Harding G B, Hagman J D
J Exp Psychol Hum Learn. 1977 Sep;3(5):600-7.
Experiment 1 presented human subjects with 25 shocks of the same (.5, 1.5, or 2.5 mA:between-subjects design) or different (.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 mA:within-subjects design) intensities to test predictions of the dual-process, cortical-model, and adaptation-level theories concerning terminal electrodermal response (EDR) magnitudes in an habituation paradigm. Dual-process theory correctly predicted terminal EDR magnitudes and relative EDR habituation rates. Dual-process theory was further supported in Experiment 3 when EDR magnitude to a standard intensity shock (1.25 mA) decreased with the intensity of a second comparison shock (0, .5, 1.25, or 2.5 mA) only up to the 1.25-mA level, as the common-elements construct of the dual-process theory predicts. Adaptation level incorrectly predicted that standard stimulus EDR magnitude would decrease as comparison intensity, hence adaptation level, increased. Forewarning subjects of each shock intensity increased EDR magnitude in Experiments 2 and 3 contrary to the cortical-model theory's prediction based on subjective stimulus uncertainty.
实验1让人类受试者接受25次相同强度（0.5、1.5或2.5毫安：组间设计）或不同强度（0.5、1.0、1.5、2.0和2.5毫安：组内设计）的电击，以检验双过程理论、皮层模型理论和适应水平理论在习惯化范式中关于终末皮电反应（EDR）大小的预测。双过程理论正确地预测了终末EDR大小和相对EDR习惯化率。在实验3中，当对标准强度电击（1.25毫安）的EDR大小随着第二次比较电击（0、0.5、1.25或2.5毫安）的强度增加而降低，且仅降至1.25毫安水平时，双过程理论得到了进一步支持，正如双过程理论的共同元素结构所预测的那样。适应水平理论错误地预测，标准刺激的EDR大小会随着比较强度（即适应水平）的增加而降低。与皮层模型理论基于主观刺激不确定性的预测相反，在实验2和3中，提前告知受试者每次电击的强度会增加EDR大小。
