of the Ss which previously received these treatments. This procedure provided four control conditions: no stimulation; CS only; UCS only; and CS/UCS. Both Ss in each replication which received CS-UCS trials in Stage 2 continued to do so. The two 2x2 factorials in Stage 2 hence became 2x2x2 factorials in Stage 3« Again repeated measures were employed both across days and within days. Stage k, the extinction phase, was designed to detect the actual effects on conditioning in Stage 3 caused by prior treatment in Stage 2, with the control Ss in Stage 3 still serving as controls of various types. Modification of SBR by the current treatment was controlled for in Stage Hsince all Ss received the CS alone. The same two 2x2x2 factorial •'-Because of an experimenter error the procedure actually included these test trials only for Replications 1 and 3.

PAGE 28

19 models were used in the conceptaallzation and analysis of • Stage ^ that had "been used in Stage J. In conjunction with the development of the experimental design a linear model was constructed for each stage of the experiment which contained, in addition to the parameters for Co presence, DCS presence, and their interactions, parameters for the two time variables represented "by trials within days (Trials) and days (Days) and the interaction of the time variables with the treatment variables (see Appendices). The model also Included a covarlate — either initial blinlc rate or concurrent blink rate. The time variable was separated into Trials and Days because of the rather typical finding that carry-over from the last block of trials on one day to the first block of trials on the next Is incomplete. The covarlate was Included because it provides a means of separatlr-g the contributions to response rate of the different processes. For example, the difference in SBR between two monkeys due to pre-experlmental differences in general activity level can be isolated from that difference in SBR produced by giving the two Ss different treatments in Stage 2 by using the mean SBR in the first stage, where all Ss are treated identically, as the covarlate in the second stage. To assess changes in responding which resulted in the bowing of the curves, either within days or across days, rather than simply linear trends, a quadratic parameter for Trials xms Included, and where there were three days, a quadratic for Days. Furthermore, since Trials was expected to change from day to day as asymptotic response levels were approached, parameters were

PAGE 29

20 Included which provided for the interaction of "^rials "by Days. Interaction parameters were added for the time variables interacting with the treatment variables since the changes across time of the effects of the treatments were expected to differ depending upon vxhich treatments vrere involved. On the basis of prior experimentation the assumption was made that the within-S and between-S variances were not sufficiently different to warrant distinct parameters in the model. The different questions V7hich this study was designed to answer can consequently be related to tests of coefficients or linear combinations of coefficients in a linear model fitted to the data. The empirical and statistical interpretations of some of the questions are given below for illustrative purposes: 1. Do UCS presentations facilitate Off -trial RR? a. Do Ss receiving the UCS (alone or with CS , paired or unpaired) demonstrate higher Off-trial RR than Ss not receiving the UCS after correcting for initial differences in SBR? b. Is the magnitude of the coefficient for the UCS parameter significantly greater than zero in the linear model with Off -trial RR as the response and with the mean SBR for each S, as measured in Stage 1, as the covariate? This question would apply for models fitted to either Stage 2 or Stage 3 data in either of the factorial experiments.

PAGE 30

21 2. Is there evidence of pseudoconditionlng? a. Is the On-trial RR for the CS/UCS factorial experiment greater for Ss in the CS/UCS condition than can be accounted for by adding the effect of the CS and the UCS alone after correction for possible effects of treatments on Off-trial RR? b. Is the coefficient for the CSxUCS interaction parameter significantly greater than zero for the model fitted to the On-trial RR in Stage 2 of the CS/UCS factorial experiment where the Offtrial RR of Stage 2 is the covariate? Procedure. --Throughout the course of the experiment all Ss were housed in individual cages with ad lib water. They were given their daily ration of Purina monkey chow and fresh fruit each morning. The order in which the Ss in a given replication were used on a given day was randomly determined. The assignment of Ss to a given treatment was also randomized. The 10 Ss within a replication were assigned to one of the ten different treatments depicted in Table 1. This outline determined which treatment each S received in Stage 2. At the beginning of each daily session, S was, placed in the chair and the recording equipment attached. Prior to SER measurement each S received three daily chair adaptation sessions ^0 min. in length. Three days of SBR recording were next obtained for each S. The 75 measures obtained each

PAGE 31

22 . day were made during the intertrial interval of 76 "blarJc trials (average inter-trial interval was 30 sec.)t usir^g the Schmitt trigger and printing counter. In an attempt to obtain greater independence of the Off-trial and On-trial HRs the off-trial measure '^^as stopped 2 sec. prior to the CS or blank trial presentation. In an attempt to minimize SBR distortion by immediate consequences of the UCS presentation the off-trial response measure was not begun until 1.20 sec. after the offset of the UCS or 1.30 sec. after the CS or blanlc trial offset. On the day following the third SBR measurement session Stage 2 began. The Ss received 75 trials of the condition to which they were assigned (150 trials for the CS/UCS condition) on that day and also on the following day. In Stage 2 one pair of Ss in each replication received either no stimulation (NS) , the CS only (CS) , the UCS only (UCS), the CS and UCS paired (CS-UCS), or the CS and UCS unpaired (CS/UCS). The Ss receiving the CS/UCS condition actually had 150 trials per day — 75 presentations of the CS mixed with 75 presentations of the UCS. The order of presentation was CS, CS, UCS, CS , CS , UCS, CS , UCS, UCS, CS , UCS, UCS, etc. A fixed sequence was used rather than the independent presentation of the CS and the UCS suggested by Rescorla (1967) because of the difficulty of measuring the Off-trial RR vrhile using such a procedure. After the prescribed number of trials on the second day of Stage 2 fifteen CS-only test trials were given to

PAGE 32

23 Ss in the first and third replications. The interval separating the treatment trials and the test trials was of the usual intertrial interval length. The three days of Stage 3 immediately followed Stage 2. In Stage 3 one member of each pair of Ss receiving the same treatment in Stage 2 continued to receive that treatment while the other S received paired CS-UCS trials. Each S continued to receive 75 trials per day (150 trials for Ss in the CS/UCS condition) . The three days of Stage Uimmediately followed those of Stage 3. All Ss received 75 CS-only trials per day for each of the three days. The inter-trial interval remained an average of 30 sec.

PAGE 33

RESULTS Hesponse Definition Two different measures of "blink rate were used In this study. The neasures differed x^ith respect to the lengths of their neasurement periods, the time of measurement, and the method of recording. Off -trial P.H . — Off-trial HR was the measure of S3R taken during the inter-trial interval. The mean length of this measurement period was 26.8 sec. The Off-trial RR was recorded "by means of the Schmitt trigger and printing counter, the Schmitt trigger iDeing activated by a lid closure greater than I.5 mm. beyond S's base line. During the course of the experiment occasional difficulty was encountered in maintaining a zero Input to the Schmitt trigger because of the changes in S's lid position. Thus, the most probable error V7as that of counting as full blinks mlnature blinks accompanied by an elevated base line. On other occasions, however, the base line shifted in the other direction and responses of 1.5 s'ni. amplitude were not scored. On-trial RR On-trial RR was the 1,600 msec, measure of the blink rate taken from the onset of the CS to a point 30 msec, after UC3 onset or during a blank trial of comparable length. For Ss receiving the CS the On-trial RR was always 2H-

PAGE 34

25 measured during the CS presentations, and for S_s receiving the UCS it was always measured during the 1,600 msec, immediately preceding the UCS onset. The Ontrial RR was measured "by visual inspection of the Grass polj^'graph record. The criterion for an On-trial response was that the response be at least 1.5 mm. over the concurrent base line. In cases where there vrere more than one response per trial, S's lid had to return to the base line "before the onset of the next blink for the latter "blink to be scored as an On-trial response. Stage 1 Effect of time in chair on 53R . — As measured by the Off -trial RR the effect of time in the chair on SBR is shown in Figure 2. An anticipated trend in SBR across trials within days did not materialize nor was there a change in SBR across days. The coefficients of the linear and o^uadratic parameters for Trials and the linear and quadratic parameters for Days were all nonslgnificantly different from zero according to t tests performed on a simple linear model fitted to Off -trial RR.^ An analysis of variance further showed that the overall effects of Trials and Days were nonsignificant. Effect of between-S differences on SBR . — There was no significant difference in overall Off-trial RR due to a For all significance tests to be reported , cs = .05. It is recognized that "because of the large number of tests performed the power of the tests is reduced and reDlication will be necessary before any conclusions can be made other than those of a very tentative nature.

PAGE 35

26 (U bC -P CO C ^ ^ in C«5 O Vic* o CSi 7(?^ C33s/s>3Nna) nn 10 NV3W. r-f cv o o o P-. C c c +:> O C 13 CO o;
PAGE 36

27 difference in S's sex. There were large Individual differences in Off-trial RR. There differences were statistically reliable, F (27, 232) = 13.000. Stage 2 This stage of the experiment i-rs.s of a dual nature. It not only provided a measure of the effects of the experimental stimuli on Off-trial RR (Figs. 3 <^ ^) "but also provided a measure of conditioning based on com"Darisons with control groups — with the effect of the treatments on Off-trial RR removed by covariance techniques (Figs. 5 & 6). Assumption of single error component In model . --A comparison of the within-S and between-S variance for both the On-trial RR and Off-trial RR showed no difference between the two. The F ratios obtained by dividing the wlthln-S variance into the betx^xeen-S variance were nonsignificant. Effect of UCS T)resentations on SBR . — The anticitsated increase in Off-trial RR due to puff presentations was found. The US, CS/UCS, and CS-UCS conditions produced higher rates of responding than the NS and OS conditions (Figs. 3 & ^) . The coefficient of the UCS parameter In the linear m.odel (see Appendix A) fitted to the Stage 2 Off-trial RR with the overall SBR for each S in Stage 1 as the covariate was significant according to a t test for both the CS-UCS factorial, t (117) = 6.653, and the CS/UCS factorial experiments, t (117) = 7.053. Habituation of the UCS, a decrease in the facilltatory effect of the UCS across trials and /or across days, is not

PAGE 37

28
PAGE 38

29 03 o 1 o ^. 1j? o \ o \ o \ ! 1\ ^'ij I 1 < \ \J V tWI 31VM >;?^fl3 WIIINI f^O r^OISS3IJ93U

PAGE 39

30 :i 1 i ^ o £3 VPv CO
PAGE 40

31 BO O tv,"J n ^?oll 5SrJ93H cv w or; C CO ci 0) -H -p H ,C 03 0) H E •P P 1 q; Cm X C W C tH O Ct -H C !^ O O m o fcOco CD O I U CO o a Cm 0) -P 4J O 0) O W U r-i' 0.1 -H -P ^ 0? E(D CV' C Cm o o p< W CO CD X CI o o H r-l Oi « «-l Im Cm P O I C \o o •P o .c •H nS CO cS CD CO

PAGE 41

32 seen in Figures 3 and ^. The linear model coefficients for the interaction of the UCS with Trials, linearly or quadratically, and with Days were all near zero. Effect of C5 presentations on SBR . — There was found to "be no reliable difference in Off-trial RR "between those Ss receiving the CS a.nd those not. There was, however, an Interaction between the CS and UCS in the CS-UCS factorial e^iperiment (Fig. 3) which was not found in the CS/UCS factorial experiment (Fig. ^) . The facilitation of Offtrial RR by the UCS x\i'as markedly attenuated by preceding the UCS with the CS. The different results for the CS-UCS and CS/UCS factorial experiments appear to be due to the difference in the temporal relationship of the CS and UCS. The linear model coefficient for the CSxUCS interaction parameter was significantly negative for the CS-UCS factorial experiment, t (117) = -2.351. To determine whether or not responding was inhibited during the CS presentation attention must be turned to the Ontrial RR data summarized in Figures 5, 6, and ?. After removal of the effects of differences in Off-trial RR there remained little difference in responding under the various conditions (Figs. 6 ic 7). Comparison of the NS and UCS conditions x^jith the CS and CS-UCS or CS/UCS conditions revealed no Inhibitory effect of the CS. Pseudoconditloning . — Pseudocondltionirjr; v;ould be evidenced by higher On-trial RR for the CS/UCS condition than predicted by adding the effects of the CSand UCSalone presentations. The CSxUCS interaction, or the lack of

PAGE 42

33 .-^ 1o ? \ 1-C ,0^ OO^O' -I' I •< i^ \ N \ .< en I — in tn oo «^ ^r C-NJ C*-3 31VH 3SfiO(3S3JS IVrJi-iJO f^O ^WSSSrJ93^' CO CD CO 05 o CO p. G) -.-I -p I Si pX C Ed O OS o o --) +^ w o w 05 &-• iaOcC0) O C Cm c QJ Q) -P 4^ O CD U c O H OS QJ <-l P ?H Q) CV u: C Cm o o p. ai X ct; o o 05 i:r, !m 4J ? c C-hO Cm C C -P o QJ 05 en

PAGE 43

3^ additivity of the CS and UCS effects, was negligible according to a t test of the interaction parameter in the CS/UCS factorial linear aodel (Fig. 7) . Conditioning , — The carves in Figure 6 show that the CS-UCS condition produced no divergence from the siinple sunmatlon in the corrected On-trial RR of the CS and UCS effects. If conditioning had been a slow process it niight have appeared only as an increase across trials or days instead of an overall effect since Stage 2 was only tvro days long. Ar^alysis of the data also failed to reveal any gradual deviation from additivity of the CS and UCS for the CS-UCS factorial experiment. The linear model coefficients for the CSxUCSxTrlals-linear, CSxUCSxTrials-quadratic, and CSxUCSx Days interactions were all nonsignificant. One could assume that conditioning would be reflected in Off-trial RR as well as in On-trial RR through generalized fear conditioning or some such mechanism. Then It could be argued that using Off-trial RR as the covariate camouflaged the measure of conditioning. Considering the On-trial RR of the CS-UCS factorial experiment with no covariate makes it possible to determine to what extent the covariate analysis may have camouflaged conditioning. Dropping the covariate ad;5ustment did not result in a significant increment In response rate for the CS-UCS condition relative to the response • of the control conditions (Fig. 5) as might have been expected from an inspection of the Off-trial RR curves (Fig. 3). The coefficients for the CSxUCS interaction and for the higher-

PAGE 44

35 order interactions involving the CS , UCS , Trials, and/or Days parameters were all near zero. Relationship "between initial S3R and subsequent Off trial RR . — The covariate used with Off -trial RR in Stage 2 was the mean SBR measure for each S in Stage 1. It accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in Off-trial RR. The results of t tests of the covariate coefficients in the models were both significant, t (117) = 6.535 for the CS-UCS factorial experiment and t (117) = 3.S57 for the CS/UCS factorial experiment. RelationshiTD between Ontrial and Off -trial BR . — For both the CS-UCS and CS/UCS factorial experiments a major portion of the variance in On-trial RR could be accounted for in terms of variance in the covariate. Off -trial RR. The coefficients of the covariate parameter in the linear models fitted to the On-trial RR of Stage 2 were significantly greater than zero for both the CS-UCS analysis, t (117) = 12.396, and for the CS/UCS analysis, t (117) = 15-^^^^6. Stage 2 Test Trials For the CS-cnly trials given at the end of Day 5 the mean On-trial RR was .0^2, .250, .188, .^06, and .3'+i| while the mean Off -trial RR was .20^, .J'iO, .2^1, .^4-08, and .267 for the US, cs , UCS, CS-UCS, and CS/UCS treatments, respectively . The linear model used to analyze the data includes the first seven components and the error component of the m.odel in Appendix A,

PAGE 45

36 Effect of prior C5 presentations . — The analysis of the test trial means indicates some inhibitory properties of the CS. The Ss which had previously experienced the CS responded more during the test trial after correction for regression on Off-trial RH, than Ss who had not received the CS previously. The CS parameter coefficient was significant only for the CS/UCS factorial analysis, t (10) = 2.331. Pseudocondltioning . — There vras no evidence of a CSxUCS interaction in the CS/UCS factorial experiment. There was, however, strong evidence for sensitization. In both the CS-UCS and the CS/UCS data Ss with a prior history of UCS presentations had a higher On-trial RH after correction for regression on Off-trial RR than Ss who had not received the UCS, t (10) = 2.870 and t (10) = 2.859, respectively Conditioning . — There was no evidence of a CSxUCS interaction in the CS-UCS analysis of the test trial data. Stage 3 For half of the Ss (Non-shift Ss) Stage 3 was a continuation of Stage 2 (Figs. 8, 10, 12, & 1^). By combining Stage 2 and 3 for the Non-shift Ss a five-day parallel to Stage 2 is provided but vrith half the number of Ss. The other half of the Ss (Shift Ss) received the CS-UCS condition in Stage 3 (Figs. 9, 11, 13, & 15). Effect of UCS presentations on SBR . — As in Stage 2 there was a noticeable difference in SBR in Stage 3 between the Non-shift Ss receiving the UCS and those not receiving

PAGE 46

37 £3 — f^ ca

PAGE 47

38 <. <. •<-ri.: T < / •^^3 s -T W-' —1 C— SN O O CO c-sj c--^ 31VH MNlie IVIll^l r^O NOISSiH93H (U o -P Cw C5 cr: r> ^V Q) r-l -P & w i-i s •H O 0) p. O H •H W H k: cC CD -H fc£,' O 0) -P rr o a! U &. o -p r,o o u ^ (U !-( jr O -P
PAGE 48

39

PAGE 49

^0 1

PAGE 50

i-a o un is^jodssj] iWdW^'o m missimu mi Qiim I!M ISD^OdSIIl WrJi-f^JO

PAGE 51

h2 I I I I .< ?. < < < < ^< ^ <-' S5 I «>4 f\V

PAGE 52

^3 • ? i ? • o I I • o '•X i\ ^ V ^^ J • / y * •H cO bO [iCO CO -P cC CO •p -p CO -H

PAGE 53

ii.14. r^ • o i i I I • o i i << %, • /• •of -*^.:-N ^ I I "1 — I — o 69 3iV^ 3Sf'JOdS3?J lV!^i-JiO m NO!SS3lJ9]H 0)

PAGE 54

k5 the UCS (Figs. 8 & 10). For the Shift Ss , who were all receiving the same treatment, there was no difference between Ss which had previously received the UCS and those who had not (Figs. 9 ^c 11). This effect of UCS presence resulted in a significantly non-zero linear combination of coefficients for both the CS-UCS factorial experiment, t (1^1) = 2.253. and the CS/UCS factorial experiment, t (1^1) = 2.811, where the linear combination represented the difference between those Non-shift Ss receiving the UCS and those not. Effect of CS presentations on 5SR . --Inspection of Stage 3 Off -trial RR (Figs. 8 through 11) revealed no evidence of an inhibitory effect of the CS on Off-trial RR. Inspection of the data did reveal a depressing effect of the CS on the UCS facilitation of Off-trial RR for those Non-shift Ss receiving the CS-UCS treatment (Fig. 3). The linear combination of coefficients for the CSxUCS interaction for the Non-shift condition was significantly less than zero, t (1^1) = -2.577. The On-trial RR in Stage 3 revealed a significant difference between Non-shift Ss receiving the CS and those not receiving it but no difference between Shift Ss who had previously experienced the CS and those who had not (Figs. 12 through 15) . For the 6 Ss who received the CS/UCS treatment in Stage 2 a within-S comparison vras available of Ontrial RR as measured during the CS and also during a blank trial preceding the UCS presentation. Inspection of the difference between these two measures revealed no effect of

PAGE 55

14-6 the CS on responding. Both of these findings can be construed as evidence against an inhibitory effect of the CS on concurrent responding. Conditioning and -oseudoconditioning . — Stage 3 produced no evidence for either conditioning or pseudocondltioning (Figs. 12 through 15). The CS-UCS and the CS/UCS conditions did not produce higher corrected On-trial RR than did the NS, CS , or UCS conditions either for the Shift or the NonShift Ss. The conditioning paradigm did result in some interesting increases in Off-trial RR. Of the 6 Ss which had received conditioning in Stage 2, five showed an increase in responding from the first to the third block of trials on Day 6. All 6 Ss increased in Off -trial RR from the mean of Day 6 to the mean of Day 7 (Figs. 8 & 9) . The probabilities that these events occurred by chance are less than .06 and .03. respectively (Walsh test, Siegel, 1956, p. 83). For those Ss receiving conditioning In Stage 2, Day 8 was the third day of conditioning. The Shift Ss demonstrated a similar Increase on Day 3 which was also their third day of conditioning (Fig. 11). Of the 12 Ss in the NS — CS-UCS, CS--CS-UCS, UCS--CS-UCS, and CS/UCS--CS-UCS conditions eleven increased in Off-trial RR from the first to the last block of trials on Day 8. The probability of these increases occurring by chance v:ould be less than .01 (Walsh test, Siegel, 1956, p. 83). The joint probability that an Increase in Off -trial RR on the third day of conditioning for both these groups of Ss resulted from chance alone would, indeed, be quite small.

PAGE 56

^7 Relationship between Initial SBR and Off-trial RH In Stage 3— The covariate employed in the analysis of Off -trial RR in Stage 3 '^as the mean SBR for each S in Stage 1. That covarlate accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in off-trial RR for both the CS-UCS analysis t (1^1) = 8.7^'^. and the CS/UCS analysis, t (1^1) = 5-^06. Relationship between Ontrial and Off-trial RR . — In Stage 3 the Off -trial RR accounted for 59.^/^ of the variance in the Ontrial RR. The effect of Off -trial RR was significant for the CS-UCS analysis, t (1^1) = 11.581, and for the CS/UCS analysis, t (I'+l) = 12.9^^. Stages 2 and 3 combined , — The combined Non-shift data do not provide any new insights into the data bat, Instead, reiterated the findings of stages 2 and 3 when considered singly. Off -trial RR data . — The UCS produced a significant Increment in Off-trial RR, t (139) = 7.6l8 and t (139) = ^.^'S2 for the CS-UCS and CS/UCS factorial experiments, respectively. This facllitatory effect x^ras reduced by immediately preceding the UCS with the CS. Such attenuation of the UCS effect on Off-trial RR resulted in a significantly large coefficient for the CSxUCS interaction parameter in the CS-UCS factorial experiment, t (139) = -2.888. On-trial RR data . — The combined Ontrial RR data revealed no evidence of an inhibitory effect of the CS , conditioning, or pseudoconditloning (Figs. 12 & 1^). As In the analysis of Stages 2 and 3 alone, there was found to be a

PAGE 57

14-8 substantial contribution to the variance in On-trial RR fron Off -trial RH. The covariate coefficient was significantly greater than zero for "both the CS-UCS, t (139) = 13.997, and CS/UCS factorial experiments, t (139) = 19.223. Stage ^ All Ss received the same treatment in Stage ^ — only CS-alone presentations. The differences between the Ss referred to differences in the stimuli previously experienced in Stages 2 and 3. Relationship of SBR to Off-trial RR in extinction . — The covariate, mean SBR in Stage 1, accounted for 3'^.^< of the total variance in Off -trial RR in Stage ^. The amount of the variance accounted for in terms of the covariate was significant both for the CS-l'CS analysis, t (1^1) = 10.2^4, and the CS/UCS analysis, t (l^ll) 8.578. Relationship between Off -trial and On-trial RR . — The On-trial RR, after removal of the effect of regression on Off-trial RR, is depicted in Figures 20, 21, 22, and 23. The coefficient of the covariate parameter of the linear model was significant for the CS-UCS analysis, t (I'^l) = 13.209, and for the CS/UCS analysis, t (1^-1) = 1^.758. The covariate accounted for 61.6;:?^ of the variance in On-trial RR. Carry-over from Stages 2 and 3 . --Both Off-trial RR (Figs. 16 through 19) and On-trial RR (Figs. 20 through 23) in Stage ^ revealed no differences due to whether or not Ss had previously experienced the CS. Only in the CS/UCS

PAGE 58

14-9
PAGE 59

50 d Cm ctf CO to CO cC col

PAGE 60

51 • •

PAGE 61

52 • o I I • o i I • o • \ \ ^ '. <1. \ . o < k ' 6 I . o < <3 —J ^ I o o k i. < < cs O o 31VH )^f^na mum m missnom -P o a <-. en E
PAGE 62

53 . I ^ '< r^ ^ i/> ^^ CM O %/> o £21 (D

PAGE 63

5^ •'-^,--. ^ O ilOi a3D3^^'03 3iV^ 3S^30dS]J3 IViai'flO 0) (D M bO C (S O -P aco w C OS C ^1 B -p ^ 1 ^ Cw (X C X a. c ^ o ;m -nH o w -P CO o ^ ft^ o CO cr; o fn I O CO p p o CD ?H s^ o h V-i o V a} P «-^ a u cr: p • CO OJ (1) E o ^_ P, o CO w o ^ rH O 0? iH CO o bO 05 P CO p I o I CO u o p • p rH O CM C • IJ-, Cm bO ^ P &-, CO CO o! CO col o -P 05

PAGE 64

55 I ? • o I I '0/
PAGE 65

56 • o I ? • ? • o <1^ •

PAGE 66

51 analysis of the Off-trial RR was there a significant difference due to prior experience vrith the UCS , t (1^1) = 2.83^. The Ss which had received the UCS in Stage 2, either alone or unpaired with the CS , responded at a higher rate during the Stage ^ inter-trial interval than Ss who had not received the UCS in Stage 2 (Figs. 18 & 19). There were no significant interactions indicating that either the conditioning riaradigm or the pseudoconditioning paradigm had affected extinction performance. Other Behavioral Measures Latency of responses . — Preliminary analysis of the latency distributions of the On-trial responses with Chi Square contingency tests revealed no differences due to treatments and no trends through the stages of the experiment. On the basis of these results more detailed analyses were not conducted. Struggling and emotionality . — A record was kept of the behavior of each S during his removal from his home cage, transportation to the experimental room, and placement in the restraining chair. No differences were observed between Ss receiving the various treatments or between the various stages of the experiment. There was little evidence of habituation to handling or placement in the chair. The Ss showed a small decrease in fighting the chair during the first part of the three days of chair adaptation. The reduction in struggling did not continue throughout the study.

PAGE 67

58 however. Subjects were straggling as much on Day 11 as they x>rere on Day 1, the day following chair adaptation.

PAGE 68

DISCUSSION The major finding of this study was that celDus monkeyeyelid conditioning performance was significantly influenced by the Off-trial RR x^:hich was in turn a function of the type of stimulation the monkey received. This finding is of primary methodological importance for future classical conditioning studies, particularly with the cebus monkey eyelid response. For decades eyelid conditioning studies have "been conducted with organisms ranging on the phylogenetic scale from the frog to man; and these studies have, for the most part, ignored off -trial responding. The results of Stages 2, 3. and ^-1clearly demonstrate that a casual observation of spontaneous responding prior to any stimulation (such as the measure made in Stage 1) is not an adequate control since the spontaneous response rate may be altered by stimulation. The results from the studies conducted in human eyelid conditioning using a measure of off-trial responding have not provided a clear picture of the effects of the conditioning or control paradigms on Off -trial RR. Peaux and Deaux (1966) found a marked but temporary increase in Offtrial RR upon increasing the UCS intensity during a series of conditioning trials. They also found a significant and prolonged Increase in Off-trial RR when 3s were shifted from a 59

PAGE 69

60 CS-UCS paradigm to a CS/UCS paradigm. This result is in contrast to that of Moore and Nevman (196^-!-) who reported no effect on off-trial responding due to the changing of several variables. Moore and Newnan failed to find any difference in Off-trial RR between Ss receiving high or low UCS intensity, 30-% or 100^0 reinforcement, and high or low CS and inter-trial interval stimulus similarity. It is possible that the latter result is due in part to the particular nature of their experiment. The discrepancy betv^een the results of Moore and I-'e^-nnan and those of Deaux and Deaux suggests a need for further exploration of the interaction of CS and inter-trial interval stimulus similarity with other aspects of the conditioning situation. Another explanation of this discrepancy is possible. Since Moore and Nex-man used overall mean response rate as their measure of conditioning, it is possible that their failure to find an effect of UCS intensity manipulations on Off -trial RR is due the rapid habituation to the effects of UCS presentations. MacDonald (19^6) found that although SBR increased significantly after only 5 UCS-alone -oresentations , after 50 trials the SBR had returned to the initial level. In the Deaux and Deaux (I966) study the effect on Off-trial RR produced by a shift in UCS intensity was also only temporary. The apparent differences in the effects on Off-trial RR of the different treatments involved in the studies of Deaux and Deaux (I966) and Moore and Newman {196>4-) emphasize the need for large-scale experimentation in human eyelid

PAGE 70

61 conditioning oriented toward determining the interaction of Off -trial RR with the variables which have "been traditionally manipulated. Such issues as the effect of the ready signal on the unpaired-UCS -presentation phenomena (Kimble & Ost, 1961) may find new interpretation in the light of knowledge about the effect of unpaired presentations on Off -trial RR. In addition to the increment in Off -trial RR found by Deaux and Deaux (I966) when shifting to CS/UCS presentations, the results of both Stages 2 and 3 in the present study showed a significant dampening effect of the UCS facilitation of the Off -trial RR by ^receding the UCS with the CS. Those concerned with the issue of drive level — either anxiety level (Spence, 196^4-) or UCS intensity (Spence, Haggard, & Ross, 1958) — on conditioning may need to pay greater attention to the possible influence of Off-trial RR on conditioning measures. The standard control procedure of just rejecting those Ss who have an abnormally high SBR (Taylor, 1951) doesn't seem to be adequate considering the often found positive correlation between anxiety and SBR (Doehrlng, 1957). The strikingly clear demonstration of eyelid conditioning in the rhesus monkey by Hllgard and Marquis (I936) seems at first to be in contradiction to the results of this study and the prior studies in this laboratory using cebus and squirrel monkeys. The difference can not easily be accounted for in terms of learning ability since, at least for the cebus monkey, Xoch (1935) has shown that the cebus monicey

PAGE 71

62 performed in a comparable manner to the rhesus monkey on several complicated problem-solving tasks. The difference is possibly a methodological one. For the Ontrial RR for the six monkeys that received five days of classical conditioning, the daily means were .281, .311, .310, A5^, and .373. The increasing linear trend seen in these data is significant, F (1, 25) = 6.2912. Upon correction for Offtrial RR and comparison with the appropriate control groups, this trend disappears and the acquisition data fail to provide direct evidence for conditioning. The linear trend found in the uncorrected data in this study was much smaller than the effect found by Hildard and Marquis (1936) , however. Future experimentation should take into consideration another methodological difference betx>xeen this study and theirs — Hilgard and Marquis used a light for the CS instead of a tone. The finding in Stages 2 and 3 that Off -trial RR was affected less by the presence of the UCS when the CS precedes the UCS suggests that perhaps some sort of preparatory response may be occurring in the presence of CS which diminishes the noxiousness of the UCS. This attenuating effect might be resulting from classical conditioning of some response other than the eyelid reflex. Kimmel (I965) has discussed the possibility of an adaptive aspect of classical conditioning, and noted that UCR diminution is a frequent phenomenon in classical conditioning (Kimmel & Pennypacker, 1962; Morrow, 1966). On the other hand, the acquisition of a preparatory response could occur through instrumental conditioning, A third alternative is available; it may be that

PAGE 72

63 the CS already elicits some sort of preparatory response prior to the conditioning situation. This latter issue can probably be most easily resolved by measuring simultaneously other general responses such as the EMG or EEG. Measures of on-trial responding other than rate or latency which would not tend to be so completely masked by a high Off-trial RR might provide not only the answer to the existence of a preparatory response but also may demonstrate true eyelid conditioning. In GSR conditioning where spontaneous responding is given more attention than in eyeblink conditioning the most generally used measure is one of CR amplitude. Pennypacker (196^) has found CR magnitude, or area, to be superior to amplitude, latency, and frequency measures for a set of eyelid conditioning data on which he compared the different measures. Particularly for organisms with relatively high Off-trial RRs some such measures should receive strong consideration. If future experimentation continues to reveal significant effects on Off -trial RR of the treatments used to study conditioning, then increasing emphasis will have to be placed in general on response measures other than those related to frequency. The Ss used in this study showed little or no habituation to the restraining chair for the duration of the experiment. The animals were still highly stressed when introduced into the experimental setting on the first day of the experiment and remained that way throughout the experiment.

PAGE 73

This highly emotional state is not the state under which conditioning trials are generally administered. This problem is particularly serious for eyelid conditioning "because the "blink reflex reflects general arousal level and is also concomciittant to struggling. Hence, a generalization from the results of this study to classical conditioning as a whole might be a serious over-generalization. The negative results of the present study might be construed, however, as support for the existence of an optimal drive level above which eyelid conditioning becomes less likely to occur. Jouvet's (i960) comments on the Importance of chronic experimentation seem most applicable to cebus monkey eyelid conditioning. If attempts at eyelid conditioning are to be continued with the cebus monkey, techniques should be developed which allow conditioning to be assessed in a situation to which the monkey has been more thoroughly habituated. Either modification of the chair such that S can live in it during the experiment or use of a free-ranging situation may be involved. The latter possibility might be accomplished by using Implanted electrodes which could be used to monitor EMG and, also, to deliver a shock UCS. The 15 CS-only test trials at the end of Stage 2 indicated that there was an increase in Ontrial RR due to sensitization. The effect, if real, must be quite short-lived since there was no evidence for sensitization in the Stage 3 shift data or in the Stage ^ extinction data. The data were treated in 25-trial blocks in the negative instances and in a 15-trlal block in the positive Instance which suggests rapid habituation.

PAGE 74

^5 Evidence against an inhibitory effect of the CS in Stage 3 outweighs the small amount of evidence for it. Furthermore, in the Stage 2 test trials there -was no clearout evidence of a UCR to the tone in either the frequency or the latency measures. The analysis of the Off -trial RR used in this study indicated that, in general, the CSxUCS interaction was in the opposite direction to that which one would expect if conditioning had occurred and had "been reflected in Off -trial RR. The finding that an increase in Off-trial RR did occur in the CS-UCS condition vrith a certain temporal pattern poses certain questions. A discussion of these questions may "be particularly useful in anticipating problems which may accompany future use of the Off -trial RR as a covariate. An hypothesis stating that the similarity in the Ontrial RR and Off-trial RR for the CS-UC3 treatment results from both of them reflecting learning has certain Intuitive appeal. If this were the case, the covariate analysis would be cancelling the very effect which it is supposed to extricate. A counter hypothesis, the one justifyir-g the use of the covariate ana.l?/sls in this study, is more complex and perhaps less familiar. Involved are the assumptions that: 1. In addition to whatever else it measures. On-trial RR measures S's operant level of responding as does Off -trial RR; and 2. Classical conditioning, if and when it occurs, results only in an increase in Ontrial RR.

PAGE 75

66 . The first assumption is not difficult to Justify logically. Surely for the NS and UCS conditions the two measures are equivalent. The other stimulus conditions involving the CS should not destroy that equivalence unless those stimulus conditions are altering the response contingencies. These changes would then reflect the effects of the stimulus conditions more accurately than the absolute rate of responding. The second assumption must be Justified experimentally and would require a rigorous analysis of the Off -trial RR. The first hypothesis could be stated in terms of two stages. Classical conditioning could be hypothesized to occur first, thereby elevating the response rate during the inter-stimulus Interval. This increased resnonding immediately prior to the UCS could then result, through operant conditioning, in an increase in the operant level of responding. There are several aspects of the data which are not in agreement with this explanation. The above development seems to imply that On-trial RR should not only increase first but also, to whatever extent On-trial RR is a sample of the operant response level, show a greater Increase than Off -trial RR. The data show, instead, that On-trial RR and Off-trial RR change together and the changes are of the same magnitude. These aspects of the data seem to support the alternative hypothesis involved with the use of the covariate. With regard to that hypothesis if one argues that it is an increase in the operant level that is being measured by both Onand Off-trial RR , then it is difficult to exnlain

PAGE 76

67 why the increase occurred only for the CS-UCS condition and why this increase had an apparently consistent time course. It is known, however, that preceding the UCS with the CS reduces the facilitatory effect of the UCS on the operant rate according to the results of Stage 2 and the Non-shift portion of Stage 3« If o^s assumes that CS adaptation acted to reduce the attenuating effect of the CS , then the consistency of the increase in Off-trial RR and the fact that Ss who had the CS-alone condition in Stage 2 didn't show a marked increase on the third day of conditioning in Stage 3 can be accounted for in nonassociative terms. In fact, one of the 3 Ss in the CS — CS-UCS condition showed a decrease on the third day of conditioning. This argument is not, however, in agreement with the finding that the CS/UCS Ss in Stage 2 demonstrated a large Off-trial RR increase on the third day of conditioning. Such an argument would seem to imply that the increase in Off-trial RR would be more gradual — occurring over each of the first three days of conditioning. Future studies will have to cope ^fith these problems for which there are no simple explanations. Studies concerned primarily with SBR as affected by experimental variables such as inter-trlal interval, the ratio of chair adaptation time to length of the conditioning session, or, perhaps, UCS intensity may be necessary to determine the nature of changes in operant level daring the course of conditioning. This study strongly suggests that future classical conditioning studies will have to deal xvlth spontaneous responding and

PAGE 77

68 the problems that accompany it. Future studies must also consider conditioning not in isolation but within a framework such as that provided by the CS-UCS factorial analysis used In the present study.

PAGE 78

SUMMARY It was hypothesized that in eyelid conditioning of the cebus monkey spontaneous blink rate (SBH) was a variable of considerable importance in determining on-trial response rate (Ontrial RR) and that it was in turn influenced by the stimuli presented to S. The means used to assess conditioning vras a 2x2 factorial design with CS and UCS presence and absence as orthogonal factors. The Ss were 30 cebus monkeys ( Cebu s albi frons) . Following SBR measurement, groups of 6 Ss each were given either NS , CS , UCS, CS-UCS, or CS/UCS treatments for tv:o days with On-trial and Off -trial RR measured. Half of the SS in each group then received CS-UCS trials for three days while the other half continued to receive the control treatments. All Ss were then given three days of extinction. The results of the experiment revealed a significant contribution to the On-trial RR variance due to Off -trial RR. The Off-trial RR was furthermore found to be significantly' affected by the treatments used to assess conditioning. A reliable finding was that preceding the UCS v:lth a CS decreased the facilitory effect of the UCS on Off-trial RR. No significant interaction of CS and UCS presence on On-trial RR was found evidencing conditioning or Pseudo-conditioning. The results were discussed in the context of other eyelid conditioning studies which have measured SBR. Some implications for future experimentation x-jere discussed. 69

PAGE 79

APPENDICES

PAGE 80

APPENDIX A LINEAR MODEL FOR STAGE 2

PAGE 81

APPENDIX A LINEAR MODEL FOR STAGE 2 y = aQ + a-i_x-L + a2X2 + e.jX-^X2+ &i^x-^ + a^x^Hagx^ + 2 a^xg Hagx-;; + a^x^ + a-^QX^xg + a^L^XgX^ + a3_2^iX2X5 + 2 2 ^13^1^7 •* aiZj.X2X7 + ai 5x^x2x7 + ai6^1^7 + ai7^2X7 + 2 2 ai8^1^2^7 + n9^6'^7 + ^20^6^7 "^ a21^1^6^7 + ^22^2^6X7 + 2 2 2 a23XiX2x6x7 +a2Zpcix6X7 + a25X2X5X7 + a26xix2x6x7 + e X-, = -1. for CS Absent +1, for CS Present -1, for UCS Absent 2 +1, for UCS Present "Vo = Xo = -1, for Replication 1 or 3 J +1, for Replication 2 y. _ -1, for Replication 1 or 2 '^ H-1, for Replication 3 X£= Actual value of the covariate x^ = x„ = -1, for Day k +1, for Day 5 -1, for Block of Trials 1 for P.lock of Trials 2 for Block of Trials 3 7 = 0, for Block of Trials 2 e is distributed normally with mean and variance (^ e^i^ , Bs independent, i = j. 72 2

PAGE 82

APPENDIX B LINEAR MODEL FOR STAGES 3 AND ^

PAGE 83

APPENDIX B LINEAR MODEL FOR STAGES 3 AND ^ ^7-6 + ^8^7 "• ^9"7 -^ ^10-8 + ^ll^^S + ^12'^l'^7 ^ 2 2 7 a-^oXgXy + a-j^/j^x-j^XgX,^ + a-j^rX-j_Xy + a-j^^XgX^ + ^\n'^\f-2 7 "^ ^18^1^8 + ^'^19'^2^8 + ^20^1^2^8 ^^21^1^8 + ^22^^2-8 + a23X-i_Z2X8 + ag^XyXg + a25X^xg + aggx^xs + ag^x^xg + agg^ix^xg + a2oX2^7'^8 + a30-l-2^7''8 + a31^1^7^8 + a32X2Xr;Xg + a33X3^X2X7x| + a3i^XTLX^xg + a33X2X^ + a36^1^2^7^8 * ^37^1^7^? ^^38^2^?^? + a39^1^2^7^i + ^h^'^\^G + a^l^2'^6 + a/j.2X3_X2X5 Ha^3X5Xr; + . . . + -1, for CS Absent 4-1, for CS Present -1, for UCS Absent 2 +1, for UCS Present Xt = X y.-li for ReT)lT cation 1 or 3 3 +1, for Replication 2 -1, for Replication 1 or 2 h ~ +1, for Replication 3 Xk = Actual value of the covariate X/. = -1, for same treatment in Stage 3 as in Stage 2 6 +1, for shift to CS-UCS in Stage 3 -1, for Day 1 ^7 "^ 0, for Day 2 +1, for Day 3 -1, for Block of Trials 1 ^8 ~ 0, for Block of Trials 2 +1, for Block of Trials 3 e is distributed normally x\'ith mean and variance cr e^ , e^ indeTJendent , 1 = j. 7^

PAGE 84

APPENDIX C LINEAR MODEL FOR STAGES 2 and 3 COMBINED

PAGE 85

APPENDIX C LINEAR MODEL FOR STAr.ES 2 AMD 3 COMBINED y = 9.0+ a-]_x-]_+ ^2^2^^ aTX-]_X2+ aij,Xo+ atX;i|+ si^XHayX^+ i-LqX^h " "2^ ^8^6+ ^9^6-*^10-6+ ^11^7^^12^7^ ^13^1^6+ ^l'!4--^l"'^§'^ ^l'5'^l-'^7^ ^\(i'^\rt^' ^17'^2^6*^ ^l8^2'^o'*' 2 2 ^19^2^7+ ^20^2^7+ ^21^1^2'^6-'a22'^lX2'^6+ ^23^1^2^7"' ^2^'^1^2^7^ ^25^6^7+ ^26^6^7^agyxgx^ a28xi'^7+ a29X;]_^6^7^ ^30^1^6'^7^2 2 2 2 ^31-^1^6^7''' ^32'^1^6^7''' ^33^2^6^7'^ ^34^2'^6^7'*' 2 2 2 2 ^35^2^6^7'*' ^36^2^6^7'^ ^37V2^6^7'^ ^38^1^2^6'^7'^ 2 2 2 a-TQ^]_^2'^6''^7''' ^^0'^1'^2''^6''^7*^' ® X= -1, for CS Absent +1, for CS Present X2 = -1, for UCS Absent +1, for UCS Present Xo = -1, for ReTDlicatlon 1 or 3 +1, for Replication 2 Xij, = -1, for Replication 1 or 2 +1, for Replication 3 Actual Value of the Covariate Xr = -2, for Day h -1, for Day 5 0, for Day 6 xg = 1, for Day 7 2, for Day 8 -1, for Block of Trials 1 Xr, = 0, for Block of Trials 2 +1, for Block of Trials 3 e Is distributed normally with mean and variance 0" ej_. Independent of ej, 1 = J 76

PAGE 86

REFERENCES Bernstein, A.L. Temporal factors in the formation of conditioned eyelid reactions In human subjects. Journal of General Psycholocy , 193^+. 10, 173-197. Bitterman, M. S. Lighting and visual efficiency: the present status of research. Illumination Engineering , 19^8, ^, 906-922. Bitterman, M. E. , & Solway, E. The relation between frequency of blinking and effort expended in mental work. Journal of Exiperimental Psychology , 19^6, %, 13^-136. Black, A.H. Cardiac conditioning in curarized dogs: the relationship betvreen heart rate and skeletal behaviour. In W. F. Prokasy (Sd.), Classical conditioning : a symtjosium. New York: Appleton-Century-Crof ts , 1965. pp.' 20-^7. Boneau, A. The inter stimulus Interval and the latency of the conditioned eyelid res-Donse. Journal of g?:perl mental Psychology , 1958, 56, ^6^1-^72. B-rimer, C. J., & Kamin, L.J. Disinhibition, habituation, sensitization, and the conditioned emotional response. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology , 1963, 56, 50b-5l6. '' '~ Carlton, P.L., & Vogel, J.R. Habituation and conditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology , 1967, 63, 3^6-351. ' Cook, W. A. The role of DCS type and intensity in classical conditioning of the eyelid reflex in the cebus monkey. Unioublished master's thesis, University of Florida, 1966. Deaux, E. , ?c Deaux, Kay K. Effect of extinction trials on spontaneous blinking. Psychonomic Science , I967, 7, 73-7^. Doehrlng, D. G. The relation between manifest anxiety and rate of eyebllnk in a stress situation. Research Project NM 13 10 99, Subtask 1, Report No. 6, U. S. Naval School of Aviation Medicine, Pensacola, Florida, 1957. 77

PAGE 87

78 Grant Doehrlng D.G. & Ferster. C.B. Psychological and iDhysioloslcal responses in a human operant conditionirpsituation. Psychological R ecord. I962, 12, 25I-26I. Drew, G.C. Variations in reflex blink-rate during visualmotor tasks. Quarterly Journal of F.xveri rv^.^f.r.1 Psychology , 19^1, 3, 73-88. -^^^^^ Franks, C.M. Ocular movements and spontaneous blink T-ate iM^TlTelV^rvr'-'''' Zerceptual_and_r^otor Franks. CM. The effects of alcohol upon fluctuation in ' perspective blink rate, and eye movements. Quarterly Journal of the Study of Alcohol . I96/-I. 25, 56 -6? . Gale. E.N.. Sc Stern, J.A. Conditioning of the electro3!''29i-3oi^''^^''^ response. PsychoT^hysiolc^v . 1967. ^'^' ^hf pseudo-conditioned eyelid response. Journal of i:.xperim.e ntal Psycholo.«Tv . 1911.3 (a), 32. 139-1 II9. Grant, D.A. Sensitization and association in eyelid ?9?f(b)f 5|; zlZll] "' ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^1 psychology . Grant, D.A. A sensitized eyelid reaction related to the conditioned eyelid response. Journal of g x^eri^ental Psychology . I9/+5, 35, 393-^^02. ^^xperi,^ental Grant. D.A.. & Adams, j.k. Alpha conditioning in the evelld JourmL^L.gx perimental Psycho! n^v . 194/1. 3J. I36!ll2: Grant. D.A., Hake, H.W.. & Schneider, D.E. Effects of eJ^i'nc'tLro^'^f :''^ conditioned^ti^ulus upon extinction of the contitioned eyelid response Amei^^can^joui^^ ig^g. 61: 2??:2/f6. Grant. D.A.. & Meyer, K.I. The formation of generalised response sets during repeated electric shoS.Umula ''°^^l2HrnaL_ofJ^enetic_P^^ l^fi^! 21-58. Grant, D.A., & Morris, Eugenia P. Dark adPT^t^f 1 r>v. o. 19?6!'^l6 39S.39f'J£HJ:g?l °f Expe rimental Ps.vcholo.v . Grant, D.A., !, Norrls, Eugonla B. Eyelid conditioning as Influenced by the presence of sensitized ?et"frSs ^7"'ta3 ,J°"^"B.l Of Experimental Psvchol o. vi S^.^

PAGE 88

79 Grant, D.A. , Norris, Eugenia B., & Bolssard, Suzanne. Dark adaptation and the pseudo-conditioned eyelid response. Journal of Experimental Psycholop;y . 19^7, 37, kj,h^l4.jg] Grether, W.F. Pseudo-conditioning without paired stimulation encountered in attempted bacla^rard conditioning. Journal of Comparative Psychology . 1937, 25, 91-96. Grosberg, J.M. Pseudo-conditioning, drive reduction, and the acquired fear drive hypothesis. Psychological Record , I962, 12, 299-307. — '' ^ Hanche, W.J., & Grant, D.A. Onset versus termination of a stimulus as the OS in eyelid conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology , i960, ^, 19-26. Harlow, H.F. Pseudo-conditioned responses in the cat. Psychological Bulletin, 1939, 36, 625. Harris, J.D. Forward conditioning, backward conditioning, pseudo-conditioning, and adaptation to the conditioned stimulus. Journal of Exp erimental Psvcholo.
PAGE 89

80 Jensen, D.D. Operatlonism and the Question, "is this behavior learned or innate?"^ Behaviour . I96I, 17 Jouvet. M. Les approches neurologiques les processes d'aijprentisage. Biologie Medicale . i960,' ^9, 282-36o/ Kennard, D.W. , & Glaser, G.H. An analysis of eyelid nove^rS -^, JQ ^^^I of Nervous and Mental Disease . 1964. Kimble, G. A. Conditioning as a function of the ti.-ne bot^^een conditioned and unconditioned stimuli. Journal^'of Experimental Psychology , 19-^7, 37, I-I5. Kimble, G.A. & Ost, J.W.P. Influence of unpaired UCS presen_.atlons^on^eyelid conditions. Ps ychology Reports . Kimmel. H.D.. Instrumental inhibitory factors in classical conditioning. In W.F. Prokasy (Ed.), Cip<^sical condition ing: a symposium . J^tqw York: AppletonCentury-crofts. 19b5. Pp. 1^4-8-171. Kimmel. H.D & Pemypacker, H.S. Conditioned diminution of the unconditioned response as a function of the number ?96?!'g!lo?23l'--o-^^nal of Experimental Psvchn".:;. Kimmel, KD..& Goldstein. A.J. Retention of habituation of the GSR to visual and auditory stimulation. Jou-nal of Experime ntal Psychology . 1967, 73, ^Ol-^O^"' ' Koch, A K. The limits of learning ability in cebus monke Genetic Psychology Konogmph... , 1935, 17, 165-23^? ^''''''' ^ni'-^J" l^}""^' ^.^^^ ^^°^ ^^^ artifact. Journal of Psychology . 1962, 53, 30I-309. ^"^ Kotaki, Y., & Miyata, Y. Our seventeen years of research I? iT-ieS?"^ responses in man. ^sychoLgif !"?9^B. ^^^^^' ^;^;;.t "^'-J^^^'J* ^^^^^^' sensitivity and the iZf 8',T53T5l ^"^P^^^^P^ZChonomic_^cience, Llpkin, S.G. & Moore, j.w. T^yelid trace conditioning. " CS intensity. CS-UCS interval, and a correcMon fn^ "spontaneous" blinking. JourAal of E^pe^iSe^n??/ Psychology . I966, 72. 216^220: _ perimental Luckiesh. M. co.mments on criteria of ease of readinr Jou rnal of Experimental Psychology . 19/4-6, 36,^180-182. YS.

PAGE 90

81 Lucklesh, M. Reading and the rate of blinking. Journal of Exnerl mental Psychology , 19^^?, 37, 266-288. Luckiesh, M. , & Moss, F.K. Reading: as a v isual task. New York: MacMillan, 19^2": ~ MacDonald, Anjiette. The effect of adaptation to the unconditioned stimulus upon formation of conditioned avoidance responses. Journal of Experimental PsycholoA:y 19^6, _36. 1-12. — Martin, Irene. Blink rate and muscle tension. Journal of Mental Science . 1958, 10^' 123-132. "" Martin, Irene. GSR conditioning and pseudocondltlonlng. British Journal of Psychology , 1962, _^, 365-371. Mattson, Michaela, & Moore, J.W. Intertrlal res-oonding and CS intensity in classical eyelid conditioning. Journal of E:cT)eri mental Psychology , 196^!-, 68, 396-^^01. McAllister, W.R. Adaptation of the original response to a conditioned stimulus. Iowa Academy of Sciences, 1953 (a), 60, 53^-539. McAllister, W.R. Eyelid conditioning as a function of the CS-UCS Interval. Journal of Exrierimental Psychology, 1953 (13). i5. ^17-^^22: ' =-^ Mendenhall, W. Introduction^ to linear models in the design and analysis of experiments . Belmont, Calif . :VJadsworth, 1960^. Meyer, D.R. On the interaction of simultaneous resiDonses. Psychological Bulletin , 1953, 50, 20i^-2^1. Moore, J.W., & Newman, P.L. On trial and intertrlal responding in eyelid conditioning as a function of USintensity, percentage reinforcement, and the similarity between the CS and intertrlal stimulus. Psychonomic Science , 196^, 1, 213-21-^. — ' Morrow, M.C. Recovery of conditioned UCS diminution following extinction. Journal of Exp erimental Psychology . 1Q66 71, 884-888. ~~ — ^ — — ~ ' Mourant, R.R. Eyelid conditioning in monkeys as a function of CS intensity. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Florida, I965. Ost, J.W. P., & Lauer, D.W. Some investigations of classical salivary conditioning in the dog. In W.F. Prokasy (Ed.), Classical conditioning: a symposi um. New York: Appleton-Century-Crof ts , 1965. Pp. 192-207.

PAGE 91

82 Pavlov, I. P. Conditioned reflexes . London: Oxford University Press, 1927. Reprinted by New York: Dover, i960. Pennypacker, H.S. I^leasurement of the conditioned eyelid r^^flex. Science , 196^, lij4, 12-^8-12^9. Pennypacker, H.S., Ic Cook, W.A. Acquisition and extinction of the conditioned eyelid response in the squirrel monkey as functions of the CS-UCS interval. ' Psycholorical Re-Dorts , I967, 20, 1235-12^1-3. — ' ~ Pennypacker, H.S., King, F.A., Achenbach, K.E. , & Roberts, L. An apparatus and procedure for conditioning the eyeblink reflex in the squirrel monkey. Journal of t he Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 1960, 9, 601-6o^. Ponder, E. , & Kennedy, W.p. on the act of blinking. Quarterly Journal of Ext)erimental Phvsiolo,5-v, 1928 lb, b9-iro: "" — — ^'^ , Prokasy, W.F. Extinction and spontaneous recovery of conditioned eyelid responses as a function of amount of acquisition and extinction training. Journal of Experimental Psycholo,n:y , 1958, ^, 319-32^j~ Prokasy, W.F. , & Ebel, H.C. Three comT^onents of the classically conditioned GSR. Journal of E xperimental Psychology , I967, 73. 2^7-256. Prokasy. W.F., Ebel, H.C, & Thompson, D.D. Response shaping at long Interstimulus intervals in classical eyelid conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psvcholo-v 1963, 66, 138-1^1. ^' Prokasy, W.F., Hall, J.F., &. Fawcett, J.T. Adaptation, sensitization, forward and backward conditionivip-, end pseudoconditloning of the GSR. Psycholo,^lcal Reports. 1962, ]^, 103-106. ^— Rescorla, R.A. Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures. Psychological Review . I967, 7-^, 7I-8O. Sears, R.R. Effect of optic lobe ablation on the vl sunmotor behavior of goldfish. Journ al of Comparptii-e Psychology , 193^. 17, 233-2657~~" ~~" Shipley, W.C. An apparent transfer of conditioning::. Jou^ml of General Psycholo;?y . 1933, 8, 382-391. "^ ~ Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behav ioral sclencesT York, Pa.: Maple Press, 195b. Pp. 83-86. Spence, K.W. Anxiety (drive) level and performance in eyelid conditioning. Psychology Bulletin, 196^^, 6I , 129-139.

PAGE 92

83 Spence, K.W. , & Deaux, E. Conditioning (habit growth) in the absence of CRs. Psychonomic Science , 1966, 6, 61-62. ~~ Spence, K.W. , Haggard, D.F., & Ross, L.E. UCS intensity and the associative (habit) strength of the eyelid CR. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 1953, _55, -^o'^-^ll. Stewart, M. A., Stern, J. A., VJinokur, G. , & Fredman, S. An analysis of GSR conditioning. Psychologi cal Review, 1961, 63, 60-67. Taylor, J. A. The relationship of anxiety to the conditioned eyelid response. Journal of Experimen tal Psychology, 1951. iii. 81-92. "— ' ^ Taylor, J. A. Level of conditioning and intensity of the adaptation stimulus. Journ-al of Ex-perimental Psychology . 1956, 51. 127-130^ Weber, Henrietta, & Wendt, G.R. Conditioning of eyelid closure with various conditions of reinforcement. Journal of Ex-perimental Psychology , 19'^2, 30, ll4-12i^. Wendt, G.R. Tyoes of conditioned reaction. Psychological Bulletin , 1933. 30, 563. Wickens, D.D. , fi; Wickens, Carol D. Some factors related to pseudoconditioning. Journal of Experime ntal Psychology , 19^2, 31, 51b52b. ' Zeaman, D. , & Smith, R.W. Review of some recent findings in human cardiac conditioning. In V/.F. Prokasy (Ed.), Classical conditioning; a symposium . New York": Appleton-Century-Crof ts , 1954. PpT 37"S-'^18. Zlmny. G.H., Stern, J.A. , & Fjeld, S.P. Effects of CS and UCS relationships on electrodermal response and heart rate. Journal of Experi mental Psychology, 1966, 72, 177-181":: — '' —

PAGE 93

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH William Andrew: Cook xcas born on November 19 1 19^2, at Tampa, Florida. He attended public schools In Florida and graduated In June, I960, from Sarasota High School. In April, 196^, he received the degree of Pachelor of Science from the University of Florida. He has been a research assistant for Dr. H.S. Pennypacker In the Department of Psychology while he has pursued his work toward his graduate degrees. He received his Master of Science degree In April, 1966, from the University of Florida. In !'arch, 196?, he was awarded a Post-c!octoral f^ellowshlp by the National Institute of Health to study under Dr. William K. Sstes at Stanford Unli^ersity In California. He will activate this fellowship in January, I968. William Andrew Cook is married to the former Lynn Anne Rader and is the father of a son, William Montgomery Cook. He is a member of Psl Chi. 8^

PAGE 94

This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the candidate's supervisory committee and has been approved by all members of that committee. It was submitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. March, I968 Supervisory Committee: airman 1 ^-~ Lr -^h\)J\\A^ ri^^ —55, ^ M, Dean, Colle^g'e of Arts and Sciences " \->^ Dean, Graduate School


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
fcla fda yes
dl
!-- contribution of nonassociative factors to cebus monkey eyelid conditioning performance ( Book ) --
METS:mets OBJID UF00097790_00001
xmlns:METS http:www.loc.govMETS
xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3
xmlns:xlink http:www.w3.org1999xlink
xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance
xmlns:daitss http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss
xmlns:sobekcm http:digital.uflib.ufl.edumetadatasobekcm
xsi:schemaLocation
http:www.loc.govstandardsmetsmets.xsd
http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-3.xsd
http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitss.xsd
http:digital.uflib.ufl.edumetadatasobekcmsobekcm.xsd
METS:metsHdr CREATEDATE 2010-09-20T08:54:23Z ID LASTMODDATE 2010-02-04T00:00:00Z RECORDSTATUS NEW
METS:agent ROLE CREATOR TYPE ORGANIZATION
METS:name UF
METS:note server=TC
projects=
OTHERTYPE SOFTWARE OTHER
Go UFDC - FDA Preparation Tool
INDIVIDUAL
UFAD\mariner1
METS:dmdSec DMD1
METS:mdWrap MDTYPE MODS MIMETYPE textxml LABEL Metadata
METS:xmlData
mods:mods
mods:genre authority marcgt bibliography
non-fiction
mods:identifier type AlephBibNum 000559206
OCLC 13447206
NOTIS ACY4654
mods:language
mods:languageTerm text English
code iso639-2b eng
mods:location
mods:physicalLocation University of Florida
UF
mods:name personal
mods:namePart Cook, William Andrew
given William Andrew
family Cook
date 1942-
mods:role
mods:roleTerm Main Entity
mods:note thesis Thesis - University of Florida.
bibliography Bibliography: leaves 77-83.
additional physical form Also available on World Wide Web
Manuscript copy.
Vita.
mods:originInfo
mods:place
mods:placeTerm marccountry xx
mods:dateIssued marc 1968
point start 1968
mods:copyrightDate 1968
mods:recordInfo
mods:recordIdentifier source ufdc UF00097790_00001
mods:recordCreationDate 860417
mods:recordOrigin Imported from (ALEPH)000559206
mods:recordContentSource University of Florida
marcorg fug
FUG
mods:languageOfCataloging
English
eng
mods:relatedItem original
mods:physicalDescription
mods:extent viii, 83 leaves : illus. ; 28 cm.
mods:subject SUBJ650_1 lcsh
mods:topic Eyelid conditioning
SUBJ650_2
Monkeys
SUBJ690_1
Psychology thesis Ph. D
SUBJ690_2
Dissertations, Academic
Psychology
mods:geographic UF
mods:titleInfo
mods:nonSort The
mods:title contribution of nonassociative factors to cebus monkey eyelid conditioning performance
mods:typeOfResource text
DMD2
OTHERMDTYPE SobekCM Custom
sobekcm:procParam
sobekcm:Collection.Primary UFIR
sobekcm:Collection.Alternate VENDORIA
sobekcm:SubCollection UFETD
sobekcm:MainThumbnail contributionofno00cookrich_Page_01thm.jpg
sobekcm:Download
sobekcm:fptr FILEID UR2
sobekcm:EncodingLevel I
sobekcm:bibDesc
sobekcm:BibID UF00097790
sobekcm:VID 00001
sobekcm:Source
sobekcm:statement UF University of Florida
sobekcm:Type Book
sobekcm:SortDate -1
METS:amdSec
METS:digiprovMD AMD_DAITSS
DAITSS
daitss:daitss
daitss:AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT PROJECT UFDC
METS:fileSec
METS:fileGrp USE reference
METS:file GROUPID G1 J1 imagejpeg SIZE 143018
METS:FLocat LOCTYPE OTHERLOCTYPE SYSTEM xlink:href contributionofno00cookrich_Page_01.jpg
G2 J2 95386
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_02.jpg
G3 J3 46743
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_03.jpg
G4 J4 239300
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_04.jpg
G5 J5 154881
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_05.jpg
G6 J6 63832
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_06.jpg
G7 J7 269816
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_07.jpg
G8 J8 379236
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_08.jpg
G9 J9 265940
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_09.jpg
G10 J10 266816
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_10.jpg
G11 J11 307044
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_11.jpg
G12 J12 297563
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_12.jpg
G13 J13 293976
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_13.jpg
G14 J14 295304
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_14.jpg
G15 J15 299195
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_15.jpg
G16 J16 286026
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_16.jpg
G17 J17 291928
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_17.jpg
G18 J18 362835
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_18.jpg
G19 J19 338519
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_19.jpg
G20 J20 194571
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_20.jpg
G21 J21 269591
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_21.jpg
G22 J22 175552
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_22.jpg
G23 J23 325034
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_23.jpg
G24 J24 318318
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_24.jpg
G25 J25 306040
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_25.jpg
G26 J26 105561
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_26.jpg
G27 J27 326185
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_27.jpg
G28 J28 339854
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_28.jpg
G29 J29 290477
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_29.jpg
G30 J30 283762
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_30.jpg
G31 J31 310697
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_31.jpg
G32 J32 162247
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_32.jpg
G33 J33 253151
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_33.jpg
G34 J34 301954
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_34.jpg
G35 J35 96094
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_35.jpg
G36 J36 291497
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_36.jpg
G37 J37 113508
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_37.jpg
G38 J38 111167
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_38.jpg
G39 J39 103052
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_39.jpg
G40 J40 115413
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_40.jpg
G41 J41 313725
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_41.jpg
G42 J42 124882
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_42.jpg
G43 J43 303998
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_43.jpg
G44 J44 279027
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_44.jpg
G45 J45 295428
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_45.jpg
G46 J46 128680
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_46.jpg
G47 J47 131899
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_47.jpg
G48 J48 126639
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_48.jpg
G49 J49 139424
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_49.jpg
G50 J50 141716
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_50.jpg
G51 J51 139593
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_51.jpg
G52 J52 131900
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_52.jpg
G53 J53 140356
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_53.jpg
G54 J54 326704
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_54.jpg
G55 J55 323219
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_55.jpg
G56 J56 324281
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_56.jpg
G57 J57 303732
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_57.jpg
G58 J58 134986
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_58.jpg
G59 J59 140744
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_59.jpg
G60 J60 134018
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_60.jpg
G61 J61 143326
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_61.jpg
G62 J62 137497
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_62.jpg
G63 J63 144156
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_63.jpg
G64 J64 144281
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_64.jpg
G65 J65 153537
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_65.jpg
G66 J66 303211
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_66.jpg
G67 J67 69159
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_67.jpg
G68 J68 275238
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_68.jpg
G69 J69 322024
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_69.jpg
G70 J70 307476
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_70.jpg
G71 J71 348529
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_71.jpg
G72 J72 310367
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_72.jpg
G73 J73 349624
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_73.jpg
G74 J74 300628
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_74.jpg
G75 J75 330817
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_75.jpg
G76 J76 322999
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_76.jpg
G77 J77 79000
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_77.jpg
G78 J78 286460
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_78.jpg
G79 J79 49755
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_79.jpg
G80 J80 50179
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_80.jpg
G81 J81 174442
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_81.jpg
G82 J82 50195
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_82.jpg
G83 J83 239871
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_83.jpg
G84 J84 50646
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_84.jpg
G85 J85 213724
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_85.jpg
G86 J86 345404
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_86.jpg
G87 J87 398897
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_87.jpg
G88 J88 402341
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_88.jpg
G89 J89 395076
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_89.jpg
G90 J90 403596
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_90.jpg
G91 J91 409455
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_91.jpg
G92 J92 302086
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_92.jpg
G93 J93 201523
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_93.jpg
G94 J94 187270
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_94.jpg
E1 imagejp2 333804
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_01.jp2
E2 194942
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_02.jp2
E3 40618
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_03.jp2
E4 776656
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_04.jp2
E5 432085
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_05.jp2
E6 115235
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_06.jp2
E7 790505
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_07.jp2
E8 781437
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_08.jp2
E9 781386
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_09.jp2
E10 790474
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_10.jp2
E11 781432
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_11.jp2
E12 790457
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_12.jp2
E13 781461
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_13.jp2
E14 790482
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_14.jp2
E15 781348
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_15.jp2
E16 790496
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_16.jp2
E17 781469
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_17.jp2
E18 790476
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_18.jp2
E19 781426
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_19.jp2
E20 653359
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_20.jp2
E21 781449
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_21.jp2
E22 571506
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_22.jp2
E23 781472
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_23.jp2
E24 790460
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_24.jp2
E25
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_25.jp2
E26 287204
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_26.jp2
E27 781420
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_27.jp2
E28
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_28.jp2
E29 781470
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_29.jp2
E30 790479
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_30.jp2
E31 781457
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_31.jp2
E32 521653
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_32.jp2
E33
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_33.jp2
E34 790503
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_34.jp2
E35 243038
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_35.jp2
E36 790502
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_36.jp2
E37 320977
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_37.jp2
E38 313547
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_38.jp2
E39 272532
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_39.jp2
E40 328535
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_40.jp2
E41 781467
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_41.jp2
E42 360829
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_42.jp2
E43 781463
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_43.jp2
E44 790484
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_44.jp2
E45
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_45.jp2
E46 370692
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_46.jp2
E47 389423
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_47.jp2
E48 371342
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_48.jp2
E49 406294
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_49.jp2
E50 430849
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_50.jp2
E51 416471
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_51.jp2
E52 395921
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_52.jp2
E53 421610
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_53.jp2
E54 790436
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_54.jp2
E55 781466
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_55.jp2
E56 790498
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_56.jp2
E57 781417
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_57.jp2
E58 395854
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_58.jp2
E59 417177
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_59.jp2
E60 395011
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_60.jp2
E61 418850
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_61.jp2
E62 409091
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_62.jp2
E63 430974
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_63.jp2
E64 428660
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_64.jp2
E65 462810
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_65.jp2
E66 790507
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_66.jp2
E67 126370
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_67.jp2
E68 790499
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_68.jp2
E69 781451
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_69.jp2
E70
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_70.jp2
E71 781446
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_71.jp2
E72
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_72.jp2
E73 804916
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_73.jp2
E74 790504
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_74.jp2
E75 804932
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_75.jp2
E76 790480
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_76.jp2
E77 198994
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_77.jp2
E78
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_78.jp2
E79 49744
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_79.jp2
E80 57669
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_80.jp2
E81 579500
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_81.jp2
E82 58916
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_82.jp2
E83 804944
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_83.jp2
E84 65334
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_84.jp2
E85 758300
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_85.jp2
E86 790491
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_86.jp2
E87 804949
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_87.jp2
E88
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_88.jp2
E89 804921
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_89.jp2
E90 790487
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_90.jp2
E91 804938
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_91.jp2
E92 790410
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_92.jp2
E93 694120
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_93.jp2
E94 615861
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_94.jp2
archive
F1 imagetiff 6.0 15018138
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_01.tif
F2 16935840
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_02.tif
F3 17977194
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_03.tif
F4 18661924
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_04.tif
F5 19259668
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_05.tif
F6 18994340
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_06.tif
F7
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_07.tif
F8 18777114
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_08.tif
F9
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_09.tif
F10
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_10.tif
F11
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_11.tif
F12
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_12.tif
F13
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_13.tif
F14
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_14.tif
F15
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_15.tif
F16
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_16.tif
F17
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_17.tif
F18
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_18.tif
F19
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_19.tif
F20
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_20.tif
F21
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_21.tif
F22
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_22.tif
F23
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_23.tif
F24
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_24.tif
F25
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_25.tif
F26
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_26.tif
F27
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_27.tif
F28
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_28.tif
F29
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_29.tif
F30
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_30.tif
F31
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_31.tif
F32
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_32.tif
F33
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_33.tif
F34
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_34.tif
F35
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_35.tif
F36
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_36.tif
F37
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_37.tif
F38
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_38.tif
F39
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_39.tif
F40
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_40.tif
F41
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_41.tif
F42
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_42.tif
F43
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_43.tif
F44
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_44.tif
F45
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_45.tif
F46
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_46.tif
F47
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_47.tif
F48
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_48.tif
F49
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_49.tif
F50
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_50.tif
F51
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_51.tif
F52
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_52.tif
F53
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_53.tif
F54
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_54.tif
F55
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_55.tif
F56
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_56.tif
F57
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_57.tif
F58
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_58.tif
F59
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_59.tif
F60
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_60.tif
F61
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_61.tif
F62
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_62.tif
F63
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_63.tif
F64
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_64.tif
F65
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_65.tif
F66
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_66.tif
F67
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_67.tif
F68
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_68.tif
F69
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_69.tif
F70
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_70.tif
F71
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_71.tif
F72
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_72.tif
F73 19341294
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_73.tif
F74
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_74.tif
F75
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_75.tif
F76
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_76.tif
F77
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_77.tif
F78
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_78.tif
F79
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_79.tif
F80
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_80.tif
F81
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_81.tif
F82
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_82.tif
F83
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_83.tif
F84
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_84.tif
F85
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_85.tif
F86
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_86.tif
F87
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_87.tif
F88
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_88.tif
F89
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_89.tif
F90
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_90.tif
F91
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_91.tif
F92
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_92.tif
F93
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_93.tif
F94
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_94.tif
R1 textx-pro 8156
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_01.pro
R3 745
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_03.pro
R4 31662
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_04.pro
R5 21668
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_05.pro
R6 4584
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_06.pro
R7 39251
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_07.pro
R8 49123
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_08.pro
R9 39222
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_09.pro
R10 35841
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_10.pro
R11 40816
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_11.pro
R12 40399
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_12.pro
R13 40246
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_13.pro
R14 41242
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_14.pro
R15 40297
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_15.pro
R16 40358
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_16.pro
R17 40739
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_17.pro
R18 41312
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_18.pro
R19 43380
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_19.pro
R20 21201
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_20.pro
R21 32977
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_21.pro
R22 4284
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_22.pro
R23 40419
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_23.pro
R24 39714
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_24.pro
R25 33670
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_25.pro
R26 8866
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_26.pro
R27 39735
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_27.pro
R28 44090
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_28.pro
R29 36185
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_29.pro
R30 35865
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_30.pro
R31 39869
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_31.pro
R32 17412
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_32.pro
R33 32144
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_33.pro
R34 40586
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_34.pro
R35 2630
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_35.pro
R36 38329
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_36.pro
R37 6054
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_37.pro
R38 11296
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_38.pro
R39 6707
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_39.pro
R40 5561
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_40.pro
R41 41006
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_41.pro
R42 9187
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_42.pro
R43 41125
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_43.pro
R44 36492
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_44.pro
R45 37572
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_45.pro
R46 8315
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_46.pro
R47 7387
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_47.pro
R48 10313
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_48.pro
R49 9814
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_49.pro
R50 5963
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_50.pro
R51 5474
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_51.pro
R52 6724
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_52.pro
R53 7149
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_53.pro
R54 40587
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_54.pro
R55 41402
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_55.pro
R56 39018
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_56.pro
R57 36845
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_57.pro
R58 13006
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_58.pro
R59 6677
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_59.pro
R60 8263
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_60.pro
R61 9727
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_61.pro
R62 9273
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_62.pro
R63 9079
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_63.pro
R64 11084
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_64.pro
R65 7710
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_65.pro
R66 37235
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_66.pro
R67 3130
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_67.pro
R68 35044
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_68.pro
R69 41526
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_69.pro
R70 40794
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_70.pro
R71 43695
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_71.pro
R72 39588
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_72.pro
R73 43689
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_73.pro
R74 38706
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_74.pro
R75 41894
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_75.pro
R76 42264
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_76.pro
R77 5523
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_77.pro
R78 38044
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_78.pro
R79 563
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_79.pro
R80 1228
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_80.pro
R81 21280
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_81.pro
R82 1410
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_82.pro
R83 31100
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_83.pro
R84 1644
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_84.pro
R85 24391
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_85.pro
R86 44261
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_86.pro
R87 50739
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_87.pro
R88 51726
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_88.pro
R89 50319
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_89.pro
R90 51231
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_90.pro
R91 53724
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_91.pro
R92 37346
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_92.pro
R93 23186
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_93.pro
R94 12501
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_94.pro
T1 textplain 458
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_01.txt
T3 84
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_03.txt
T4 1312
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_04.txt
T5 908
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_05.txt
T6 224
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_06.txt
T7 1783
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_07.txt
T8 2196
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_08.txt
T9 1786
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_09.txt
T10 1528
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_10.txt
T11 1665
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_11.txt
T12 1657
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_12.txt
T13 1648
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_13.txt
T14 1687
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_14.txt
T15 1672
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_15.txt
T16 1656
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_16.txt
T17 1651
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_17.txt
T18 1695
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_18.txt
T19 1763
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_19.txt
T20 897
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_20.txt
T21 1378
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_21.txt
T22 261
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_22.txt
T23 1659
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_23.txt
T24 1636
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_24.txt
T25 1440
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_25.txt
T26 512
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_26.txt
T27 1650
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_27.txt
T28 1789
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_28.txt
T29 1646
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_29.txt
T30 1640
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_30.txt
T31
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_31.txt
T32 751
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_32.txt
T33 1314
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_33.txt
T34
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_34.txt
T35 391
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_35.txt
T36 1592
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_36.txt
T37 454
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_37.txt
T38 895
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_38.txt
T39 679
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_39.txt
T40
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_40.txt
T41 1688
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_41.txt
T42 714
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_42.txt
T43
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_43.txt
T44 1519
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_44.txt
T45 1573
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_45.txt
T46 676
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_46.txt
T47 660
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_47.txt
T48 654
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_48.txt
T49 2293
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_49.txt
T50 530
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_50.txt
T51 738
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_51.txt
T52 707
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_52.txt
T53 1068
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_53.txt
T54 1675
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_54.txt
T55 1692
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_55.txt
T56 1626
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_56.txt
T57 1540
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_57.txt
T58 1237
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_58.txt
T59 1281
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_59.txt
T60 1077
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_60.txt
T61 1002
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_61.txt
T62 752
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_62.txt
T63 875
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_63.txt
T64 728
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_64.txt
T65 671
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_65.txt
T66 1537
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_66.txt
T67 156
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_67.txt
T68 1451
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_68.txt
T69
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_69.txt
T70 1694
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_70.txt
T71 1770
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_71.txt
T72 1627
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_72.txt
T73 1784
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_73.txt
T74 1645
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_74.txt
T75 1710
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_75.txt
T76 1724
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_76.txt
T77 256
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_77.txt
T78 1541
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_78.txt
T79 77
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_79.txt
T80 114
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_80.txt
T81 1118
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_81.txt
T82 125
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_82.txt
T83 1497
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_83.txt
T84 132
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_84.txt
T85 1176
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_85.txt
T86 1912
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_86.txt
T87 2215
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_87.txt
T88 2224
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_88.txt
T89 2200
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_89.txt
T90
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_90.txt
T91 2306
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_91.txt
T92
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_92.txt
T93 964
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_93.txt
T94 692
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_94.txt
applicationpdf 3885800
contributionofno00cookrich.pdf
UR1 36288
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_01thm.jpg
AR1 66348
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_01.QC.jpg
AR2 49935
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_02.QC.jpg
AR3 33306
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_02thm.jpg
AR4 33322
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_03.QC.jpg
AR5 27806
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_03thm.jpg
AR6 89004
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_04.QC.jpg
AR7 49646
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_04thm.jpg
AR8 75635
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_05.QC.jpg
AR9 40052
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_05thm.jpg
AR10 40438
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_06.QC.jpg
AR11 31027
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_06thm.jpg
AR12 106497
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_07.QC.jpg
AR13 47280
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_07thm.jpg
AR14 138219
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_08.QC.jpg
AR15 56455
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_08thm.jpg
AR16 102029
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_09.QC.jpg
AR17 45303
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_09thm.jpg
AR18 109492
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_10.QC.jpg
AR19 50236
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_10thm.jpg
AR20 126670
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_11.QC.jpg
AR21 56930
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_11thm.jpg
AR22 127093
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_12.QC.jpg
AR23 55779
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_12thm.jpg
AR24 127974
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_13.QC.jpg
AR25 54922
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_13thm.jpg
AR26 128099
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_14.QC.jpg
AR27 55045
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_14thm.jpg
AR28 126149
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_15.QC.jpg
AR29 55795
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_15thm.jpg
AR30 114349
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_16.QC.jpg
AR31 53677
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_16thm.jpg
AR32 120689
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_17.QC.jpg
AR33 54865
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_17thm.jpg
AR34 160452
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_18.QC.jpg
AR35 65208
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_18thm.jpg
AR36 142438
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_19.QC.jpg
AR37 60336
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_19thm.jpg
AR38 94820
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_20.QC.jpg
AR39 44763
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_20thm.jpg
AR40 114610
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_21.QC.jpg
AR41 53721
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_21thm.jpg
AR42 77306
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_22.QC.jpg
AR43 40811
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_22thm.jpg
AR44 142153
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_23.QC.jpg
AR45 59740
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_23thm.jpg
AR46 134949
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_24.QC.jpg
AR47 59165
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_24thm.jpg
AR48 124077
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_25.QC.jpg
AR49 50845
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_25thm.jpg
AR50 54277
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_26.QC.jpg
AR51 35129
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_26thm.jpg
AR52 138903
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_27.QC.jpg
AR53 58774
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_27thm.jpg
AR54 143965
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_28.QC.jpg
AR55 59993
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_28thm.jpg
AR56 123828
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_29.QC.jpg
AR57 55495
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_29thm.jpg
AR58 123971
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_30.QC.jpg
AR59 55767
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_30thm.jpg
AR60 136872
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_31.QC.jpg
AR61 57461
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_31thm.jpg
AR62 68423
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_32.QC.jpg
AR63 41561
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_32thm.jpg
AR64 115276
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_33.QC.jpg
AR65 51516
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_33thm.jpg
AR66 131676
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_34.QC.jpg
AR67 57072
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_34thm.jpg
AR68 52710
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_35.QC.jpg
AR69 35153
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_35thm.jpg
AR70 124227
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_36.QC.jpg
AR71 55301
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_36thm.jpg
AR72 59888
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_37.QC.jpg
AR73 36554
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_37thm.jpg
AR74 56569
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_38.QC.jpg
AR75 35664
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_38thm.jpg
AR76 56341
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_39.QC.jpg
AR77 34789
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_39thm.jpg
AR78 59258
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_40.QC.jpg
AR79 36434
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_40thm.jpg
AR80 135234
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_41.QC.jpg
AR81 57058
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_41thm.jpg
AR82 62503
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_42.QC.jpg
AR83 36094
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_42thm.jpg
AR84 125228
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_43.QC.jpg
AR85 57425
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_43thm.jpg
AR86 125814
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_44.QC.jpg
AR87 55299
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_44thm.jpg
AR88 127083
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_45.QC.jpg
AR89 56567
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_45thm.jpg
AR90 63301
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_46.QC.jpg
AR91 37934
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_46thm.jpg
AR92 63711
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_47.QC.jpg
AR93 37309
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_47thm.jpg
AR94 61796
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_48.QC.jpg
AR95 37111
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_48thm.jpg
AR96 67341
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_49.QC.jpg
AR97 39111
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_49thm.jpg
AR98 67872
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_50.QC.jpg
AR99 39053
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_50thm.jpg
AR100 69408
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_51.QC.jpg
AR101 38415
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_51thm.jpg
AR102 63152
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_52.QC.jpg
AR103 37484
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_52thm.jpg
AR104 65095
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_53.QC.jpg
AR105 38487
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_53thm.jpg
AR106 143300
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_54.QC.jpg
AR107 60022
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_54thm.jpg
AR108 137161
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_55.QC.jpg
AR109 59885
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_55thm.jpg
AR110 141158
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_56.QC.jpg
AR111 59584
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_56thm.jpg
AR112 131473
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_57.QC.jpg
AR113 57636
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_57thm.jpg
AR114 64301
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_58.QC.jpg
AR115 38465
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_58thm.jpg
AR116 67393
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_59.QC.jpg
AR117 38971
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_59thm.jpg
AR118 62733
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_60.QC.jpg
AR119 38665
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_60thm.jpg
AR120 69488
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_61.QC.jpg
AR121 39058
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_61thm.jpg
AR122 67873
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_62.QC.jpg
AR123 38831
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_62thm.jpg
AR124 69540
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_63.QC.jpg
AR125 38943
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_63thm.jpg
AR126 66618
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_64.QC.jpg
AR127 38622
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_64thm.jpg
AR128 73196
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_65.QC.jpg
AR129 40302
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_65thm.jpg
AR130 134325
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_66.QC.jpg
AR131 56657
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_66thm.jpg
AR132 43677
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_67.QC.jpg
AR133 30594
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_67thm.jpg
AR134 115946
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_68.QC.jpg
AR135 53419
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_68thm.jpg
AR136 132308
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_69.QC.jpg
AR137 58933
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_69thm.jpg
AR138 134071
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_70.QC.jpg
AR139 58581
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_70thm.jpg
AR140 141545
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_71.QC.jpg
AR141 60238
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_71thm.jpg
AR142 131870
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_72.QC.jpg
AR143 59212
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_72thm.jpg
AR144 144392
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_73.QC.jpg
AR145 61851
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_73thm.jpg
AR146 131747
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_74.QC.jpg
AR147 56845
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_74thm.jpg
AR148 134833
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_75.QC.jpg
AR149 60573
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_75thm.jpg
AR150 143308
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_76.QC.jpg
AR151 60096
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_76thm.jpg
AR152
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_77.QC.jpg
AR153 33598
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_77thm.jpg
AR154 121648
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_78.QC.jpg
AR155 54550
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_78thm.jpg
AR156 34863
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_79.QC.jpg
AR157 29162
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_79thm.jpg
AR158 33972
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_80.QC.jpg
AR159 28806
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_80thm.jpg
AR160 81381
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_81.QC.jpg
AR161 44047
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_81thm.jpg
AR162 33381
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_82.QC.jpg
AR163 28999
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_82thm.jpg
AR164 102395
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_83.QC.jpg
AR165 48207
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_83thm.jpg
AR166 33644
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_84.QC.jpg
AR167 28450
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_84thm.jpg
AR168 102629
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_85.QC.jpg
AR169 46576
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_85thm.jpg
AR170 130288
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_86.QC.jpg
AR171 54366
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_86thm.jpg
AR172 147472
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_87.QC.jpg
AR173 58957
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_87thm.jpg
AR174 148932
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_88.QC.jpg
AR175 59013
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_88thm.jpg
AR176 146506
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_89.QC.jpg
AR177 60360
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_89thm.jpg
AR178 152795
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_90.QC.jpg
AR179 60646
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_90thm.jpg
AR180 152062
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_91.QC.jpg
AR181 60593
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_91thm.jpg
AR182 116174
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_92.QC.jpg
AR183 51761
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_92thm.jpg
AR184 90270
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_93.QC.jpg
AR185 46638
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_93thm.jpg
AR186 90164
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_94.QC.jpg
AR187 43777
contributionofno00cookrich_Page_94thm.jpg
AR188 37
processing.instr
AR189 120042
UF00097790_00001.mets
METS:structMap STRUCT1 mixed
METS:div DMDID ORDER 0 main
D1 1 Main
P1 Page i
METS:fptr
P2 i-a 2
P3 ii 3
P4 iii 4
P5 iv 5
P6 v 6
P7 vi 7
P8 vii 8
P9 viii 9
P10 10
P11 11
P12 12
P13 13
P14 14
P15 15
P16 16
P17 17
P18 18
P19 19
P20 20
P21 21
P22 22
P23 23
P24 24
P25 25
P26 26
P27 27
P28 28
P29 29
P30 30
P31 31
P32 32
P33 33
P34 34
P35 35
P36 36
P37
P38 38
P39 39
P40 40
P41 41
P42 42
P43 43
P44 44
P45 45
P46 46
P47 47
P48 48
P49 49
P50 50
P51 51
P52 52
P53 53
P54 54
P55 55
P56 56
P57 57
P58 58
P59 59
P60 60
P61 61
P62 62
P63 63
P64 64
P65 65
P66 66
P67 67
P68 68
P69 69
P70 70
P71 71
P72 72
P73 73
P74 74
P75 75
P76 76
P77
P78 78
P79 79
P80 80
P81 81
P82 82
P83 83
P84
P85 85
P86 86
P87 87
P88 88
P89 89
P90 90
P91 91
P92 92
P93 93
P94 94
METS:behaviorSec VIEWS Options available the user for viewing this item
METS:behavior VIEW1 STRUCTID Default View
METS:mechanism Viewer JPEGs Procedure xlink:type simple xlink:title JPEG_Viewer()
VIEW2 Alternate
zoomable JPEG2000s JP2_Viewer()
VIEW3
Related image viewer shows thumbnails each Related_Image_Viewer()
INTERFACES Banners or interfaces which resource can appear under
INT1 Interface
UFDC_Interface_Loader