title: Acquisition of differential delay eyeblink classical conditioning is independent of awareness.
abstract: There has been debate about whether differential delay eyeblink conditioning can be acquired without awareness of the stimulus contingencies. In 4 experiments, the authors reexamined this question. Older participants were tested with a tone and white noise (Experiment 1) or with 2 tones (Experiment 2). In addition, younger participants were tested with 2 tones (Experiment 3) or with 2 tones plus the parameters from an earlier study that had reported a relationship between conditioning and awareness (Experiment 4). Participants who were designated aware of the stimulus contingencies and participants who were designated unaware exhibited equivalent levels of differential eyeblink conditioning. Awareness of stimulus contingencies is not required for differential delay eyeblink conditioning when simple conditioned stimuli are used.
authors.affiliation: Institute for Neural Computation, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
authors.forename: Christine N
authors.initials: CN
authors.lastname: Smith
authors.forename: Robert E
authors.initials: RE
authors.lastname: Clark
authors.forename: Joseph R
authors.initials: JR
authors.lastname: Manns
authors.forename: Larry R
authors.initials: LR
authors.lastname: Squire
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000367:Age Factors; D000368:Aged; D001288:Attention; D001767:Blinking; D003214:Conditioning, Classical; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008568:Memory; D008875:Middle Aged; D012055:Reinforcement Schedule
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1989 Nov;15(6):1047-60
references.pmid: 2530305
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2002 Jan;28(1):3-26
references.pmid: 11868231
references.citation: Behav Neurosci. 2004 Dec;118(6):1466-8
references.pmid: 15598158
references.citation: Learn Mem. 2003 Nov-Dec;10(6):427-55
references.pmid: 14657256
references.citation: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2001 Jun;1(2):192-8
references.pmid: 12467114
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 1973 Jan;10(1):91-4
references.pmid: 4684239
references.citation: Behav Neurosci. 2003 Dec;117(6):1181-95
references.pmid: 14674839
references.citation: Learn Mem. 1994 Nov-Dec;1(4):217-29
references.pmid: 10467599
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2002 Dec 1;6(12):524-531
references.pmid: 12475713
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1974 Jan;102(1):1-9
references.pmid: 4809655
references.citation: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1989 Jan;52(1):47-51
references.pmid: 2496204
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1991 Sep;120(3):235-53
references.pmid: 1836490
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1992 Apr;99(2):195-231
references.pmid: 1594723
references.citation: Science. 1997 May 23;276(5316):1272-5
references.pmid: 9157889
references.citation: Behav Brain Res. 1983 Apr;8(1):49-68
references.pmid: 6849679
references.citation: Learn Mem. 2000 Sep-Oct;7(5):267-72
references.pmid: 11040257
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1959 Nov;58:376-81
references.pmid: 13833233
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2002 Jan;28(1):32-7
references.pmid: 11868232
references.citation: Behav Neurosci. 1991 Jun;105(3):396-408
references.pmid: 1863361
references.citation: Hippocampus. 2000;10(2):181-6
references.pmid: 10791840
references.citation: Behav Neurosci. 2004 Dec;118(6):1157-65
references.pmid: 15598125
references.citation: Behav Neurosci. 1995 Oct;109(5):819-27
references.pmid: 8554707
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1951 Sep;42(3):183-8
references.pmid: 14880670
references.citation: Behav Neurosci. 2001 Aug;115(4):747-57
references.pmid: 11508714
references.citation: Science. 1998 Apr 3;280(5360):77-81
references.pmid: 9525860
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2002 Jul 1;22(13):5741-8
references.pmid: 12097527
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1977 Jul;5(4):423-9
references.pmid: 24203009
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1982 Mar;10(2):135-40
references.pmid: 7087776
references.citation: Behav Neurosci. 2001 Dec;115(6):1171-9
references.pmid: 11770049