Timing of avoidance responses by rats

Three rats were trained on an unsignalled shuttlebox-avoidance task under three response-shock intervals (10, 20, and 40 sec). Under all conditions, subjects developed excellent temporal gradients of avoidance; that is, response rate was an increasing function of time since last response. Although the response rate at any given interval of time after the previous response was inversely related to the response-shock interval, there was an underlying similarity in the temporal gradients for the three intervals. In all cases, response rate relative to the maximum response rate was approximately equal to the proportion of the interval that had elapsed. This suggests that rats in unsignalled avoidance are estimating time from response completion, and that the units of the estimate are proportional parts of the response-shock interval.     

Effects of response-shock interval and shock intensity on free-operant avoidance responding in the pigeon

Two experiments investigated free-operant avoidance responding with pigeons using a treadle-pressing response. In Experiment I, pigeons were initially trained on a free-operant avoidance schedule with a response-shock interval of 32 sec and a shock-shock interval of 10 sec, and were subsequently exposed to 10 values of the response-shock parameter ranging from 2.5 to 150 sec. The functions relating response rate to response-shock interval were similar to the ones reported by Sidman in his 1953 studies employing rats, and were independent of the order of presentation of the response-shock values. Shock rates decreased as response-shock duration increased. In Experiment II, a free-operant avoidance schedule with a response-shock interval of 20 sec and a shock-shock interval of 5 sec was used, and shock intensities were varied over five values ranging from 2 to 32 mA. Response rates increased markedly as shock intensity increased from 2 to 8 mA, but rates changed little with further increases in shock intensity. Shock rates decreased as intensity increased from 2 to 8 mA, and showed little change as intensity increased from 8 to 32 mA.     

Key pecking as a function of response-shock and shock-shock intervals in unsignalled avoidance

Five pigeons were exposed to an unsignalled avoidance procedure where key pecks were maintained through shock postponement. Functions obtained showed an inverse relationship between rate of responding and length of the response-shock interval, while changes in the shock-shock interval had no systematic effect on response rates. The rate of shocks delivered generally decreased with increases in length of both response-shock and shock-shock intervals. Results show that key pecking in pigeons, maintained through an unsignalled avoidance procedure, was affected by changes in response-shock and shock-shock intervals in the same manner as other responses in pigeons and in rats.     

Nondiscriminated avoidance of shock by pigeons pecking a key

Four pigeons were trained to avoid shock by pecking a key on a free-operant avoidance schedule in which no exteroceptive stimulus signalled impending shock. Response rate was an inverse function of response-shock interval when shock-shock interval was held constant at 2 sec and response-shock intervals varied from 5 to 40 sec. Amphetamine increased response rates in two subjects and reserpine markedly reduced responding in one.     

Stimulus control of avoidance behavior

The introduction of a warning signal preceding shocks greatly increased the effectiveness of avoidance responding. Periods of “warm-up” at the beginning of the session were eliminated, and the number of shocks received by the subjects was greatly reduced. With response-shock interval constant, response rate increased as the interval between the response and the onset of the warning signal was shortened. The response tended to occur shortly after the onset of the warning signal regardless of the duration of these “safe” periods. A greatly elevated response rate was maintained even when the duration of the safe period was reduced to 0.3 sec. Thus, the pre-shock signal obtained nearly exclusive control of the responding and overrode the usual “temporal discrimination” of the response-shock interval.     

Ratio responding as a function of concurrent avoidance schedules, yoked shocks, and ratio value

Fixed-ratio food-reinforced responding in rats was studied alone and with concurrent shock avoidance or with concurrent response-independent shocks matched to those that occurred in the avoidance condition. Under each condition, fixed-ratio size was increased over successive daily sessions. Fixed-ratio response rate generally passed through a maximum as a function of fixed-ratio size. Decreased fixed-ratio responding at values beyond the maximum occurred when (1) the time to complete a fixed ratio approximated the response-shock interval of the avoidance schedule, (2) the shock rate increased, and/or (3) the ratio requirements were so high that ratio strain occurred. Avoidance rates decreased slightly as fixed-ratio size increased.     

Extinction of Sidman avoidance behavior

Extinction of Sidman avoidance behavior by eliminating the noxious stimulus was studied in Sprague-Dawley rats with bar-pressing as the response. Each of three subjects was trained and extinguished on each of the following schedules in a different order: nondiscriminated, response-shock interval = 20 sec, shock-shock interval = 5 sec; nondiscriminated, response-shock interval = 40 sec, shock-shock interval = 5 sec; discriminated, response-white noise interval = 15 sec, noise-shock interval = 5 sec, shock-shock interval = 5 sec. Less than one 4-hr session was required for extinction for all procedures. When a warning stimulus was present, resistance to extinction increased. Subjects did not, however, respond to avoid the signal. Only small differences in extinction were found after training on different schedules with no warning signal.     

Concurrent avoidance of shocks by pigeons pecking a key

Three pigeons were studied on concurrent, unsignaled, avoidance schedules in a two-key procedure. Shock-shock intervals were two seconds in both schedules. The response-shock interval on one key was always 22 seconds, while the response-shock interval associated with the other key was varied from 7 to 52 seconds in different experimental conditions. Response rates on the key associated with the varied schedule tended to decrease when the response-shock interval length was increased. Responding on the key associated with the constant schedule was not systematically affected.     

Response patterning on an avoidance schedule as a function of time-correlated stimuli

Control of avoidance response patterning by time-correlated stimuli was studied in rhesus monkeys. At several shock-shock = response-shock intervals, the intervals were divided into 8, 4, or 2 time segments by correlating, respectively, 1, 2, or 4 discrete lights of an eight-light display with each successive segment. A further condition examined response patterning when the avoidance interval was not segmented: all eight lights of the display were lit throughout the interval. Reversal of the order in which the lights were lit in sequence was also examined. Generally, increasing the number of lights lit at one time (decreasing the number of signalled time segments) increased response rates and shifted interresponse time distributions to the left. When the lights were lit one at a time, signalling eight discrete time segments of the interval, response rates were consistently low.     

Acquisition and maintenance of postshock response pattern in nondiscriminated avoidance with rats

Five experimentally naive albino rats were placed under a nondiscriminated lever-press avoidance schedule in which the delay to the next shock for responses after a shock was longer than the delay for responses after a response. Four rats acquired the postshock response pattern and maintained it for a prolonged period. The results revealed that postshock responding was under operant control and was not purely shock-elicited. It was suggested that the two kinds of response-shock interval, i.e. the shock-response-shock interval and the response-response-shock interval, could and should be independently controlled in nondiscriminated avoidance schedules.     

Responding maintained under fixed-interval and fixed-time schedules of electric shock presentation

Following initial histories under a schedule of electric shock postponement, lever pressing in squirrel monkeys was maintained under fixed-interval and fixed-time schedules of electric shock presentation. No difference in either rate or pattern of responding was obtained when these schedules were presented as components of a multiple schedule. When they were presented singly for long periods of time, the fixed-interval schedule consistently maintained a higher response rate than the fixed-time schedule. The pattern of responding under both schedules was similar, typically consisting of a pause at the beginning of each interval followed by either a steady or a positively accelerating rate of responding. The results suggest that the response-shock dependency is of critical importance in the maintenance of high rates of responding under schedules of electric shock presentation, and support the general view that such responding may be conceptualized as operant behavior under control of many of the same variables that control responding under comparable schedules of food or water reinforcement.     

The response-shock-shock-shock interval and unsignalled avoidance in goldfish

Goldfish were trained to swim back and forth in a shuttle tank to avoid unsignalled shocks. The response-shock interval and the shock-shock interval were always of equal duration; both were either 15, 30, 45, or 60 sec. Response rates varied inversely with response-shock–shock-shock interval duration, as has been found with rats. Percentage of shocks avoided was somewhat lower at the 15 sec response-shock–shock-shock interval, but otherwise did not vary systematically with changes in the interval. As the response-shock–shock-shock interval increased, the fish made increasingly more responses than necessary to avoid all shocks. Interresponse-time distributions showed that response probability rose to a maximum at about 15 to 25 sec after a response, regardless of the response-shock–shock-shock interval. Thus, at the longer intervals the fish were responding too early in the response-shock–shock-shock interval to minimize response rates.     

Free operant avoidance in rats under increased nitrogen pressures.

Rats performed on a free operant avoidance schedule with a response-shock interval of 20 sec. and a shock-shock interval of 2 sec. Avoidance response rates increased and shock frequency decreased when the rats were exposed to elevated pressures of both air and a nitrogen-oxygen mixture in a hyperbaric chamber. Increases in response rates were related to raised partial pressures of nitrogen at 89.0 psi and 111.3 psi. Conditional probabilities of interresponse times indicated that increases in response rates were not due to disruption of temporal discrimination. Increased avoidance rates under pressure suggested direct excitatory effects of high pressures of nitrogen.     

The effects of aversive conditioned stimuli on the timing of unsignalled avoidance responding in rats

Rats received unsignalled avoidance training in a shuttlebox. After acquisition, classical conditioning sessions were administered. The Excitatory Group received signals paired with shock, the Inhibitory Group received signals explicitly unpaired with shock, while the Random Control Group received signals and shocks randomly in time. When subsequently superimposed on the avoidance baseline, the excitatory signal increased response rate, the inhibitory signal decreased rate and the random signal had no effect compared to signal-only control data. Unsignalled avoidance generates temporal gradients of responding; the major purpose of this study was to determine how these rate changes were reflected in the baseline temporal behavior. Very clear and simple summation rules emerged: In the presence of the excitatory signal, rats acted as if they were ahead of their actual location in the response-shock interval regardless of where the signal occurred; the inhibitory signal had the opposite effect while the random signal did not change the temporal behavior relative to signal-only control data. These results were interpreted within a motivational framework.     

Response-shock delay as a reinforcer in avoidance behavior

After rats received preliminary training to avoid shock on a discrete-trial retractable-bar avoidance procedure, the procedure was changed such that responses retracted the lever but did not affect the rate of shock. Responses only delayed the onset of shock. About half of the animals under these procedures responded consistently on almost 100% of the discrete-trial cycles over days. When short latencies maximized the response-shock delay, animals tended to make short-latency responses. When long latencies maximized the response-shock delay, animals tended to make long-latency responses. When all response latencies produced the same response-shock delay, animals made differing average-latency responses. And, when responses did not delay shock, most of the animals primarily engaged in shock-elicited responding while the other animals engaged in preshock responding.     

Effects of sleep deprivation on free-operant avoidance

Two studies examined effects of sleep deprivation on free-operant avoidance by rats. In Experiment 1, a 5-s shock-shock (SS) interval and 20-s response-shock (RS) interval produced baseline performances, which were reestablished after each experimental manipulation. Once baselines were established, animals were exposed to 24, 48, or 96 hr of sleep deprivation and equivalent periods of home cage and food restriction as a control condition. Compared to baseline, sleep deprivation increased response rates by increasing the proportion of brief interresponse times (IRTs); response rates changed little in the control conditions. Percentage of shocks avoided did not systematically change across conditions. In Experiment 2, the RS interval was manipulated (10, 20, and 40 s), while the SS interval (5 s) and level of sleep deprivation (48 hr) were held constant. Across RS intervals, sleep deprivation increased response rates via a shift toward brief IRTs. In addition, sleep deprivation increased the percentage of shocks avoided as an inverse function of RS intervals.     

Methylphenidate and stimulus control of avoidance behavior

The introduction of a warning signal that preceded a scheduled shock modified the temporal distribution of free-operant avoidance responses. With response-shock and shock-shock intervals held constant, response rates increased only slightly when the response-signal interval was reduced. The result is consistent with Sidman's (1955) findings under different conditions, but at variance with Ulrich, Holz, and Azrin's (1964) findings under similar conditions. Methylphenidate in graded doses increased response rates, modifying frequency distributions of interresponse times. Drug treatment may have disrupted a "temporal discrimination" formed within the signal-shock interval. More simply, methylphenidate influenced response rates by increasing short response latencies after signal onset; this effect was more prominent than the drug's tendency to increase the frequency of pre-signal responses. When signal-onset preceded shock by 2 sec, individual differences in performance were marked; methylphenidate suppressed responding in one rat as a function of increasing dose levels to a greater degree than in a second animal, but both subjects received more shocks than under control conditions.     

Signalled free-operant avoidance of shock by pigeons pecking a key

Two pigeons were trained to peck a key under a free-operant avoidance schedule. Then, changes in key color signalled the beginning (safe period) and the end (warning period) of the response-shock interval, with a response required to change the key color. Finally, a change in key color signalled the warning period and either a response or a shock reinstated the safe stimulus. During signalled avoidance, response rate was higher during the warning stimulus than during the safe stimulus. More responding tended to occur in the warning stimulus when it was terminated by either a response or a shock than by only a response. In either procedure, response latency during the warning stimulus was a function of the duration of the warning stimulus. In general, response and shock rate were higher during unsignalled than during signalled avoidance. When the warning stimulus was brief, the results were similar to those of unsignalled avoidance. These results confirm previous findings with pigeons, are in general agreement with data provided by other species in studies of signalled avoidance, and thereby indicate the transituationality of the key-pecking operant.     

The overshadowing and blocking of punishment

Two experiments were undertaken to test the assumption that the outcome of an instrumental contingency depends on the acquisition of signalling properties by the response in the same sense that the acquisition of signalling properties by a stimulus is viewed as determining the outcome of a Pavlovian contingency. The presence coincident with a punished response of a stimulus either previously or preferentially correlated with shock was found to reduce the extent to which punishment suppressed the rate of responding. It was argued that these results, interpreted as indicating the blocking and overshadowing of the response-shock association, were consistent with the assumption tested.