PubMed · 5665807
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R M Lerner. 1968. Semantic conditioning and generalization.. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1968.22.3c.1257
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
This paper describes the neural basis and the role of Pavlovian conditioning in the modification of blood glucose and related endocrine parameters after repeated insulin and glucose administration. Pavlovian conditioning requires that conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US) are both detected in the central nervous system (CNS), where the CS-US association takes place. We will therefore elucidate the detectability of insulin and glucose in the CNS. Since current data focus almost exclusively on animals, we conducted a placebo-controlled insulin conditioning experiment in humans (Experiment 1). Compared with the control group with CS-placebo pairings throughout, the experimental group with previous CS-insulin pairings in the acquisition phase showed a conditioned decrease in blood glucose and a trend for a conditioned baseline insulin increase, and an increase in cortisol levels relative to baseline and cumulative number of neuroglycopenic symptoms in the CS-placebo test session. The conditionability of glucose administration also had to be examined; experiments using an arbitrary CS and glucose are extremely rare, even in animals. Glucose is the natural stimulus for endogenous insulin secretion, so studies on cephalic-phase insulin release (CPIR) will be reviewed in this paper. We implemented a placebo-controlled three-group design (Experiment 2): Subjects received either CS-insulin, CS-glucose or CS-placebo pairings during the acquisition. Together, our results demonstrate the conditionability mainly of insulin, but also of glucose effects in healthy humans. The clinical relevance and future research perspectives are outlined with an emphasis on insulin in the brain and its role in learning and memory.
We evaluated whether Pavlovian conditioning methods could be used to increase the ingestion of non-preferred solutions by formula-fed human infants. In baseline measures, 5-7 month old infants sucked less frequently and consumed less water than regular formula. During a 3-day olfactory conditioning period, parents placed a small scented disk, the conditioned stimulus, on the rim of their infants' formula bottle at every feeding. Following this training, infants' responses to water were tested when their water bottles had a disk scented with the training odor, a novel odor, or no odor. Infants tested with the training odor sucked more frequently and consumed significantly more water than they had at baseline. Infants tested with no odor or a novel odor consumed water at or below baseline levels. These data demonstrate that olfactory conditioning can be used to enhance ingestion in infants and suggest that such methods may be useful for infants experiencing difficulty when making transitions from one diet to another.
Reinstatement and reactivation are procedurally different reminder paradigms used with infants and children, but most developmental psychologists do not distinguish between them. In 4 experiments with 102 three-month-olds, we asked if they differ functionally as well. Independent groups of infants received either a reactivation or a reinstatement reminder 3 days after training, when the memory is active, but its specific details have been forgotten. In Experiment 1, we measured retention after increasing delays until infants forgot altogether. A single reinstatement protracted retention twice as long after training as a single reactivation. In Experiments 2-4, whether the reminder was the original training stimulus or a novel one differentially affected the duration and specificity of memory in the 2 procedures as well. These data demonstrate that the distinction between reinstatement and reactivation is not artificial. In addition to differing procedurally, reinstatement and reactivation differ functionally, with different memory-preserving effects.