Journal
PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 46, Issue 5, Pages 984-995Publisher
WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00852.x
Keywords
Conditioning; Electrodermal response (skin electric response); Scoring methods
Funding
- U.S. Public Health Service [R01-MH60315]
- Department of Veterans Affairs
- Department of Veterans Affairs, Clinical Sciences RD Service
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Researchers examining skin conductance (SC) as a measure of aversive conditioning commonly separate the SC response into two components when the CS-UCS interval is sufficiently long. This convention drew from early theorists who described these components, the first- and second-interval responses, as measuring orienting and conditional responses, respectively. The present report critically examines this scoring method through a literature review and a secondary data analysis of a large-scale study of police and firefighter trainees that used a differential aversive conditioning procedure (n=287). The task included habituation, acquisition, and extinction phases, with colored circles as the CSs and shocks as the UCS. Results do not support the convention of separating the SC response into first- and second-interval responses. It is recommended that SC response scores be derived from data obtained across the entire CS-UCS interval.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available