Journal of

Experimental Psychology
VOL. 25, No.

OCTOBER,

1939

SENSORY PRE-CONDITIONING
BY W. J. BROGDEN
Pavlovian Laboratory, Phipps Psychiatric Clinic,
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

INTRODUCTION

The present investigation was designed to answer the following question: if an organism be given successive experiences
of two temporally simultaneous stimuli exciting two sense
modalities without evoking any observable response, and if
after this contiguous sensory experience, one stimulus be made
a conditioned signal for the activity of a given behaviorsystem by appropriate training, will the other elicit a similar
conditioned response without the usual training?
Several studies have been reported which bear closely upon
this problem. Prokofiev and Zeliony (4) presented human
subjects with the sound of a metronome for 10 seconds and
immediately afterwards gave a rythmical pressure on the skin
of the fore-arm for an additional 10 seconds. This procedure
was followed at intervals of from 3 to 15 minutes, from 5 to
10 times per day for several days. In addition, a whistle was
blown for 5 to 10 seconds from time to time. The tactile
stimulus was then presented without the metronome and followed by an electric shock to the hand. Within a few trials,
reflex retrogression of the arm became conditioned to the
tactile stimulus. When this conditioned response had been
firmly established, the metronome was now presented alone.
Two of the three subjects responded to the metronome with
323

324

W. J. BROGDEN

retrogression of the arm. None of the subjects made any

response to the whistle. In the same paper, these authors
report the following experiment with a dog. Salivation,
evoked by the introduction of hydrochloric acid into the
mouth, was conditioned to the sound of a metronome. With
this conditioned response firmly established, the introduction
of acid into the mouth (without the sounding of the metronome) was then followed immediately by an electric shock to
the foot, evoking flexion. When this combination had been
presented a sufficient number of times to establish firmly
conditioned flexion to the introduction of acid into the mouth,
the metronome was given. To this stimulus, the animal
salivated, but made no foot withdrawal.
Unfortunately, this investigation does not give a complete
answer to the question proposed. There was no control over
generalization of response. So, it is possible that human
subjects conditioned to reflex retrogression of the arm to a
tactile stimulus, without any prior experience of the tactile
stimulus being associated with the sounding of the metronome,
would respond to the sound of the metronome with armwithdrawal. The long duration of the stimuli might tend to
predispose the subject to respond to the stimulus not associated with shock. Furthermore, does response to the
stimulus not associated with shock occur because the sound of
the metronome functions as the equivalent of the tactile
stimulus, or because the subject expects the tactile stimulus to
follow the metronome?
Shipley (5) conditioned the eye wink, evoked by a sudden
tap on the cheek, to the faint flash of an electric light. The
tap on the cheek was now paired with shock to the finger,
until it became an effective stimulus for finger-withdrawal.
The subsequent presentation of the flash produced sudden
withdrawals of the finger in 9 out of 15 subjects. When the
tap on the cheek was given alone, then paired with shock, the
presentation of the light did not evoke finger-withdrawal in
any of 10 subjects. In a second control group the light and
tap on the cheek were first associated; then shock to the finger
was given alone. One of the 11 subjects in this group re-

SENSORY PRE-CONDITIONING

325

sponded to the light by finger-flexion. Later, Shipley (6)

put two groups of 10 subjects each through an experimental
program consisting of two discrete conditioning steps. In
the first step the eye wink was conditioned to a buzz and a
light with one group; the buzz alone was used with the other
group. In the second step, withdrawal of the finger was
conditioned to the flash of a light. When the buzz was
presented alone, it evoked finger-withdrawal in the subjects
of both groups, the percentage of subjects responding being
60 and 70 respectively. Two control groups reveal that
finger-withdrawal did not occur at the test point unless the
test stimulus was one that had been previously used in one of
the two steps in the experiment; and that finger-withdrawal
occurred in but a small percentage of subjects when the shock
employed in the second step had not been paired with an extra
stimulus.
Shipley's experiments do not answer our question, for as in
the case of the experiment of Prokofiev and Zeliony, the
test-stimulus preceded the stimulus through which the association was made. Light and buzz preceded the tap to the
cheek, just as the sound of the metronome preceded the tactile
stimulus. Shipley's results are further complicated for an
answer to the present problem. Light, buzz, and tap to the
cheek all produced a definite motor response, an eye wink.
We seek evidence of a relationship between sensory stimuli,
evoking no phasic activity.
Our problem is stated specifically as follows: if dogs be
given successive stimulations of sound and light in combination contiguously, and if either sound or light be made a
conditioned signal for forelimb flexion from an electricallycharged grid, will the stimulus not involved in conditioning
evoke flexion without being combined with shock?
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
To answer this question, eight mongrel dogs, unselected in any manner, were
placed in the stock of a sound-proofed, light-shielded experimental chamber and
presented with the sound of a bell and theflashof a light in combination for 2 seconds.
The sound was produced by an electric doorbell and the flash of light by a 150 watt
unfrosted electric lamp. Twenty such stimulus combinations were given daily for

326

W. J. BROGDEN

10 successive days. The eight animals were then arbitrarily divided into two groups
of four animals each. Left forelimb flexion, with shock the unconditioned stimulus,
was conditioned to bell in one group (group BE). The bell was 2 seconds in duration
and was followed immediately by the shock which lasted for I/IO of a second. The
second group (group LE) was conditioned to light in a similar manner. Conditioning
proceeded normally, with 20 trials per day as the test-unit; the conditioned stimulus
(either light or bell, as the case might be) evoking flexion with subsequent shockavoidance more and more frequently. The day after conditioned flexion reached
loo percent (20 shock-avoidingflexion-responsesin one test-period), group BE (conditioned to bell) was given 20 trials per day of the light alone, until a score of zeroflexion was reached. Group LE (conditioned to light) was given bell alone until
flexion to bell was extinguished to zero. In order to check on generalization, two
control groups of four animals each were trained. With one group (group BC),
forelimb flexion was conditioned to bell. When 100%flexionto bell was attained,
the light was presented alone. With the other group (group LC), forelimbflexionwas
conditioned to light and when conditioning reached the loo percent level, bell was
given alone. Needless to say, neither of these two groups were given the experience
of bell and light in combination, prior to the conditioning procedure.
QUANTITATIVE RESULTS

The conditioning of one of the two stimuli did make the

other an effective stimulus for flexion. The four animals in
group BE, conditioned to bell, responded to light a total of
27 times in the 11 test-periods required to reach zero-response
(Table I). Animals No. 2 and No. 4 made no response to
light. The control animals for this group, group BC, made
no response to light in a total of 4 test-periods (Table II).
Group LE, conditioned to light, responded to bell a total of
56 times in the 16 test-periods needed to produce zero-response
(Table I). All of the animals in this group made some response to bell. The control animals for this group, group LC,
responded to bell 4 times in 5 test-periods (Table II). Animal
No. 15 alone showed generalization by responding to bell.
The experimental animals, grouped together, responded to the
stimulus never associated with shock a total of 78 times,
whereas the control animals, similarly grouped, responded to
the stimulus never associated with shock nor with the conditioned stimulus only 4 times. The mean frequency of response for the experimental group is 9.75 (S.E. = 4.17) and
the mean frequency of response for the control group is 0.50
(S.E. = 0.50). The mean difference of 9.25 flexion-responses
(S.E. = 4.20 flexion-responses), when subjected to Fisher's
test for the significance of differences between small samples,

SENSORY

PRE-CONDITIONING

327

TABLE I
RESULTS OBTAINED FROM THE EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS

The percent scores represent the number of times conditioned flexion occurred
to the conditioned stimulus. Twenty stimulus-presentations were given during each
test-period.
Group BE
Animal

No. 1

No. a

No. 3

Group LE
No. 4

No. s

No. 6

No. 7

No. 8

Bell and light given in combination for 2 seconds, 20 times per day for 10 days
Bell + shock to left forepaw
I
2

10%
0%
0%

3
4

35%

9O%

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

95%
95%
9O%

9%

100%

0%
0%

50%

111

95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
100%

13

0%
0%
0%

50%

75%
90%

95%
75%
95%
95%

15%

Light - (- shock to left forepaw

0%

0%
0%

10%
0%

15%

35%
25%
15%

15%

10%

20%

35%

0%
0%

55%

30%

70%

15%

65%
95%
100%

10%

55%
75%

20%
20%

0%
20%

30%
40%

20%

75%
85%
75%
70%
80%

75%
50%

55%

90%

95%

60%
30%

95%
100%

90%

65%

95%
100%

70%

0%
0%

90%

90%
85%
ioo%

95%

15
16
17
18

0%

10%

40%
60%

75%
90%

85%

90%

90%
90%

85%

100%

90%

100%
Critical Tests
Bell alone

Light alone
I
2

55%
30%

10%

5%
0%

6
7
8

0%

15%
10%
10%
0%

0%

40%

25%

5%
5%

0%

0%

10%
0%

20%

20%
45%
20%

30%
25%
10%
0%

is significant; such a difference could be expected to occur by

chance not more than twice in ioo random samples.1 The
1
The ratio of any difference to its own standard error is called t. With the /
value one can enter 'Student's' tables and find the p value. When p is .04 (which
signifies that the difference in question might be expected twice in 100 samples drawn
at random from a homogeneous population) or less, the difference is regarded as
significant. A compiete description of this statistical approach is given by Fisher (2).

328

W. J. BROGDEN
TABLE II
RESULTS OBTAINED FROM THE CONTROL ANIMALS

The percent scores represent the numbers of times conditioned flexion occurred
to the conditioned stimulus. Twenty stimulus-presentations were given during each
test-period.
Group BC
Animal

No. 9

No, 10

No. ii

Group LC

No. 12

Bell + shock to left forepaw

I
2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

30%
40%
15%
30%
30%
25%
90%
9O%

II

85%
95%
95%

12
13

100%

IO

No. 13

5%

10%

5%

5%

35%

30%

25%

75%
95%
85%
95%
85%
95%

0%
10%
15%
80%
60%
90%

95%

75%

40%
90%

85%
90%
90%

65%
95%
95%

9%

95%
85%
100%

100%

85%

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
70%

80%

75%

85%
100%

90%
80%
90%
90%

15
16
17
18
19
2O

85%
85%
95%
95%
95%
100%

90%

95%
100%

No. is

No. 16

Light + shock to left forepaw

30%
80%

85%
85%

No. 14

10%
10%
40%
20%

5%
45%

75%
80%

85%
85%
95%
95%
100%

5%
5%
0%
0%
20%
20%
25%

35%
65%
85%
75%
75%
95%
90%

100%

Critical Tests
Bell alone

Light alone
I

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

20%
0%

0%

experimental animals required a total of 27 test-periods (a

mean of 3.75 test-periods; S.E. = 0.85 test-periods) to reach
the zero-response criterion. The control animals required a
total of 9 test-periods (a mean of 1.12 test-periods; S.E. = 0.12
test-periods) to reach the same criterion. The mean difference,
2.63 test-periods (S.E. = 0.86 test-periods) in favor of the
experimental group, is highly significant. When subjected to
Fisher's technique, such a difference could be expected by

SENSORY PRE-CONDITIONING

329

chance only thrice or less in 1000 samples drawn at random.

Therefore, animals given 200 successive experiences of two
discrete sensory stimuli in contiguous combination will respond
with forelimb flexion to one of them, when the other one alone
has been made a conditioned stimulus for forelimb flexion by
appropriate training with shock. The differences both in
frequency and persistence of response to the stimulus never
presented with shock are of statistical significance in favor of
the experimental animals.
It is apparent that all of the animals of group LE responded
to bell in the critical tests whereas only two of the animals
of group BE responded to light. Group LE, then, responded
a mean of 6.00 (S.E. = 8.94) times more often and a mean of
1.25 test-periods (S.E. = 1.79 test-periods) longer to bell,
than the animals of group BE responded to light. These
differences, while not significant, both being expected by
chance 25 in 100 times, do, however, point to a greater effect
from the bell than from the light. This tentative conclusion
becomes strengthened when we find that the animals conditioned to light (both experimental and control) required a
mean of 60 trials more to attain the 100 percent conditioned
response-criterion than did the animals conditioned to bell.
This difference is statistically significant and gives evidence
of the greater strength of the bell. Furthermore, the bell is
rung against a background of silence, while the light, although
emitted by an unfrosted 150 watt bulb, appears upon a background of high luminous intensity. The sound differential is
thus considerably greater than is the differential in visual
brightness. Therefore it is assumed, that because of the
disparity in the intensity of the two stimuli, the measures of
sensory preconditioning (frequency and persistence of flexionresponse) are greater when a test is made with the stronger of
the paired stimuli (bell) than with the weaker one (light).
The experience of 200 trials of bell and light did not effect
the rate of conditioned response acquisition. The animals of
group BE required a mean of 15 more trials to reach 100
percent conditioning than did those of group BC. The ani-

33O

IF. J. BROGDEN

mals of group LE required a mean of 15 trials less to reach the

100 percent response-criterion than their controls, group LC.
In both cases, the differences are of chance expectancy.
DISCUSSION

That the flexion-response is elicited by the stimulus not

associated with shock must be due to an association formed
when the bell and the light were presented contiguously, prior
to the conditioning of flexion to one of them. For the control
animals, which were given identical treatment except for the
200 trials of bell and light in combination, did not respond, or
responded very infrequently to the stimulus which had never
been presented with shock. Some 'bond' must have been
formed between the bell and the light, and some 'trace' of this
bond retained. Such a 'bond' and its 'trace' can only be
inferred, for the phenomenon observed experimentally is
essentially this. Flexion becomes conditioned to a stimulus
which has never been associated with shock, the normal procedure which produces this conditioning. This phenomenon
is dependent upon two preceding events. First, this stimulus
must be presented contiguously with a second stimulus for a
number of times. Then, the second stimulus must be combined with shock until forelimb flexion to it has been firmly
established. When these two conditions have been fulfilled,
the first stimulus when given alone will evoke flexion. Therefore, we infer a sensory conditioning between the bell and light
from the behavior observed experimentally, sensory preconditioning.2
It is difficult to make a conjecture as to the nature of the
relationship between the bell and the light. It is extremely
unlikely that an artificial synsesthesia was produced, for
Kelley (3) was unable to develop an artificial chromsesthesia
in humans by presenting tones of different pitches simultaneously with lights of various colors. Even under the most
favorable conditions for the appearance of chromaesthesia
J

Cason (1) has used the term sensory conditioning to describe the effect of conditioning one of two sensory stimuli upon the judgment of their relative intensities.

SENSORY PRE-CONDITIONING

331

(startle, fatigue, and mescal intoxication), no evidence of a

conditioned chromsesthesia was procured. Suffice it to say
that since one of the stimuli will elicit flexion, when the other
alone has been combined with shock, some relationship must
have been established between the two stimuli when they were
presented together.
Since sensory pre-conditioning is a phenomenon of phasic
activity, it is of importance as a form of behavior-modification. It is a basic principle of psychology that organisms
are capable of making responses in the light of past experience.
Much of this modification in behavior takes place under
circumstances which fit the principles of conditioning. It is
likely that in the commonplace environment of any organism,
the conditions of the experiment on dogs herein reported will
be fulfilled in nature. The experience of two contiguous sensory stimuli completely divorced from any phasic activity is
frequent to any organism. If one of these stimuli becomes
the signal for the response of a given reaction-pattern, the
other will then elicit a similar response.
CONCLUSIONS

1. Dogs given 200 successive combinations of bell and light

will respond with flexion to one of these when the other has
been made a conditioned stimulus for flexion by appropriate
training with shock.
2. The response to the stimulus not associated with shock
is due to the prior association of this stimulus with another
stimulus, this other stimulus having been made a conditioned
stimulus for flexion; for the control animals, which were not
given bell and light in combination, did not respond, or responded very infrequently to the stimulus never presented
with shock.
3. There is some evidence that the bell is a stronger
stimulus than the light, and therefore will elicit flexion more
often and for a longer time, once bell and light have been given
in combination, and flexion then conditioned to light.
4. The 200 trials of bell and light given in combination

332

W. J. BROGDEN

before conditioning did not effect the rate of conditioned

response acquisition.
(Manuscript received March 22, 1939)
REFERENCES

1. CASON, H., Sensory conditioning, / . cxpcr. Psyckol., 1936, 19, 572-591.

2. FISHER, R. A., Application of 'Student's' distribution, Mtlron, 1925, 5, 90-104.
3. KELLEY, E. L., An experimental attempt to produce artificial chromaesthesia by
the technique of the conditioned response, / . exptr. Psychol., 1934, 17, 315-341.
4. PROKOFIEV, G. AND ZELIONY, G., Des modes dissociations cerebrales chez l'homme
et chez les animaux, / . de Psychol., 1926, 23, 1020-1028.
5. SHIPLEY, W. C, An apparent transfer of conditioning, J. gen. Psychol., 1933, 8,
382-391.
6. SHIPLEY, W. C, Indirect conditioning, / . gen. Psychol., 1935, ia, 337-357.