Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sensory Pre-Conditioning
Sensory Pre-Conditioning
Experimental Psychology
VOL. 25, No. 4 OCTOBER, 1939
SENSORY PRE-CONDITIONING
BY W. J. BROGDEN
Pavlovian Laboratory, Phipps Psychiatric Clinic,
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
INTRODUCTION
The present investigation was designed to answer the fol-
lowing question: if an organism be given successive experiences
of two temporally simultaneous stimuli exciting two sense
modalities without evoking any observable response, and if
after this contiguous sensory experience, one stimulus be made
a conditioned signal for the activity of a given behavior-
system by appropriate training, will the other elicit a similar
conditioned response without the usual training?
Several studies have been reported which bear closely upon
this problem. Prokofiev and Zeliony (4) presented human
subjects with the sound of a metronome for 10 seconds and
immediately afterwards gave a rythmical pressure on the skin
of the fore-arm for an additional 10 seconds. This procedure
was followed at intervals of from 3 to 15 minutes, from 5 to
10 times per day for several days. In addition, a whistle was
blown for 5 to 10 seconds from time to time. The tactile
stimulus was then presented without the metronome and fol-
lowed by an electric shock to the hand. Within a few trials,
reflex retrogression of the arm became conditioned to the
tactile stimulus. When this conditioned response had been
firmly established, the metronome was now presented alone.
Two of the three subjects responded to the metronome with
323
324 W. J. BROGDEN
10 successive days. The eight animals were then arbitrarily divided into two groups
of four animals each. Left forelimb flexion, with shock the unconditioned stimulus,
was conditioned to bell in one group (group BE). The bell was 2 seconds in duration
and was followed immediately by the shock which lasted for I/IO of a second. The
second group (group LE) was conditioned to light in a similar manner. Conditioning
proceeded normally, with 20 trials per day as the test-unit; the conditioned stimulus
(either light or bell, as the case might be) evoking flexion with subsequent shock-
avoidance more and more frequently. The day after conditioned flexion reached
loo percent (20 shock-avoidingflexion-responsesin one test-period), group BE (con-
ditioned to bell) was given 20 trials per day of the light alone, until a score of zero-
flexion was reached. Group LE (conditioned to light) was given bell alone until
flexion to bell was extinguished to zero. In order to check on generalization, two
control groups of four animals each were trained. With one group (group BC),
forelimb flexion was conditioned to bell. When 100%flexionto bell was attained,
the light was presented alone. With the other group (group LC), forelimbflexionwas
conditioned to light and when conditioning reached the loo percent level, bell was
given alone. Needless to say, neither of these two groups were given the experience
of bell and light in combination, prior to the conditioning procedure.
QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
The conditioning of one of the two stimuli did make the
other an effective stimulus for flexion. The four animals in
group BE, conditioned to bell, responded to light a total of
27 times in the 11 test-periods required to reach zero-response
(Table I). Animals No. 2 and No. 4 made no response to
light. The control animals for this group, group BC, made
no response to light in a total of 4 test-periods (Table II).
Group LE, conditioned to light, responded to bell a total of
56 times in the 16 test-periods needed to produce zero-response
(Table I). All of the animals in this group made some re-
sponse to bell. The control animals for this group, group LC,
responded to bell 4 times in 5 test-periods (Table II). Animal
No. 15 alone showed generalization by responding to bell.
The experimental animals, grouped together, responded to the
stimulus never associated with shock a total of 78 times,
whereas the control animals, similarly grouped, responded to
the stimulus never associated with shock nor with the condi-
tioned stimulus only 4 times. The mean frequency of re-
sponse for the experimental group is 9.75 (S.E. = 4.17) and
the mean frequency of response for the control group is 0.50
(S.E. = 0.50). The mean difference of 9.25 flexion-responses
(S.E. = 4.20 flexion-responses), when subjected to Fisher's
test for the significance of differences between small samples,
SENSORY PRE-CONDITIONING 327
TABLE I
RESULTS OBTAINED FROM THE EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS
The percent scores represent the number of times conditioned flexion occurred
to the conditioned stimulus. Twenty stimulus-presentations were given during each
test-period.
Group BE Group LE
Bell and light given in combination for 2 seconds, 20 times per day for 10 days
Critical Tests
TABLE II
RESULTS OBTAINED FROM THE CONTROL ANIMALS
The percent scores represent the numbers of times conditioned flexion occurred
to the conditioned stimulus. Twenty stimulus-presentations were given during each
test-period.
Group BC Group LC
Critical Tests
I 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0%
0%
DISCUSSION
That the flexion-response is elicited by the stimulus not
associated with shock must be due to an association formed
when the bell and the light were presented contiguously, prior
to the conditioning of flexion to one of them. For the control
animals, which were given identical treatment except for the
200 trials of bell and light in combination, did not respond, or
responded very infrequently to the stimulus which had never
been presented with shock. Some 'bond' must have been
formed between the bell and the light, and some 'trace' of this
bond retained. Such a 'bond' and its 'trace' can only be
inferred, for the phenomenon observed experimentally is
essentially this. Flexion becomes conditioned to a stimulus
which has never been associated with shock, the normal pro-
cedure which produces this conditioning. This phenomenon
is dependent upon two preceding events. First, this stimulus
must be presented contiguously with a second stimulus for a
number of times. Then, the second stimulus must be com-
bined with shock until forelimb flexion to it has been firmly
established. When these two conditions have been fulfilled,
the first stimulus when given alone will evoke flexion. There-
fore, we infer a sensory conditioning between the bell and light
from the behavior observed experimentally, sensory pre-
conditioning.2
It is difficult to make a conjecture as to the nature of the
relationship between the bell and the light. It is extremely
unlikely that an artificial synsesthesia was produced, for
Kelley (3) was unable to develop an artificial chromsesthesia
in humans by presenting tones of different pitches simultane-
ously with lights of various colors. Even under the most
favorable conditions for the appearance of chromaesthesia
J
Cason (1) has used the term sensory conditioning to describe the effect of con-
ditioning one of two sensory stimuli upon the judgment of their relative intensities.
SENSORY PRE-CONDITIONING 331
CONCLUSIONS
1. Dogs given 200 successive combinations of bell and light
will respond with flexion to one of these when the other has
been made a conditioned stimulus for flexion by appropriate
training with shock.
2. The response to the stimulus not associated with shock
is due to the prior association of this stimulus with another
stimulus, this other stimulus having been made a conditioned
stimulus for flexion; for the control animals, which were not
given bell and light in combination, did not respond, or re-
sponded very infrequently to the stimulus never presented
with shock.
3. There is some evidence that the bell is a stronger
stimulus than the light, and therefore will elicit flexion more
often and for a longer time, once bell and light have been given
in combination, and flexion then conditioned to light.
4. The 200 trials of bell and light given in combination
332 W. J. BROGDEN