Human Pavlovian HR decelerative conditioning with negative tilt as US: a review of some S-R, stimulus-substitution evidence.

Interest in human Pavlovian heart rate (HR) conditioning with conventional shock and loud noise unconditional stimuli has declined, as measured by reports in the literature. Accompanying this decline have been the following views: (a) that HR should be abandoned as a psychophysiological index of the psychological (learning) process of Pavlovian conditioning; (b) that, following psychology's shift to a more cognitive emphasis, the self-regulation (S-R), stimulus-substitution view of pavlovian conditioning is wrong, because there is no equivalence in direction between shock- and loud noise-induced HR-accelerative unconditional response and the conditional response. This paper reviews recent reports of human Pavlovian conditioning of HR deceleration with negative tilt as the unconditional stimulus. The results support an S-R, stimulus-substitution interpretation of conditioning. In addition, these studies have potential therapeutic application in the teaching of (medically desirable) HR deceleration, especially when Pavlovian procedures are combined with instrumental (biofeedback) ones. However, such physiological aspects of the decelerative unconditioned response as the degree of vagal involvement are difficult to investigate in the human preparation.

Specific versus placebo effects in biofeedback training: a critical lay perspective.

Recent interchanges on the question of how to evaluate biofeedback have been cast in terms of a researcher versus clinician dichotomy. This tends to make the arguments ad hominem and focuses attention on minutiae that are of limited general interest. Accordingly, one purpose of the present paper is to state the specific-effects approach to biofeedback evaluation from a critical lay, rather than a research, perspective. The logic of the specific-effects approach to treatment evaluation is first illustrated by a hypothetical example (the Minefield Parable), and it is then suggested that the approach is appropriate for the evaluation of any treatment, be it physical, psychological, or some complex combination. The other purpose of the paper is to further clarify the specific-effects position by responding to some difficulties that have been raised by critics of the position. Some of these difficulties are based on misrepresentations of the position, while others are genuine. However, even for the genuine difficulties, practical solutions are available. The paper concludes that the question of whether a particular class of treatments works is one that is properly raised by the intelligent consumer, and that, for the answer to that question, only the facts, based on adequately controlled clinical studies, will do.

Specific versus placebo effects in biofeedback: some brief back-to-basics considerations.

Following the semantic complexities raised in earlier papers, this paper seeks to return to some of the more basic considerations arising from the preceding discussion. A critical part of the context of that discussion is the increasingly important issue of accountability. In this context, the citing of supportive studies is not enough; one must also be able to justify the logical relevance of those studies. The discussion therefore turns on the logic of treatment evaluation, which must be treated as objectively as possible. Also critical is the distinction between the question of whether an effect is present and the question of what the source of that question might be. In the quest for treatment evaluation, only the former question is important. However, this quest is one that is in the interest of researchers, clinicians, and consumers, for all of whom only the facts will do.

On some research-community contributions to the myth and symbol of biofeedback.

This paper suggests that some of the responsibility for the misrepresentations of biofeedback noted by Kimmel (Int. J. Psychophysiol., 1986, 3: 211-218) rests with the research community's treatment of the topic. With regard to the "myth" of biofeedback, it is argued that, after Miller's (Science, 1969, 163: 434-445) influential paper, most researchers' treatment of the proper-control-for-biofeedback problem was one that selectively lowered normal methodological standards, and therefore produced results that were improperly interpreted as evidence for biofeedback (or instrumental conditioning). The shift from instrumental conditioning to biofeedback terminology, which was based primarily on political ideology rather than on logic, may have been made easier by a reluctance on the part of the scientific community to engage in reflective analyses of concepts and definitional problems.

An experimental psychophysiological approach to human bradycardiac reflexes.

Bradycardic reflexes in man are both of scientific and clinical interest. Using the methods of experimental psychophysiology, control over relevant independent variables permits the study of fine-grained temporal physiologic response topographies, and of psychological factors that may modify the reflex. In addition, information can also be sought through interdisciplinary collaborations with experimental physiologists in order to shed light on the mechanism of the reflexes. These general features of the approach are illustrated by presenting data on two bradycardic reflex preparations: the laboratory dive analog, and the 90-degree negative tilt. The dive-analog studies have shown that a) the dive-reflex proper is a late-occurring bradycardia accompanied by a late-occurring vasoconstriction; and b) for the elicitation of this reflex, both breath-holding and face immersion are necessary. In addition, the physiologic manipulation of temperature affects the reflex in an inverse way over the range of 10 degrees to 40 degrees C, while the sense of control (a psychological variable) attenuates the reflex. The negative-tilt preparation produces a bradycardic response that is ideal as a Pavlovian unconditional response. Some Pavlovian conditioning arrangements, especially an "imaginational" form, do produce significant conditional bradycardic responding, and this has both potential clinical (e.g., biofeedback-related) and theoretical (e.g., S-R vs. S-S accounts of Pavlovian conditioning) applications. The paper ends with a comment on the cognitive paradigm shift in psychology. Although this shift is of importance, it is suggested that it is also important to "remember the response."

Heart-rate decelerative Pavlovian conditioning with tilt as UCS: towards behavioural control of cardiac dysfunction.

As part of a programme the ultimate goal of which is to teach behavioural control of stress-induced maladaptive cardiac accelerations through Pavlovian decelerative conditioning, this study was directed at examining the feasibility of using tilting of the body from a head-up to a head-down position as the unconditional stimulus (UCS) to elicit phasic cardiac deceleration as the unconditional response (UCR). Experiment I assessed the reflexive features of the cardiac response to 32 tilt UCS trials delivered at mean intervals of 75 sec. The results yielded a large-magnitude (over 30 BsPM) cardiac decelerative UCR with fast recruitment and complete resistance to habituation. Experiment II examined the feasibility of using the tilt UCS to demonstrate associative control over decelerative responding to a tone as the conditional stimulus (CS). Relative to a control 'backward' UCS-CS group with an interstimulus interval (ISI) of 14.5 sec, a 0.5 sec ISI CS-UCS experimental group demonstrated both orderly acquisition and extinction performance. The magnitude of the conditional deceleration of some 4 BsPM is greater than the extent of control generally achieved with biofeedback, but still constitutes a problem for theoretical accounts of classical conditioning framed in terms of stimulus substitution, and is still only of borderline clinical significance.

Test of an orienting-reaction-recovery account of short-interval autonomic conditioning.

The electrodermal and plethysmographic components of the orienting reaction in 24 subjects were examined in a conditioning-analog arrangement (tones and lights patterned analogously to CS and UCS presentations in classical conditioning) in order to test the orienting-reaction-recovery (ORR) account according to which apparent short-interval autonomic conditioning (SIAC) can be completely accounted for by an ORR effect. The form of the test was to see whether ORR following change from a repeatedly presented forward ('CS-UCS') analog would exceed that to change from a backward ('UCS-CS') analog, as is the case in SIAC with CS-alone test trials following repeated CS-UCS versus UCS-CS pairings. The results did not support the ORR account, although they were shown to be consistent with the relevant experimental literature, when critically examined, and to provide internal evidence for the adequacy of the present test of this particular formulation of the ORR account of SIAC.

Human Pavlovian decelerative cardiac conditioning based on a respiratory-induced cardiac deceleration as an unconditional reflex.

This study was directed at examining the feasibility of using a respiratory-induced cardiac decelerative reflex as an unconditioned response (UCR) in a Pavlovian conditioning paradigm. Experiment I assessed the reflexive features of the cardiac response under a respiratory procedure which involved 3 sec of exhalation, 4 sec of inhalation, and then 30 sec of breath-holding (BH). The results indicated that the BH onset aspect of this respiratory cycle involved a phasic, large-magnitude cardiac deceleration (27 beats/min) with short latency, fast recruitment, and no indication of habituation over trials. Experiment II examined the feasibility of using BH onset as an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) in a Pavlovian paradigm by presenting an auditory conditional stimulus (CS) 1 sec prior to the instructed BH aspect of the respiratory cycle. A separate control condition involved presenting the CS 10 sec after BH onset which constituted a 'backward' conditioning control. The results indicated that the conditioning group displayed a significant cardiac deceleration on CS-alone test trials (under normal breathing) in contrast to the absence of such an effect for the control group. In brief, the study suggested that a decelerative conditioned response (CR) could be established by using a respiratory-induced cardiac deceleration as a Pavlovian UCS. Potential clinical applications of such a decelerative CR were noted.