嫌悪刺激の制御におよぼす信号の効果

山崎 勝之; 宮田 洋

doi:10.4992/jjpsy.51.25

THE EFFECT OF SIGNALLING UPON CONTROL OF AN AVERSIVE STIMULUS

KATSUYUKI YAMASAKI, YO MIYATA

Author information

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

1980 Volume 51 Issue 1 Pages 25-32

DOI https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.51.25

Details

Published: May 20, 1980 Received: June 19, 1979 Available on J-STAGE: July 16, 2010 Accepted: - Advance online publication: - Revised: -
Correction information
Date of correction: July 16, 2010 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : When an aversive stimulus follows a signal which enables the organism to predict when the following aversive stimulus will come, some of his physiological and psychological responses to this aversive stimulus must become different from those without a signal. On one occasion they may become inhibitory, on another facilitatory. In this article, the former phenomenon is called the “inhibitory effect”, the latter “facilitatory effect”, and both together are called the “signalling effect”.
This study had the following two main purposes: The first was to make clear the characteristics of the signalling effect in some fundamental situations, using the signal-aversive stimulus interval (ISI) as the main independent variable; the second purpose was to investigate whether Perkins' preparatory response (PR) theory and Lykken's negative preception (NP) hypothesis can explain the inhibitory effect.
The aversive stimulus was a white noise, presented for 100ms at 110dB, and the signal was a red light or a 900Hz pure tone of 65dB. As a physiological index, the eyeblink reflex was measured, and as a psychological one, the 180°-rotation type of subjective aversiveness rating was measured.
In Exp. I, the sensitivity of the two indices was investgated. Eight undergraduates received five each of the four-intensity aversive stimuli (80, 90, 100, and 110dB). The results showed that both indices had a very fine linear increasing function against the increase of aversive stimulus intensity (see Fig. 1), so they seem to be quite appropriate to study the signalling effect.
In Exp. II, the signalling effect was investigated in a very fundamental situation, where the ISI independent variable was operated in the between-subjects design. That is, by the difference in the ISI, three groups (each n=8) were used: Long-signalled group, Group LS (ISI=8s), short-signalled group, Group SS (ISI=.5s), and non-signalled group, Group NS. Each group received 20 trials, and the ITI varied randomly between 20 and 40s with a mean of 30s. Regarding Group NS as the control group, the results indicated that for the eyeblink reflex the facilitatory effect of Group LS and the inhibitory one of Group SS were significant, and that those effects had no learning factor (see Fig. 2). Also in the aversiveness rating, taking into account Masuda's (1978) study which revised some defects of the present experiment, a similar tendency seemed to exist (see Fig. 3).
In Exp. III, the ISI independent variable was operated in the within-subjects design. Each of 24 subjects received 20 each of Conditions LS, SS, and NS. The results indicated that for the eyeblink reflex only the inhibitory effect of Condition SS was significant (see Fig. 4), and that for the aversiveness rating the facilitatory effect of Condition LS and the inhibitory effect of Condition SS were both significant (see Fig. 5). In addition, those effects had no learning factor. As for the preference-for-signalling phenomenon, Condition SS was most often preferred.
It seems likely then that regardless of the index, the facilitatory effect in the 8-s ISI condition and inhibitory one in the .5-s ISI both occur. Moreover, the fact that these effects contained no learning factor indicates that the PR and NP notions are both invalid. Accordingly, a new theory must be looked for especially by inspecting carefully some responses in the ISI and by operating finely the characteristics of the signal.
Right : An aversive stimulus with a signal elicits responses different from those for a stimulus without a signal. The characteristics of this phenomenon, called “signalling effect”, were clarified in this study. In Exp. I, the eyeblink reflex and 180°-rotation type of aversiveness rating were shown to be sensitive enough to study this effect. Three conditions which differed from each other in the ISI were used in a between-subjects design in Exp. II, and in a within-subjects design in Exp. III. The results of both experiments were as follows: The facilitatory signalling effects in the 8-s ISI condition and inhibitory ones in the .5-s ISI were found to be significant regardless of the index. Moreover, these effects had no learning factor.

Abstract

An aversive stimulus with a signal elicits responses different from those for a stimulus without a signal. The characteristics of this phenomenon, called “signalling effect”, were clarified in this study. In Exp. I, the eyeblink reflex and 180°-rotation type of aversiveness rating were shown to be sensitive enough to study this effect. Three conditions which differed from each other in the ISI were used in a between-subjects design in Exp. II, and in a within-subjects design in Exp. III. The results of both experiments were as follows: The facilitatory signalling effects in the 8-s ISI condition and inhibitory ones in the .5-s ISI were found to be significant regardless of the index. Moreover, these effects had no learning factor.

Corresponding author

Correction information

Register with J-STAGE for free!