Editing Classical conditioning (section)

====Computational theory====
An organism's need to predict future events is central to modern theories of conditioning. Most theories use associations between stimuli to take care of these predictions. For example: In the R–W model, the associative strength of a CS tells us how strongly that CS predicts a US. A different approach to prediction is suggested by models such as that proposed by Gallistel & Gibbon (2000, 2002).<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Gallistel CR, Gibbon J |title=Time, rate, and conditioning |journal=Psychological Review |volume=107 |issue=2 |pages=289–344 |date=April 2000 |pmid=10789198 |doi=10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.289 |url=http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/GnG/Gal&Gib_Preprint.pdf |citeseerx=10.1.1.407.1802 |access-date=2021-08-30 |archive-date=2015-05-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150505162755/http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/GnG/Gal%26Gib_Preprint.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |vauthors=Gallistel R, Gibbon J |date=2002 |title=The Symbolic Foundations of Conditioned Behavior |location=Mahwah, NJ |publisher=Erlbaum}}</ref> Here the response is not determined by associative strengths. Instead, the organism records the times of onset and offset of CSs and USs and uses these to calculate the probability that the US will follow the CS. A number of experiments have shown that humans and animals can learn to time events (see [[Animal cognition]]), and the Gallistel & Gibbon model yields very good quantitative fits to a variety of experimental data.<ref name="Shettleworth_2010"/><ref name="M&E"/> However, recent studies have suggested that duration-based models cannot account for some empirical findings as well as associative models.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Golkar A, Bellander M, Öhman A |title=Temporal properties of fear extinction--does time matter? |journal=Behavioral Neuroscience |volume=127 |issue=1 |pages=59–69 |date=February 2013 |pmid=23231494 |doi=10.1037/a0030892}}</ref>