Abstract
When recognition memory was well formed, stimulus novelty not only failed to elicit the orienting reflex in the form of pupillary dilation, but elicited pupillary constriction instead, demonstrating the relation of negative induction in the original sense of Pavlov’s theory relating the mechanisms of the pupillary orienting reflex to recognition memory.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Archer, J. E. A re-evaluation of the meaningfulness of all possible CVC trigrams. Psychological Monographs, 1960, 74(Whole No. 10).
Beatty, J., & Kahneman, D. Pupillary changes in two memory tasks. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 5, 371–372.
Hess, E. Attitude and pupil size. Scientific American, 1965, 212, 46–54
Pavlov, I. P. Conditioned reflex. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1927 (Dover, 1960).
Pavlov, I. P. Lectures on conditioned reflex. New York: International Publisher, 1928.
Sokolov, Ye.N. Perception and the conditioned reflex. New York: Pergamon, 1963.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This study was partially supported by National Science Foundation Research Fund 65-1-746 to Southern Colorado State College.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gardner, R.M., Mo, S.S. & Borrego, R. Inhibition of pupillary orienting reflex by novelty in conjunction with recognition memory. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 3, 237–238 (1974). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03333458
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03333458