Instrumental-Avoidance Conditioning Versus Classical Conditioning In Electrodermal Audiometry
Instrumental-avoidance conditioning and classical conditioning as utilized in electrodermal audiometry were compared within a group of 18 normal hearing subjects, a second group of 18 subjects with sensori-neural hearing losses and a third group of 18 subjects suspected of having nonorganic hearing losses. Statistically significant differences and consistent trends suggest that instrumental-avoidance conditioning provided stronger conditioning, greater resistance to adaptation, and better discrimination learning than did classical conditioning within all three groups of subjects. Between-groups comparisons suggest that nonvolunteer subjects are more responsive than volunteer subjects during EDA when electric shock is utilized as the unconditioned stimulus.