Posted by Angielala on February 5, 2004, at 11:48:44
In reply to Re: Never mind, i figured it out, posted by dragonfly25 on February 5, 2004, at 11:35:33
Sheesh- I see what you mean. Was the cat example the most common? Are there examples in which the rection (B) beforehand would be something random like "1", even though you cannot directly relate the reaction to the action? maybe something like 1/.9+1 would that bring you anywhere closer to a "normal" suppression? Man- did tha tmake any sense- haha
> well i can try to explain....but i didn't do very well on my test :-). what it was that i didn't understand was how you get the A and Bs. but i discovered that A is # of CS- number of times something responds to a conditioned stimulus. and B is the number of times something responed before conditioning (US). so the equation then is B/A+B
> say you trained a cat to come to the sound of a can opener....before training it didn't react= 0
> aafter training the cat responds, say 9/10 times. so that would be 0/.9+0 = 0 which is full suppression. AHHHHHHH!!
> ok i don't know what im talking about this isn't working....I guess this is why i didn't do very well! I don't think i explained that right because no matter wjhat # u put in you get 0. i thiought i had it....anyone else?
poster:Angielala
thread:308903
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040131/msgs/309762.html