EFFECT OF PRIOR PAVLOVIAN DISCRIMINATION TRAINING UPON LEARNING AN OPERANT DISCRIMINATION.

Scientists gave rats two kinds of sounds. One sound always came with food. The other never did. This is Pavlovian training.

Next, the same sounds became cues for a lever task. Press only when the former food sound plays. The team timed how fast each rat learned this new rule.

Rats that had already linked a sound to food mastered the lever rule quicker. The same sound now told them both 'food is coming' and 'press now'.

Rats whose food sound became the 'do not press' cue learned slower. Early good vibes gave the cue a head start as a signal to act.

Lemons et al. (2015) repeated the idea in dogs. They paired the target odor with snacks, then ran an odor detection game. The dogs took longer to give up when distractions appeared, showing the same early pairing can guard behavior, not just speed it up.

Locurto et al. (1976) swapped the order. Rats first taught that lever presses never produced food later took ages to start autoshaped lever bites. Again, history ruled: omission training slowed later learning, while random pairings helped it.

Atnip (1977) mapped the boundary conditions. He pitted Pavlovian, operant, and omission histories head-to-head. All roads led to lower pressing once omission began, but the lever-touch topography stuck—proof that the kind of history sets what part of behavior survives.

Your client already has emotional tags on many cues. A song, a room, even your voice can carry hidden 'food or no food' weight. Check those tags before you pick a new Sᴰ. If the cue once meant good things, use it for approach tasks first. If it meant loss, pick a fresh stimulus or pair it with strong reinforcers to rewrite the story. History saves time—or costs it.