At 8:56 AM -0400 9/5/01, Kenneth M. Steele wrote:
>Chuck:
>
>Classical conditioning of paramecia has been a controversial
>topic. One problem in the case below is that both the CS and
>the UCS are the same type of event thus making it difficult to
>determine whether or not the backing up represents some kind of
>temporal summation of effects of both stimuli.
>
>One needs to run a series of tests to separate true conditioning
>from pseudoconditioning.
>
>Here is a reference to a study that may provide some help on
>these issues...
>
>Hennessey, T. M., Rucker W. B., & McDiarmid, C. G. (1979).
>Classical conditioning in paramecia. Animal Learning &
>Behavior, 7, 417-423.
Actually, I have some doubts about that study, since it was done in our
department and I was helping with it.
The main observation was done by Todd Hennessey, a grad student of Bill
Rucker's.
Since it was a somewhat subjective judgement call on the movement of a
paramecia in response to a stimulus (vibration -- a microscope slide was
mounted on a speaker cone) I suspect a strong demand effect.
As far as I know, this study was never replicated.
BTW -- Bill Rucker also claimed to have demonstrated operant conditioning
with the same experimental model.
Of course, he was also convinced that learning was molecular, and
(semiseriously) agreed with Aristotle that the brain's main function was
colling the blood.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
