Psychosomatic Medicine Tips for Better Browsing
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by BRACKBILL, Y.
Right arrow Articles by FITZGERALD, H. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by BRACKBILL, Y.
Right arrow Articles by FITZGERALD, H. E.

Psychosomatic Medicine 30:193-201 (1968)
© 1968 American Psychosomatic Society

Differences in the Autonomic and Somatic Conditioning of Infants

YVONNE BRACKBILL PH.D.1, LARRY M. LINTZ PH.D.1, and HIRAM E. FITZGERALD PH.D.1

1 Behavior Development Laboratory, Department of Psychology, University of Denver, Denver, Colo.

Temporal and auditory classical conditioning of an autonomic response (pupillary reflex) and a somatic response (eyeblink) were attempted in 4 separate experiments with clinically normal human infants. Time as a conditional stimulus (CS) was effective for conditioning pupillary dilation and constriction, but sound as CS was ineffective. Conversely, sound was effective for conditioning eyeblinking, but time was not. These discrepancies in conditionability were related to (1) the parameters comprising the classical conditioning paradigms employed, and (2) the implications of infant learning for developmental neurophysiology.

Submitted on June 20, 1967






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1968 by the American Psychosomatic Society