Both trace and delay conditioned eyeblink responding can be dissociated from outcome expectancy.

Abstract

Squire and colleagues have proposed that trace and delay eyeblink conditioning are fundamentally different kinds of learning: trace conditioning requires acquisition of a conscious declarative memory for the stimulus contingencies whereas delay conditioning does not. Declarative memory in trace conditioning is thought to generate conditioned responding through the activation of a conscious expectancy for when the unconditioned stimulus (US) is going to occur. Perruchet (1985) has previously shown that in a 50% partial reinforcement design it is possible to dissociate single cue delay eyeblink conditioning from conscious expectancy for the US by examining performance over runs of reinforced and nonreinforced trials. Clark, Manns, and Squire (2001) claim that this dissociation does not occur in trace eyeblink conditioning. In the present experiment we examined the Perruchet effect for short, moderate, and long trace intervals (600, 1000, and 1400 ms) and for the equivalent interstimulus intervals (ISIs) in a delay conditioning procedure. We found evidence for a dissociation of eyeblink CRs and US expectancy over runs regardless of whether there was a delay or a trace arrangement of cues. The reasons for the Perruchet effect are still unclear, but the present data suggest that it does not depend on a separate nondeclarative system of the type proposed by Squire and colleagues.