Differentiation of two effector systems by differential Pavlovian conditioning

so CONDITIONED

NAUSEA

PATIENTS:

IN

AND

SEARCH

VOMITING

OF

etiology (perhaps

IN CANCER

MEDIATING

cure;

MECHA-

or

respond Kvale, Arvc

Hclge

Nordby,

Department

Dag Ilammrrborg

and Kenneth

University

number

Hospital.

of treatments

Bergen.

are reliable

ment of conditioned

nauea

patients

undergoing variability

hypothesized

that

lion with self-rated of CNV. \kin

anxiety

conductance

paradigm

before

registered

in connection

treatment

period.

in cancer

explain

indi-

development.

We

reactivity

for the development

finger in

The

pulse volume ;I

tone

Nausea

CNV

#CNV-group.

and

did

OF TWO

DIFFERENTIAL

Harald

increased

post-in-

of Gicssen. We\t

experiments

effector

SYSTEMS

BY

CONDITIONING

<;crmany

were run in order procedure

systems (SCR:

aympathctic

to establish a differcn-

;dlows to differentiate

skin conductance

rtimuli

(US).

US1 wa\

ol

to the

reactivity

in

I (N =

In Experiment were

paired

with

(CS3. CS3) remained

CS2).

unpaired.

no ER differentiation

whereas

In Experiment (34

were paired on

SCR

Significant

CSs

we used on acquisi-

SCR differentiation

2 (N = 17) the same sequence

and

unpaired

of CSs was and C‘S3 and

with air puff. The main focus here was on conditioning.

No

ER differentiation

In Experiment

115well as on potential SCR

side

differentiation

but

was observed.

3 (N = 50) again the \ame sequence of (5s (51

and CS2 were paired with noise and

CS3 and CS3 were paired with air puff. differentiation

(CS)

were observed.

wa\ used. however.

NON-

stimuli two other

The main focus here was on

used, however, CSI and CS2 remained

effects

TO TlIRIVE

uncondi-

noise. US2 was an air

70) two conditioned

noise (CS1,

the acquisition of ER conditioning

of (‘NV.

FOR

a white

two

response; ER: eyelid

the effect of the special trial architecture

in sympathetic

CATEGORIES

that

puff.

II significantly

as compared

that differences

DEPRIVED

EFFECTOR

PAVLOVIAN

response) within a subject design with two different

the 2nd and the

reveal

for the development

FAILURE

ot

Lachnit

University

significant

EMPIRICALLY

and

will be addrrsscd.

tioned

with development

however

We conclude

is predictive

ORGANIC

feeding interaction\

habituation

1 I did not develop CNV

response-pattern

indicating

the CNV-group.

per-

in the treatment

especially

tial conditioning

and vomiting were

between

did not correlate

CNV-group

the choice ot treat-

interaction

tion of SCR conditioning. anxiety

psy-

how to

of an interactional

anxiety was

Of the 23 patients that experienced

cardiovascular

reactivity

subtypes affect importance

severe

and/or

characteristics

with infusions, and weekly during the

occasion (CNV-group).

Self-rated different

The

a\

needs

spcctive that focuses on child and parent

Three

23 experienced

began. Self-rated

each treatment.

as indi-

(# CNV-group). (‘NV.

These

for NOFTT.

such

of child

alone or in combinn-

of which

recorded

12 developed

5th treatment

either

is predictive

the treatment

registered

fusion nausea,

autonomic

Heart-rate.

were

before

to them.

ignorance

DIFFERENTIATION

for the develop-

but cannot

participated.

nausea.

ment

NOFTT

(CNV)

of CNV

paradigm,

35 patients

post-injection

predictors

course

sympathetic

cated in a habituation

of Bergen and

Norway

and vomiting

chemotherapy,

in the

Lotc.

or

but for whom there ia no medical

characteristics.

and the severity of poht-infusion

nausea and vomiting

vidual

Knut

Hugdahl

of Somatic Psychology, University

Haukeland The

Aahjbqrnsen. Bengt Rosengren.

unknown)

parent

chopathology

NISMS

Gerd

(f)

and significant

ER

t lere.

significant

differentiation

SCR

were

ob-

qe1ved. Juliana

Lachrnmeycr

North

Shol-c

I Iospital.

University

Manhax\et,

New

York.

U.S.A. THE The diagnosis of Non-Organic often

made

findings. NOFTT

in the

research

following

diagnosed

categories: affect

problem<

who because feedings.

tects eating.

of their

Central

indicate

empirically

derived

the

with physical problems

that

with B variety

of physical

such as II conditioned

medical

(c) children

conditions hunger

neurodevelopmental

whose poor eating

(c)

have had

have not associated

INTERINDIVIDUAL

VARIABILITY

NEGATIVITY

medical Lang

or have not learned whose poor

AND

MISMATCH

University

affect eating.

and therefore

INTRA-

OF THE

A. Heikki

evidence

to food or to some aspects of feeding:

nonoral

cues: (d) children

of clear

is that

(a) children

children

pleasure

(NOFTT)

grouping. The present study of

eating; (b) children

aversive response

take with

absence

as NOFTT

that indirectly

To Thrive

& clinical

is not a homogeneou\

IH children directly

by exclusion

Current

Failure

oral in-

and satiety level af-

has an organic

The

Hospital.

use of cognitive

system diaorders

ERPs

Turku,

Finland

in the study of central

is often compromised

as the subject may not be able to cooperate recording

of the mismatch

any co-operation

of the

negativity patient.

dependence

is reliable of MMN

iced variables:

on different

age: vigilance:

We

it might

be a

is. however.

that

have studied

the

physiological

auditive

The

doea not need

Therefore.

and sensitive.

it$etf,

adequately.

(MMN)

useful clinical diagnostic tool. A prerequisite the method

nervous

by the disorder

and patholog-

discrimination

sensitiv-