Doc 0000173702

- ... .. -~·.·.~ ..··.-. ~----~~--~ J~ . ·---~--> . _:- . :. ·. .,:. ... . ~ .... - .~ . ·. ·: _. .. -~ ··~· .- .,... ~. . . ... ~--- .. 2l. June lr;l>7 -···- :· ''• • o4" • •• .. ~ .• . . . /; ' · _ : , t . . . . - .. ·---~~ .. , - .. . . ; :· _ .. . - _ ·. . _. · . " . ': ----· .· . ( il". : ... .... ':!! v· .·. .. . > .· . -----~­ El1~l.osed :t'~-~--Qt pa.~_ is your the / wbich 1s to be submitted tor J:u'bllcc.ticn 1n the j~ P:;;ychO"r;h;rsiolo&;r. . , . ' . -~.; . 'l'he e...~icl.e an edited has been t~ clen.red tor ~lica.tion 1n " -·. . :open-llterti.ture with the proviso that no Agc:ney n.-'"fillt?.tion will. be ,; ..:. ·· reveol.ed. .. .. , .. . . ·:. . ~- '· ., :P· ·.·:' ·.· :·· . ' ---, -; .· .... .. ~ .-. . . ,. . •. . ~- .. _: : ·-.·· ---------~-------- -1- OPERAllr ru;nm'ORCEl~:: OF A }:r:DIAn:D AUICltOl-UC RESPOZ:SE and some other psychologists have argued th&t there are two M~-.rer distinct cethcds of conditioning or learning (roughly, classical con- ditioning and instrumental learning). FU~~ermore they have insisted thnt leo.rnine; cannot 'be reduced to cls.asico.l instrumen~Ql condition~ng, and teat classical conditioning cannot be by the laws ~~lnined o~ instrt.=ental learning. As evidenct:, Y.owrer points to the tact that autonomic responses and skeletal responses are qualitatively different as they are given in llllture. "Here .we are assu:ing that bebavior&l· responses are different e:otional responses: the categoric~ly fr~ ror.uer are 'voluntary' ar.ti s-;.Wject to in:flueuce through reward .and punishment (and not conditionable, 3trictly spe:l!dnc;), wherea.~ the latter are involuntary and and not saoject to control conditio~'ble -:hrougn re\iard and punishment, or at least not in the same way a.s are tne overt behavioral responses." (~towrer, 1960.) are in3tances or of an ~nere every~ apparent.leo.rrd~ auton~c response through rewnrd; Skinner cites the chUd v4o cried "real teers" because bid been l'ollaw"ed by ut-.;ention and candy in the past, and ~ears \ recently s~~e exper1ment6l ev1cicnc~. - !has shorm tbat aut.ono:;o.:i c 1.·esponses can be directly modi.fie<.i by response contingent reinforce:::1ent. liowever, it 1s not possible to rule cut the effect o!' skeleUU. The image displays a digital representation of a document's header, featuring a stylized title "THE BLACK VAULT" in bold, white, wavy lettering against a dark, textured background with a blue glow. To the left, a detailed illustration of a vault door is visible, complete with a large wheel and intricate locking mechanisms, rendered in metallic grays and blues. The right side of the image contains text explaining that the document was obtained from "The Black Vault," an online database of declassified government documents, specifically mentioning the MKULTRA/Mind Control Collection. The text also provides a URL for accessing this collection. There are no photographs, handwritten annotations, signatures, official stamps, forms, diagrams, tables, or visual evidence of experimental procedures present. This is a scanned document with significant visual noise due to age and scanning quality, including black speckles and faint lines. At the top right, a date "21 June 1967" is visible. The main body of the page contains typed text, addressed to "Dear Dr." and discussing the submission of a "final draft of the paper" for publication in the journal "Psychophysiology." There are handwritten annotations at the bottom right corner, specifically the circled number "218," and various faint line drawings resembling boxes and brackets across the page. No photographs, official stamps, or filled-in forms are present. The content textually references an article and publication, but there is no visual depiction of experimental procedures, equipment, or facilities. chUd v4o cried "real teers" because bid been l'ollaw"ed by ut-.;ention and candy in the past, and ~ears \ recently s~~e exper1ment6l ev1cicnc~. - !has shorm tbat aut.ono:;o.:i c 1.·esponses can be directly modi.fie<.i by response contingent reinforce:::1ent. liowever, it 1s not possible to rule cut the effect o!' skeleUU. me~ating recponses in ar.y c!" these co.ses. lt the o.utonanic reaponse 1n question ic clic1~~~ uy en uncbservca skeletal response, it -------------------------- -2- is possible tbot of the evidence tor apparent learning ~ autono~ic merely reflects the parasitic reinforcement or the undcrlyinc skeletal renponse. some authors (Kendler, 1962) hnvc inBistcd that even the po:::dbility of nkcletal mediators is sufficient. to reject the bypotnE:du of nutonoor.ic throueh direct reinforcement.· · leornit~g The mediation explanntion asserts that the mediator is n s~clctal response which precedes and elicitc the As n result auton~ic re~ponse. ot rewarding the autonomic rf!sponse, the e:keletnl renponse i:: parasiti~ reinforced and learned. Thus it is implied that a typicnl negatively accelerated learning curve wculd develop tor the skeletAl response. It is also implied that the variability in the autonomic response can be fully explained by the changes in the frequency of the underlyin; skeletal response. · In the present experiment, it ill proposed to set up an e:-.-plic:it cedi sting skeletal response which elicits a drop ir. galvanic skin resistance, and then reinforce the elicited re::ponse. ~uton=!.c If the mediation explanation is correct, it should be possible to discover both the negativ el.y accele:'B.ted. curve·. of the skeletal response and explain the ot the elicited autonomic response. It t~ variabili~y f!:.1!1'Y' al.so be posG!ble to compere these findings with the results of tba earlier studies where an autonomic response was apporently dire:tly reinf'orced. I1" the lenrning curve!l are veey sid.lar,. it \.'Ould sugge3t that an unknown skeletal mediator waa rosponsible for the cbanEeS observed in the earlier work. - 0 -3- It is possible the.t results troc this study will give us some kind of model of operant learning of autonomic responses as it occurs in stressfUl situations. Method: The method. llill be a fairly direct extension of ~ethodology used in ---~-----· earlier studies /college age fanale volunteers w!.U be J used; this will permit a reasonable compariton with tte _old data. Ten experimental and 10 control subjects will be run, they will be matched for frequency of GSR nontpecific deflections on the first day the o~ experiment ~ethodology used in ---~-----· earlier studies /college age fanale volunteers w!.U be J used; this will permit a reasonable compariton with tte _old data. Ten experimental and 10 control subjects will be run, they will be matched for frequency of GSR nontpecific deflections on the first day the o~ experiment and yoked ror schedules or reinforcement for the re~in~er or the experizler.t.. In the eerlier stu~es it was observ~ tr~t very lar£e respirations occurred intermittently in vhnt otherwise e very regular w~s re~pire.ticn rate. ~1eae large respirations were orten followed by a GSR deflection. For example, on the lnst day or the 1963 experh:cnt, the eighteen aubject3 ecitted 0 to 26 gross irregularitiea of respirbtions during the twenty minute session with an averace of 7 per sub~e~t. Tnese respirations often elicited GSU deflectioll3 •. rate of GSR elicitation varied hem Tl~e ... l2P _,for one of the subjects to 100~; for four of' the subjects; the ~nedian respiration-c!.ici ted m:;R de!'lectim4.1. ln ~he prcz::e:rt ::t.uC.y, 1 t i!l pro- posed that these gross irregularities cf' r(~:;pirot1cn be utili:.e:i llS a.:eletal medi&tort:; and tr.at the!:· aasociatccl GSH dei'lt.:ctions be syste:nt1- cc.lly reinf'orced. T"ni~: rer.ponne lias thl~ cm:ar!tnee cf being relatively -4- aubtle and not immediately discernible to the subject. It is suggested tbat the responses be monitored by the experimenter at this point. It would probably be too cQmpliented to aet up an automatic reinforcer tor vhnt should be e relatively contained sh~rt, study. Otherwise, methodol~ will follow the earlier studies. All subjects will be given·2 days of adaptation, five dnys of reinforcement (contingent or yoked) and three d~'S of' eY.tinct1on. We 1-rill follow the policy of having the subjects sit quietly twenty-five minutes before each day's fo~ session of twenty ninutes. All girls be screened for medical ~ill problems and run in between menstrual periods. The experiment sh~ild be conducted in a sound-proof' constant temperature rom. Eoui'O!Ilent: Sanborn GSR with ~enger electrodes, plethysmocraph (Kenelco Corp.) pnoumccox:.eter. Data AnaJ,vais: . ·' Do you think. ve can get direct tap1nr. of output of all three ~'lq varinblesT In asa, all need is s frequency o! the ~e c~~nt--amplitude dc!'lection!; does not scerr-. to be in:;:~rt ,n~. 'lilst should smplif'y tile be obtained. The fact baso.\l shifts over tne th~t. resista~;ce t~1er:ty minute pcr1oa present special o1fficultie3. On tne »~Y plethys~os~sph -5- record, I'd like to take off heart rate (in twer.~ty second The document is a typed page with a handwritten note in the top right corner reading "Copy of Proposal." There is a circled handwritten number "219" in the bottom right corner. The page is numbered "-1-" at the top center. There are no photographs, stamps, forms, diagrams, tables, or evidence of experimental procedures visible on this page. The majority of the page consists of typed text discussing operant reinforcement of autonomic responses. The provided image is a heavily text-based document, appearing to be a page from a typed report or manuscript. It contains no photographs, diagrams, tables, or handwritten annotations. There are no visible official stamps, forms, or redacted content. The page is primarily composed of black text on a white background, with a black textured border along the left edge and top. The text is arranged in paragraphs and includes a page number "-2-" at the top. s frequency o! the ~e c~~nt--amplitude dc!'lection!; does not scerr-. to be in:;:~rt ,n~. 'lilst should smplif'y tile be obtained. The fact baso.\l shifts over tne th~t. resista~;ce t~1er:ty minute pcr1oa present special o1fficultie3. On tne »~Y plethys~os~sph -5- record, I'd like to take off heart rate (in twer.~ty second intervals) and amplitude (about once every twenty seconds}. The respiration record~ be the most di:f'f'icult to autanate, if our expe:-ience in recording by band is any indicator. I have am~lo SamPles ot £.ll these, plus e. fairl;r speci:!'ic outline of how they were counted by hand.· Once the data are 1n digital form, we will need individual and. group curves em all·. . tbree variables. ln the pact ! bllve used. s<XUe rather simple non,arametric statistics for looking at difference3. lt ia quite cle~r that the major variable will oc an intra-individual clla.nge f'ra::1 adaptation (days 1 and 2) to extinction (days 9 and 10). It has been suggested. to D1e that tnere is sane We::/ of loor.iug at clu:~ters of all three variables at once ns a meas'U!'e of lcarnin$ (Uotel.in:;'s :). However, I em not sure that with this small sample, non-normal data, etc:., thnt that is feasible. Any suggestions? lt seems to me that at this ear}¥ stage of expcriznentine, the auto- mation of all these things should be kept sL~~le--to leave ro~ for ehanges in procedure and to ma.ir.tain quite a bit of flexibility in the system. We a1·e handicapped by the tact that our _:backGround knowled(;c of oncoinG b.asal ratec and individua: d!~erences in a .. s a no~~pe:itics, plethy~ograph auplitudes, etc. is still ·iUite l~teJ. Data Parameters: l. Eaaal Resistance In aeneral, all stibjc:t~ sr~: en i:c~ease in basal re~i9tunce fr~ d.tty one to ten in this kind of atu·..y. 'l'hc colltrola tend to show a. -6- relatively greater incrense than the experimental subjects. ~bere are side individual differences in baanl renistance. ln my (m, 1964 study, I round that it varied trac 61.9 K day 1) to 444.6 K (tm, day 5). ilithin an individual, a aa.:dmum change of about 150-200 K could be seen :rrom day one or the experiil:ent to day ten. Hedinn readines for eacl1 dny were ··used as estimates of each subject's daily level. Banal. resistance can shol-r rather oarked chanee -within a dnily session for scme i::td.i viduals. In the 1961; atucy, r.t lca~t O!lc subject hncl an be seen :rrom day one or the experiil:ent to day ten. Hedinn readines for eacl1 dny were ··used as estimates of each subject's daily level. Banal. resistance can shol-r rather oarked chanee -within a dnily session for scme i::td.i viduals. In the 1961; atucy, r.t lca~t O!lc subject hncl an incrense of ever· 200 t: frorn becrin.-:inG to end or tha t'icnty r::i1:ute Ae.ssion on ds.!' 9 (CJ). Other .subjccto ton<l to ren~in ql.lite stable v;ithl.n & dey's run e.n:! frot1 dc.y to tk.y. In eene1,a.:, subjects \-;ith lmi ·onslll resists.nct1 put ou~ n higli frc- quency of nonspecifics, while GUbjt!cts 1:ith high basal resintnncc proauce f~~ nonspeci!ics. For inntancc i~ the 196~ studyJ O!le subject (t~) h~d 7 ·- on initi.!l.l 'basal re.sistu.nce of cnl:;• 61 K and her Ol!~p'..lt of' noru:pecii'!.cs was over 6 pe:- tlinute. /:nether suuject lti th a high ·casal resistance {33l K) had a nonspecific rnte cf .4 per ninu~e! . ... 2. nonspecitics In the 1964 study, experimentala tended to maintain their initial rate of nonspecifics while controls declined. There are larse iodividusl d~~ference& in frequency cf nonspcc1!1cc. In the 1964 study, the lov.e;3t ree.C.ing on dey 1 was .4 per minute, the high vas over 6 per cinutc. Both cxperimentuls and controls snow some ------------~---- . . • -7- d.ecllne in rate over the ten deys, so the range on dey lO is .05 per minute to about 5 per minute. I d.o not have any current data on areplit.ud.e of de!"lectiona. 1'h.e sma.l.lest we cOWlted was .4 K and the largest was 50 It, but there vere unqucztionably larser ones. Data I"ran tbe 1962 study suggests that size tends to increaue as basal resis~a11ce increases from day one to day ten; media., amplitude increascl as mch as three times t."le ~ one BI;lplit'lide (conductance readinss). 3· Heart Rate In the 1964 study, experimental& Mintained t.~eir initial level o~ heart rate while controls showed a small but consistent decline • .ABa1n there are fairly large individual di.f'.f'erences. In the 1964 1 study, the eighteen subjects ranged tram 61.8 to 104.7 with a standard deviation o~ l2.8. Under non-stressful repeated trials, the standard deviation within an individual is about 6 beats per minute. '!'he maximwll within individual VIU"iation that ve saw over days was 15 beats J?Cr minute. .. 4. Plethysmograph 'l11is data is pw.•el;;r l~eC. data. On the :f'irvt day o'f the The page is a typewritten document excerpt, numbered "-3-", detailing a research method. It contains no photographs, handwritten annotations, or official stamps. There are several instances of what appears to be red ink over text, obscuring specific words or phrases, particularly around the beginning of the "Method" section and within the description of the experiment. Visual evidence of experimental procedures is absent, with the content being purely textual explanation of methodology. The page displays text from a declassified document, marked with what appear to be "CLASSIFIED" stamps at the top, but they are partially obscured and illegible. There are no photographs, diagrams, or handwritten annotations visible. The content of the page consists solely of typed text, detailing experimental methodology and equipment. The formatting includes headings like "Equipment" and "Data Analysis," suggesting a procedural document. There are no redactions or obscured content within the visible text. standard deviation o~ l2.8. Under non-stressful repeated trials, the standard deviation within an individual is about 6 beats per minute. '!'he maximwll within individual VIU"iation that ve saw over days was 15 beats J?Cr minute. .. 4. Plethysmograph 'l11is data is pw.•el;;r l~eC. data. On the :f'irvt day o'f the l95l+ study we found that subject~ varied f~ a min~ cmplituje resdin& to twice that readin.z. Ove::- the ten day sessiou, controls tended. to incre!.se 1.~ ~litude Yhile exper~cntela r~~in relntively·~ons~~t. Soce subjects doubled. their emplitud.e over the ten ae.yG1 while nt least on~ subject showed. e. reac.ing which wns hal£ u~; large :~s his ini tic..l ~11 tude. ·-· ·--. ~ .. '!# • .- , ~ - ~· ·: ----·..- - -... . . " \ --- . · . - ·-' -. . . . . -· · - . -· --o-- - -· -.--: • . I • . o ":• ,. . ', ' ·• ... . . . . . ..· . . ' :'J ·.:..... . - . . . : .• - ""· . .... . . .. . .. · . ' - · . . . . . .. . _ . : . .. ~ ; . ~ ·· . • 4' ,.:'" ••• • :.-..'. . •·· \ ·::.-~ . > -, ·-.~,,.- . ... . . ..~.. -8-- ... . . .. ·.--.•~ ....... . ,:·: . : ·.: .. . . ' . . .' . · - ··. ·, :~(;~:·: .· .· costa: . · · ·. . '. . • .. • t .•"' ...... ~ · ~; • ., 0 • • ~ ·: .'• ,. ·.. •· ;L; :·. ~· : ~;.~ ~. .... ·':: , · The heaviest expenses tor this study- will be tape and computer ': ·-?::;/> ·· time. EaCh subject is run tor 3 1/3 hours.· Wa made some estimates at · ;~;:>:~:<·;. ~or ki~ st~cly'. ---- this ot I .. donit know whether these costs . ·,-- :·· . : :.-.. -:.:· :, ·; . are comparable, but tor what they're··worth: .. .. ·. .. ., .... . · Appuo.tus batteries, etc. $ ·:. . . Analog Recorder tnpe ·n t l : . - .. , Digit el tape c.t . . . . : ; . . Canputer time. Analog to digital_ con- · · but tor what they're··worth: .. .. ·. .. ., .... . · Appuo.tus batteries, etc. $ ·:. . . Analog Recorder tnpe ·n t l : . - .. , Digit el tape c.t . . . . : ; . . Canputer time. Analog to digital_ con- · · version at __ . __ _ _. 1 CCDpUter time. Digital analysis at -1 I . . Subjects at ______ j ,. ..... . .. Total. . ·$: : . f .. ' \ ~-. . This does not include the cost ot a ccmputer programmer to set up the . .. :. · prosram~ We estimated that might take aa long as tbree months and . . .··', .. .~ - . . .. . . : .. . .: ; . ·,· -~ ~ ~-~. •. . ~ J • •• "" .···: . -~- . •. ··' The document appears to be a page from a research paper or report, as indicated by the page number "-5-" at the top. The content is entirely typed text, discussing experimental procedures, data analysis, and potential challenges. The text describes measurements like heart rate, respiration, and basal resistance, suggesting the context of a psychological or physiological experiment. There are no photographs, handwritten annotations, official stamps, forms, diagrams, tables, or redactions visible on this page. The image displays a single page of an official document, identified by the number "-6-" at the top. The text is printed in a standard font, with no handwritten annotations, signatures, or official stamps visible. There are no photographs, diagrams, tables, or forms present. The page appears to be purely textual content, describing experimental findings related to basal resistance and nonspecifics. There is no visual evidence of experimental procedures, equipment, facilities, or any obscured or redacted content within the visible portion of the document. The document is a typed page with a page number "-7-" at the top. There are no photographs, handwritten annotations, signatures, official stamps, forms, diagrams, schematics, organizational charts, tables, or structured data visible. There are also no redactions or obscured content. The page contains only text describing experimental findings related to heart rate and plethysmography. It appears to be a research report or section of a report. The document is a single page of typewritten text with handwritten annotations. The text is arranged in paragraphs and lists detailing costs associated with a study. There are several handwritten marks, including checkmarks and a line drawn under a dollar sign. The document appears to be a cost breakdown for a research project, with specific items like "Apparatus batteries," "Analog Recorder tape," and "Computer time" listed along with corresponding monetary values. One line of text explains that the costs do not include a computer programmer. No photographs, stamps, forms, diagrams, or redacted content are visible on this page.