Talk:Classical conditioning/Archive 1

see previous discussion as some users suggested this section to be deleted

Neural structures involved in classical conditioning

Dopamine neurons in the pars compacta of substantia nigra and the medially adjoining ventral tegmental area show short, phasic activations after presentation of appetitive US. These phasic dopamine responses transfer to the onset of conditioned stimuli.^[1] It has been suggested that the ventral striatum corresponds to the critic and responds during both Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning and the dorsal striatum corresponds to the actor which mainly responds during operant conditioning.^[2] Amygdala has long been associated with Pavlovian fear conditioning, but recent views suggest that amygdala also responds to appetitive stimuli.^[3] Neurons within the orbitofrontal cortex discriminate between visual stimuli that predict appetitive and aversive reinforcers ^[4] The cerebellum also appears to be involved in classical conditioning. Researchers demonstrated that lesions to pathways from the cerebellum stop the conditioned response, but do not stop the unconditioned response.^[5]

--Kpmiyapuram (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

C. S. Peirce, at the end of part III of "The Fixation of Belief," mentions "...that habit of the nerves in consequence of which the smell of a peach will make the mouth water." This was written in 1877, and the casual way he mentions it implies that CC was well understood before Pavlov's experiments. Maybe the article needs a "Precusors to Pavlov" sub-section? Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge to write that sub-section -- I just happened to be reading Peirce and was struck by how, already in 1877, he could assume that everyone understood the concept. 166.137.134.149 (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Alpha conditioning and classical conditioning are not synonymous. Alpha conditioning refers to the strengthening of a pre-existing response to a CS by pairings of the CS and US. In the more general form of classical conditioning the CR that is established may be a response that was not previously elicited by the CS.

i am not very sure if we could use classical conditioning to reduce phobia. can someone demonstrate how this could be done?Liyaaa 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Flooding, a very common way of treating phobia, is analogous to extinction. While this isn't a direct application of classical conditioning, it is a concept that comes from classical conditioning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.11.30.187 (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

See also systematic densensitization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJBN (talk • contribs) 12:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have merged the two articles S-S and S-R theories into this article. as one of these articles had been tagged to be merged with classical conditioning. the reseon being that these thoeries fall only into the theme of conditioning and hence do not need consideration as articles on their own. Kpmiyapuram 13:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The theory of S-S learning proposes that stimuli are nerually associated with eachother while S-R learning proposes that the neural representation of the conditioned stimulus becomes wired directly to the response. Neither of these theories depend upon "cognitive action". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.11.30.187 (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Really, this whole section is quite misleading and badly written. I don't have time right now, so I'll delete it from the page and leave it in here for future re-working

I have undone some parts of deletion by this user. The major part was already undone by another wikipedian. The word badly is not neutral (wikipedia policy?). The section needs to be revised or attention from an expert. I think this is true to a large extent for most part of this article. Regarding the cognitive activity, perhaps it is from original research. see Signalization and Stimulus-Substitution in Pavlov’s Theory of Conditioning Kpmiyapuram 15:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Stimulus-response theory, referred to a S-R theory, is a theoretical model of behavioral psychology that suggests animals, and people, can learn to associate a new stimulus- the conditioned stimulus (CS)- with a pre-existing stimulus - the unconditioned stimulus (UCS), and can think, feel or respond to the CS as if it were actually the UCS.

The opposing theory, put forward by cognitive behaviorists, is stimulus-stimulus theory (S-S theory). Stimulus-stimulus theory, referred to a S-S theory, is a theoretical model of classical conditioning that suggests a cognitive component is required to understand classical conditioning and that stimulus-response theory is an inadequate model. It proposes that a cognitive component is at play. S-R theory suggests that an animal can learn to associate a conditioned stimulus (CS) such as a bell, with the impending arrival of food termed the unconditioned stimulus, resulting in an observable behavior such as salivation. Stimulus-stimulus theory suggests that instead the animal salivates to the bell because it is associated with the concept of food, which is a very fine but important distinction.

• This section is simply not correct! Stimulus-response (S-R) theory claims that the CS elicits a response through a direct association with the unconditioned RESPONSE (UR), not the unconditioned stimulus (US), hence the term stimulus-response. Stimulus-stimulus (S-S) theory instead claims that the conditioned response (CR) arises through the association between the CS and the US, and that it is via this association that the CS is able to elicit a response. Consider the following:

• S-R: CS --> CR (a direct association is formed between the CS and the response)
• S-S: CS --> US --> UR (an indirect connection between the CS and response via the US)
• A better representation is given at this link: http://www.lucs.lu.se/christian.balkenius/thesis/Images/05.03.01.gif

I don't own this information, however. I just refer you to the link as I feel it might help to clarify this particular area of confusion. Melissza (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Melissza

Check out Suki's human experiment as well for her views on s-s theory here =>

To test this theory, psychologist Robert Rescorla undertook the following experiment ^[1]. Rats learned to associate a loud noise as the unconditioned stimulus, and a light as the conditioned stimulus. The response of the rats was to freeze and cease movement. What would happen then if the rats were habituated to the UCS? S-R theory would suggest that the rats would continue to respond to the UCS, but if S-S theory is correct, they would be habituated to the concept of a loud sound (danger), and so would not freeze to the CS. The expiremental results suggest that S-S was correct, as the rats no longer froze when exposed to the signal light. ^[2]"

all well and good, but it is very important to pay attention to the freighted language in these "theoretical" positions. "cognitive" in particular is complicated by the fact that classical conditioning has been clearly demonstrated in animals that don't "think" or "form concepts". it's ok to use the term "learned" but only in the technical sense of a behavioral change that is not developmental. and classical conditioning was early understood by using responses that were reflexive or involuntary (eye blink, salivation), rather than "cognitively mediated" or learned, and a theory that does not track or account for generalizing from reflexes to learned responses is probably just playing with words.

-- Macevoy (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The concept of Cc,and the experiments of Cc, as is doesn't seem (to me) to proove it is learning we are talking about. It could very well be memory. My impression reading the leads of Cc, learning and memory is that psychology, being soft, doesn't care to elaborate hard enough on those issues. For example it could provide clear cut definitions of "learning" and "memory", for a start. I know this is just my personal impression, and I don't have any referenced material to provide on this "criticism". So I am just making a suggestion that someone working on these articles, and more knowledgeable about these staff, could check it out. Also I could point out that the ref intro talks about "conditioned reflexes" and not "conditioned learning". Also, the laymans concept of "memory" is about cognitive recall, while the scientific concept (ie Flip-flop (electronics)) is about signal response being a function of the previous input signal.--Vanakaris (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

@Vanakaris: While I agree that these concepts have not been articulated well in the present article, the articles you link to on learning and memory should clarify the meaning of these concepts for you. While the exact nature of learning and memory is constantly debated among psychologists, this should not be taken to suggest that psychology is "soft". Again referring you to your own reference, "hard sciences are characterized as relying on experimental, empirical, quantifiable data, relying on the scientific method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity". Any book on methodology in experimental psychology will emphasise these characteristics as essential to any pursuit which purports to be experimental psychology. Back to the subject, learning is the process by which memories are formed. If you have a memory, then that in itself is evidence that you have learnt. Melissza (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Classical conditioning does not require a "stimulus of some significance" - for example - the phenomena of sensory preconditioning.

The unconditioned stimulus does not necessarily evoke an innate or reflexive behavior - in fact it's more often an emotion than an overt behavior in modern studies.

There does not need to be repeated pairings. Most fear conditioning and taste aversion can be learned in a single trial.

It's also missing what is learned during classical conditioning. See Rescorla 1988 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3364852 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.224.6 (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC) yeaah! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.107.37 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Which strange combination of ideas, the sagacious Locke, who certainly understood the nature of these things better than most men, affirms to have produced more wry actions than all other sources of prejudice whatsoever." Is Sterne suggesting here that Locke knew all about Classical conditioning? or what is his intention/ allusion? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The section Types of classical conditioning seems very long winded. Couldn't it be reduced to a single paragraph explaining all of them? The individual sub sections are only a few sentences each, it make it a little confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finbob83 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like classical conditioning is mostly associated with the pavlov's experiment on pavlov's dogs. Classical conditioning falls under associative learning. Associative learning is the most basic form of learning. Associative learning is making new association between events and their environment. Classical conditioning is forms a association between two stimulus. In Pavlov's experiment the dog was conditioned to receive food. Every time the dog was expecting to receive food it would salivate. Pavlov Dogs

added by Taylorbn6 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the Types of Classical Conditioning section is needed in full. Pavlov's Dogs maybe the most well-known example, but there very many others. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

How to distinguish a conditioned reflex from an unconditioned one? The article does not answer this question. While describing the mechanisms of classical conditioning, the article never once alludes to the criteria which are used in order to determine whether a given response is conditioned or unconditioned. I’ve just started the corresponding section, but it is in need of expanding. --SU ltd. (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's going to depend on the context/aim of the conditioning. Goggle search of ""criterion for a conditioned response" gives only nine hits. Bur I see amongst these:

• "The test criterion for a conditioned response (CR) was that a rat jumped onto the pole in three succeeding stimulus combinations during the tone signal."
• " A response latency in excess of 10 sec. was taken as a criterion for a conditioned response.
• "The criterion for a conditioned response (CR) was established as any eyelid movement >0.5 mm from resting level... "

(emphasis added) etc., etc... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Martinevans. I see 2 matches instead of nine. As far as I can understand, you’re citing these two papers. I don’t think a proper answer to my question depends on the mode of conditioning. Perhaps I should clear up my point. Breathing, walking and scratching are examples of innate (i.e., inherited) programs, to which many learned programs are added in the course of one’s life. How to distinguish the learned from the innate? Judging from Russian textbooks on physiology, there’s a set of definite criteria for a conditioned reflex. If they are met, the reflex in question is not unconditioned. Unfortunately, I’m neither a biologist nor a physician by education. And yet not only biologists but also psychologists take human physiology at university. The theory of conditioned reflexes relates to both biology and psychology. So Lova Falk who contributes to the article very much certainly knows the question. I only don’t know whether she’d like to answer. I’ll translate the corresponding text from my textbook and add to this article before I ask her. A full text (translated from Russian) will allow me to make my question more precise. When she has a look at the text, she’ll probably be able to offer her critical remarks. --SU ltd. (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I certainly got nine. I'm not sure how anyone could propose a single criterion that would cover every circumstance. But I think I now see where you are coming from - the difference between a learned response and an innate one. I'd argue that innate responses are in the domain of physiology, whereas learned responses are in the domain of psychology. But this may be a bit simplistic and circular to be of any use here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course, you’ve grasp my point correctly. I’d like to say that not only psychology, but also philosophy deals with the problem I mean. Perhaps another example can serve as an additional illustration of what I mean: Prinz, Jesse (2013). "Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response". Philosophy Now. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Or this: Instinct and the Unconscious by Carl Jung. My question is closer to psychology than physiology. That’s why I think that Lova Falk’s advice might be most helpful. I’m sure she took this material at university while I’m autodidact in this field.

What has led me to create the “Difference between conditioned and unconditioned reflexes” section is the fact that both “conditioned reflex” and “unconditioned response” refers to this article. There’s no separate article about conditioned reflexes in WP. While asking about the criteria for them, I mean the fact that many behavioural patterns seem instinctive though they are not eventually innate. According to Pavlov, instincts are complex unconditioned reflexes. He divided all the reflexes taking place in the organism into two principal groups — unconditioned and conditioned. But it is not always clear in every particular case whether a reflex is really an instinct (unconditioned reflex) or merely seems to be instinctive. This attaches importance to criteria for drawing a line between the two groups of reflexes. That’s why I’ve created the section. I do not state that there is a single criterion. On the contrary, I’ve added a reference to Nikolai Agajanyan’s textbook which names 5 (five) criteria. But he talks about them in Russian, of course. Translating his text into English will take me some time. It’ll probably be a week or two because I am currently occupied in real life. --SU ltd. (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Alas, I fear your clear philosophical waters may be muddied somewhat by this behavioural upstart. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sometime around 1930 (later published in translated form 1948) Konorski commented that phyiologists outside the Soviet Union had not paid much attention to Pavlovian conditioning. This historical footnote is so minor, given the enormous history that is omitted, that it breaks the flow and is not appropriate here. Db4wp (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your helpful comments both here and in the article itself ("Though conditioning was eventually taken up by experimental psychologists, Konorski noted that it was little noticed by physiologists"). The point is I’m perplexed by the fact that the bulk of Pavlov’s theory of conditioned reflexes is missing from English-speaking textbooks. Proceeding from Looie496’s comment, I supposed that Western scientists do not admit the theory at all. Perhaps you’re pointing out that the situation is quite the opposite. The reflex theory is widely recognized in the West, too. Do I understand your remarks correctly? --SU ltd. (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, as perhaps the article shows, Pavlovian conditioning is a mainstay of experimental psychology in the west. Apart from work associated with human cognition and behavior, this area has probably the largest and most coherent theoretical development of any area having to do with behavior. This was started by Pavlov but now goes very far beyond his initial theory. Db4wp (talk) 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that this could be improved by adding an info-graphic that reinforces the meaning of classic conditioning. Courtneb (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

PavlovDogWithBell

"reinforces", lol. But yes that's quite a good graphic. I'm sure some editor, who is clever with use of a standard graphics package, could produce a version for upload here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to make some very simple graphics trying to show the main procedures (Forward, Second Order, Temporal, Simultaneous) and effects (extinction, blocking, inhibition). Not sure how to represent other effects though.Nicolas P. Rougier (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a discursive quote in the introduction that gives some examples of unconditioned reflexes and a short physiological-connectionist interpretation of reflexes. A quotation isn't appropriate here unless, possibly, it is from Pavlov or other classic work. This one appears to be a translation from a 1989 textbook by Schmidt & Thews. Also, the content adds little and doesn't really fit in this introduction. For these reasons I am removing it. Db4wp (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The introduction is very technical and could be confusing for readers who aren't informed on the topic already. First I suggest that changing the terms 'conditional' to 'conditioned' would be very helpful. For me personally, I was taught with the terms being 'conditioned' not 'conditional' and I think it makes it easier for readers to grasp the actual concept of each term. Cgraham09 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The first chunk of the 'Procedure' section explained CS,US,CR & UR to me infinitely better than the introduction. I don't know enough to go editing this stuff but bear this in mind! Snebbit (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping to link through to this page from the article on electronic dog control collars, but I fear most readers won't understand the dense text in the introduction, let alone the jargonistic nature of the rest of the article. Whilst I appreciate its scientific (and therefore precise) nature, the article reads as if it were written by doctorate students in psychology: would it be possible to make at least the introduction a bit more readable to your average, non-psychology graduate reader? kabl00ey 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dense and jargonistic indeed, though I wouldn't say it's particularly precise (or, more importantly, concise). I commented below on this very issue. I stopped short of slapping a cleanup tag on the article, but it definitely needs a huge amount of work in the readability department. Fuzzform (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this is my fault. I revised the introduction because it looked like a child wrote it. Aside from obvious errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation, the basic information was just wrong. I'll think about how to make it more clear to every reader. The other thing is, regarding the shock collar, you might consider linking to operant conditioning instead. You see, in Classical conditioning, the animal has absolutely no control over the stimuli. In Operant conditioning, the punishments and rewards are completely under the control of the animal. So, if the dog simply learns not to bark, then it will avoid the shock. The animal can control the delivery of the shock by not barking.--Dentate 17:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Being someone who never studied conditioning like this, the article is extremely difficult to understand. I don't consider myself a genious, but I do consider myself successfully educated on the low-college level at least. To write an article, I find it best to imagine a freshman in high school who never knew classical conditioning ever existed (or any conditioning) trying to read the article.

I'm pretty sure that's easier said than done, considering the nature and intellect of the topic, but this is an encyclopeida afterall -- general knowledge, with some room for deeper understanding and further study.

I'll give you an example: the very first few sentences. I don't know what associative learning is. I didn't know "classical conditioning" was something that could be demonstrated.

"The typical procedure for inducing classical conditioning involves presentations of a neutral stimulus along with a stimulus of some significance." -- This explains nothing to me. The introduction still hasn't explained what classical conditioning is, thus, inducing it into what, or how? There is a procedure for it? I can easily look it up, but I don't know what a "neutral stimulus" is either, although I am now hinted that "classical conditioning" has something to do with the mind.

Going to dictionary.com, I found out more information about classical conditioning in one paragraph than this entire page. "A process of behavior modification by which a subject comes to respond in a desired manner to a previously neutral stimulus that has been repeatedly presented along with an unconditioned stimulus that elicits the desired response." While this is still too complex (though an encyclopedia article has more room), I can now guess what a neutral stimulus is, and generally what the article is discussing. Colonel Marksman (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi folks, I must agree that the lede is far too technical and verbose an explanation for a general encyclopedia article.

1- The use of abbreviations is confusing even to the professional reader,

2- The use of jargon and in-jokes e.g. the quote from Rescorla at the end is the wrong to tone to strike in the lede- jokey, appealing to a teen audience, not well-considered,

3- The lede makes no reference to behavior modification, which is what everyone calls it these days. The 1950s-Behaviorist (and very limited) idea of "learning theory" in complex organisms is not something people ascribe to these days unless they are strictly Behaviorists. Are there any left? Nowadays, learning theory takes into account emotion and cognition, which the older school did not. Also, neurobiologist have a lot to say on this subject today, something that psychologists are still way behind on.

4- It's far too long! 3 to 5 lines ought to be the limit.

I'm going to try to put something together in the next day or two. Please edit or revert if you feel this is going in the wrong direction. Laguna greg 21:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna greg (talk • contribs)

This paragraph in the second section is 1- redundant and 2- doesn't flow well, considering that the following section discusses Pavlov's experiment in much greater depth. I moved it here for the time being:

A classic experiment by Ivan Pavlov exemplifies the standard procedure used in classical conditioning.[3] First Pavlov observed the UR (salivation) produced when meat powder (US) was placed in the dog's mouth. He then rang a bell (CS) before giving the meat powder. After some repetitions of this pairing of bell and meat the dog salivated to the bell alone, demonstrating what Pavlov called a "conditional" response, now commonly termed "conditioned response" or CR.

Laguna greg 20:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna greg (talk • contribs)

Article makes no mention about the history. Separate section requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.187.241.84 (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it says such and such discovered the same thing a year later - but doesn't mention which year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.13.133 (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Classical conditioning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407081232/http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~elliot/PearceHall1980_PsychReview.pdf to http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~elliot/PearceHall1980_PsychReview.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that I am going to add some information to the conditioned hunger paragraph and add a paragraph on examples of classical conditioning in everyday life. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReemaPatel (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

That section should probably be moved under Classical conditioning#Pavlovian-instrumental transfer as a subsection since it describes the same phenomenon as covered in Pavlovian-instrumental transfer#Dieting. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedia writers, I am from an educational psychology course and one of our assignments is to edit a wikipedia article that had to do with one of our topics we learned through out the semester. I think this article if very informative and already helps readers understand the topic of classical conditioning in depth. However, I noticed that the article does not discuss behaviorism and how classical conditioning is related to behaviorism. I think it would be very helpful for readers to understand behaviorism and the applications of classical conditioning. Also, I feel that discussing operant conditioning in addition to classical conditioning would be beneficial for readers since these are two terms that are easily confused. If anyone has any thoughts or suggestions that would be highly appreciated! Thank you! Best Regards, Marissa

note-- I know the 1st paragraph states the fact that classical conditioning is part of behaviorism and differs from operant conditioning, but I just want to add a paragraph of elaboration.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarissaBrevetti (talk • contribs) 15:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD. The "first paragraph" should simply summarize the content in the body of the article (below the table of contents). The lead of this article is probably too short. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Classical and operant conditioning aren't entirely independent processes. If you want to describe its relationship to operant conditioning, you should probably discuss both the differences between and the interactions between these two forms of conditioning. @Jytdog: the differences are covered in the body to some extent, so adding new material that covers the relationship in the lead would probably be a summary of the material in the body. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Everybody I am also from an educational psychology course. I recently did some edits on this page to add examples for operant conditioning and classical conditioning in the classroom in regards to the post Marissa did earlier. If oyu have any criticisms or thoughts on it, please feel free to edit. thanks!

-JAck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacktemps (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Guys, I know that there is a section that references classical conditioning in current culture and uses specific examples from different shows, etc but I want to be able to add and include examples of pavlovs theory in general action, such as advertising. I'm going to go ahead and add this to the current culture section, but if you think it should be somewhere else I would love to hear your feedback! Rebeccapaul96 (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Db4wp: I’m not entirely sure that these describe the same thing, although they are clearly at least closely related. PIT describes how classical conditioning can modify an operant response through changes in motivational salience; while the two neural systems that regulate motivational salience (i.e., the reward system for incentive salience and aversion system for aversive salience) are also responsible for mediating certain affective/emotional states (e.g., pleasure, disgust, fear, euphoria, etc.), I don’t think PIT necessarily entails a change in an animal’s emotional/affective state. For example, referring to the example in the lead of Pavlovian-instrumental transfer, a more intense operant response by a rat that’s exposed to a cue, such as a sound that triggers increased food lever pressing, could simply be due to a cued expectation. In other words, the rat expects that food is available when it hears that sound, so it presses the lever more than it would’ve without the sound. An alternative explanation for this scenario is that the sound elicited hunger (an affective response) which caused the rat to press the lever more, assuming it wasn’t already hungry.

In any event, it seems like these should be covered separately since a conditioned emotional response describes how classical conditioning can elicit changes in an animal’s affective state whereas Pavlovian-instrumental transfer describes how classical conditioning can elicit changes in operant behavior. The distinguishing characteristic here is that the focus is more on affect/cognition for a CER and behavior for PIT. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: if we have a source which indicates they refer to the same thing or that one is a part/form of the other, we should cite it and merge those sections. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• MonumentIPAVLOV.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

(Occasion setter is a stimulus that modulates the ability of another stimulus to control behavior in Pavlovian classical conditioning, a conditioned stimulus can act either as a

1- Simple Conditioned Stimulus (CS) eliciting conditioned responses (CR) by signaling the occurrence of an unconditioned stimulus (US), or as an

2- Occasion setter controlling the responses generated by another CS.) 11:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Ramez Nashat 11:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The figure used to describe second-order conditioning is incorrect. In fact, the procedure shown there is sensory preconditioning (where first an association is created between two neutral stimuli, and then an association is created between the second of those neutral stimuli and a US). It's also incorrect in the summary figure with Pavlov's photograph.

This should really be correct, as confusing sensory preconditioning and higher-order conditioning is a common mistake for people first learning about conditioning procedures. Having it listed incorrectly here inadvertently muddies this point of confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1520:87B7:DD96:68D7:E23E:11E2 (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you really call this psychological conditioning, this is so rude? ahaha, anyway, later. Bgeditor4 (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo supported by WikiProject Honors Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 April 2023 and 17 July 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FalconJo (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jskalski (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Charlie Munger in his book "Poor Charlie's Almanack" describes Pavlov's experiments on dogs and stress. Pavlov himself describes them in Lecture 18, Pathological disturbances of the cortex, result of functional interference of "Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex".

It would be good if the article could talk a bit more about this. However, it's not covered much in secondary sources. cagliost (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Evaluative conditioning is defined as identical to classical conditioning except that it involves a positive or negative association to the conditioned stimulus. There is a lot of overlap between the 2 articles and they may not need to be separated, especially considering how short the evaluative conditioning page really is. It can fit in as its own heading in the classical conditioning page. Senomo Drines (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I support this proposal. The evaluative conditioning article is short and could easily be subsumed under the more general article. Otherwise we would need many, many brief, separate articles on these interrelated phenomena. --Jcbutler (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)