Negative automaintenance omission training is effective

Twelve pigeons were exposed to negative automaintenance contingencies for 17-27 sessions immediately after brief (14-16 sessions) or extended (168-237 sessions) exposure to positive automaintenance contingencies, or after 4-10 sessions of instrumental training. In all conditions, negative automaintenance contingencies virtually eliminated responding, reducing response rates to an average 1.3 responses per min. This reduction in response rate was validated by a model of transition between early and late response rates that assumed exponential transition of rates from one set of contingencies to the next. The model faithfully reproduced cumulative records, and yielded estimates of terminal rates under negative automaintenance that were close to operant level.     

Effect of varying the duration of grain presentation on automaintenance

In a series of three experiments the effects of variation in grain duration on automaintenance were evaluated. In the first experiment, key illumination was followed by grain only when pigeons did not peck the key. Each subject was exposed to 2-, 4-, and 8-second feeder durations in blocks of 10 sessions. Subjects pecked on a high percentage of trials at all feeder durations. The mean peck latency was shorter in the 8-second condition than in the two other conditions in five of six subjects. The conditional probability of pecking given successive keylight-grain pairings did not increase as the number of pairings increased. The second experiment was identical to the first, except that key pecking had no scheduled consequence. Under these conditions, all three subjects showed substantial responding. The recorded measures showed no systematic relationship to feeder duration in this study. In the third experiment, two different stimuli were followed by feeder presentations of either identical (2- or 8-second) or different (2- and 8-second) durations within each session. Subjects tended to respond sooner and with a higher overall rate in the presence of the stimulus associated with the longer feeder duration only when different feeder durations were presented within the same session. This result was confirmed by direct observation of the pigeons. The results of these experiments suggest that the effects of varying grain duration may be small, compared to the effects of varying other variables. The results also suggest that the location as well as the frequency of pecking may be an important measure in the analysis of factors controlling the pigeon's key peck.     

Rate and temporal pattern of key pecking under autoshaping and omission schedules of reinforcement

The role of response-reinforcer contiguity on autoshaped key pecking in pigeons was studied by scheduling response-dependent nonreinforcement at the beginning or the end of brief (8-sec) discrete trials. Schedules that permitted chance conjunctions of key pecking and food sustained high rates of responding, whereas those that prevented the occurrence of key peck-food intervals shorter than 4 sec sustained low response rates. In addition, selective reinforcement schedules supported accelerating or decelerating rates of responding within individual trials. These effects were traceable to response-reinforcer (operant), but not stimulus-reinforcer (respondent) factors.     

Temporal distributions of responding during discrete-trial omission training in rats

Within-session temporal distributions of responding were investigated in three experiments using rats pressing a lever in a discrete-trial omission procedure. This schedule entailed 60, one-minute trials, and a sucrose solution was made available at the end of each trial in which no lever press occurred. In Experiment I, nonnaive rats acquired and maintained responding during this training. Moreover, the probability of a response during any session showed a strong and reliable tendency to increase from the beginning to the end of the session. These results were replicated in Experiment II, using naive animals. In Experiment III, alterations were made in the training procedure, including elimination of response-contingent and noncontingent stimulus changes. Results indicate that stimulus change may be sufficient to maintain low levels of responding whether or not this change is contingent on responding.     

Acquisition of the autoshaped key peck as a function of amount of preliminary magazine training

Three experiments evaluated the effect of magazine training on acquisition of the pigeon's key peck during autoshaping. In Experiment I, pigeons were exposed to two days of extended magazine training, followed on the third day by keylight-only presentations. All pigeons pecked the keylight early in the keylight-only session. Experiment II examined the relationship between the number of magazine-training trials and trials to the first peck. Pigeons were given either 0, 3, 10, or 25 magazine-training trials followed by the standard autoshaping procedure. The number of trials to the first peck was related to the number of magazine-training trials. In Experiment III, pigeons were exposed to the standard autoshaping procedure without prior magazine training. The data from Experiment III suggested that key pecking will occur only after the response of eating from the lighted hopper has occurred. Taken together, these results suggest that initial magazine training is an important variable in autoshaping. Key pecking is discussed as a generalized consummatory response.     

Stimulus generalization from feeder to response key in the acquisition of autoshaped pecking

During autoshaping, a 6-second presentation of one stimulus and a variable time 30-second presentation of a second stimulus alternated in appearance on a pigeon key. Grain always was delivered for 3 seconds at the end of the first stimulus interval. In the first experiment, autoshaped pecking of the stimulus preceding grain delivery began much sooner when that stimulus was a black vertical line on a white background and the other stimulus was green than when the opposite stimulus arrangement was used. Because these two stimuli differed in form, hue, brightness, and similarity in hue and brightness to the illumination of the raised feeder, three subsequent experiments examined whether the differential speed of autoshaping in the two groups was due to a feature-positive, feature-negative effect, a preference for brighter over darker stimuli, a simple preference for white over green, or stimulus generalization from the brightness or hue of the illuminated, raised feeder to the stimulus on the key preceding grain delivery. The data from these experiments showed that the first autoshaped key peck was most likely to be made to the stimulus of the same hue as that illuminating the feeder, regardless of whether that stimulus was positively or negatively associated with grain delivery. At least under some conditions, therefore, stimulus-generalization mediated response transfer of pecking grain in the presence of the hue illuminating the feeder to pecking the key illuminated by a similar hue appears to account for the occurrence of autoshaped key pecking.     

"Turning back the clock" on serial-stimulus sign tracking.

Two experiments examined the effects of a negative (setback) response contingency on key pecking engendered by a changing light-intensity stimulus clock (ramp stimulus) signaling fixed-time 30-s food deliveries. The response contingency specified that responses would immediately decrease the light-intensity value, and, because food was delivered only after the highest intensity value was presented, would delay food delivery by 1 s for each response. The first experiment examined the acquisition and maintenance of responding for a group trained with the contingency in effect and for a group trained on a response-independent schedule with the ramp stimulus prior to introduction of the contingency. The first group acquired low rates of key pecking, and, after considerable exposure to the contingency, those rates were reduced to low levels. The rates of responding for the second group were reduced very rapidly (within four to five trials) after introduction of the setback contingency. For both groups, rates of responding increased for all but 1 bird when the contingency was removed. A second experiment compared the separate effects of each part of the response contingency. One group was exposed only to the stimulus setback (stimulus only), and a second group was exposed only to the delay of the reinforcer (delay only). The stimulus-only group's rates of responding were immediately reduced to moderate levels, but for most of the birds, these rates recovered quickly when the contingency was removed. The delay-only groups's rates decreased after several trials, to very low levels, and recovery of responding took several sessions once the contingency was removed. The results suggest that (a) sign-tracking behavior elicited by an added clock stimulus may be reduced rapidly and persistently when a setback contingency is imposed, and (b) the success of the contingency is due both to response-dependent stimulus change and response-dependent alterations in the frequency of food delivery. The operation of the contingency is compared with the effects of secondary reinforcement and punishment procedures.     

Stimulus- and response-reinforcer contingencies in autoshaping, operant, classical, and omission training procedures in rats

Separate groups of rats received 500 trials of lever-press training under autoshaping (food delivery followed 10-second lever presentations, or occurred immediately following a response); operant conditioning (responding was necessary for food delivery); and classical conditioning (food followed lever presentations regardless of responding). Each group then received 500 trials on an omission procedure in which food was omitted on trials with a response. Another group received 1000 trials on the omission procedure, and a fifth group, random control, received 1000 uncorrelated presentations of lever and food. The autoshaping, operant, and classical groups reached high response levels by the end of initial training. Acquisition was fastest in the autoshaping group. Responding remained consistently low in the control group. The omission group responded at a level between the control group and the other three groups. During omission training, responding in these three groups declined to the omission-group level. During omission training, the rats continued contacting the lever frequently after lever pressing had declined. Response maintenance under omission training seems not to require topographic similarity between the response and reinforcer-elicited consummatory behaviors.     

The influence of "preparedness" on autoshaping, schedule performance, and choice.

Two groups of experimentally naive pigeons were exposed to an autoshaping procedure in which the response key was mounted on the wall (the conventional location) or on the floor of the chamber. In two experiments, subjects readily responded to the wall key, but floor-key subjects required shaping. A subsequent experiment compared performance of wall- and floor-key groups on an ascending series of fixed-ratio schedule values, resistance to extinction, differential reinforcement of other behavior, and reversal of key assignment. Each experiment was followed by several sessions of fixed-ratio training; the performance of the wall- and floor-key groups was almost identical throughout. In the final experiment, a fixed-ratio requirement could be completed on either or both keys. Birds initially chose the key on which they had responded during the preceding (reversal of key assignment) experiment. However, within a few sessions both groups showed almost exclusive preference for the floor key. Preference for a key located on the floor may follow from the fact that pigeons are ground feeders and may thus be more "prepared" to peck the floor than to peck a wall. However, autoshaping, under the conditions prevailing here, occurred much more readily to the wall key, suggesting that pecking a vertical surface is more highly prepared. Difficulties in determining relative preparedness seem moot, however, given the lack of between-group differences in the intervening experiments. It is thus unlikely that schedule performances critically depend upon the specific operant response involved.     

The role of preliminary magazine training in acquisition of the autoshaped key peck

A series of experiments tested the hypothesis that initial key pecks in the autoshaping procedure are generalized pecks at the illuminated grain hopper. Experiment I found that autoshaping readily occurred when the chamber was continuously illuminated by a house-light. In Experiment II, pigeons given magazine training and autoshaping with an unlighted grain hopper failed to autoshape in 200 trials. Acquisition of autoshaped key pecking was retarded in Experiment III when stimulus control by the magazine light was reduced. In the fourth study, pigeons were given magazine training with either a red or white magazine light and then given autoshaping with concurrently presented red and white keys. For all pigeons in this experiment, the first key peck occurred on the key of the same color as that pigeon's magazine light. The results of these experiments were interpreted as supporting an account of autoshaping that identifies initial key pecks as arising due to generalization of pecking at the lighted grain hopper to pecking at the lighted key.     

Trace autoshaping: Acquisition, maintenance, and path dependence at long trace intervals

The pigeon's tendency to acquire and maintain signal-directed key pecking under a trace conditioning procedure was parametrically examined. In Experiment 1, the percentage of CS trials with a key peck response was a decreasing function of the trace interval for separate groups of pigeons. The majority of subjects acquired signal-directed key pecking with trace intervals as long as 36 sec. In Experiment 2, differential maintenance of key pecking occurred across trace intervals in a within-subject procedure. Maintenance of key pecking at 36- and 60-sec trace intervals was path dependent in that responding depended on the subject's performance under the preceding trace interval.     

Blocking, unblocking, and overexpectation in autoshaping with pigeons

Three experiments used pigeons in an autoshaping procedure and a single-subject design to examine compound stimulus control in classical conditioning. Experiment 1 examined the blocking effect, and Experiment 2 examined the unblocking effect. In both experiments, response-independent food was first delivered intermittently in the presence of one distinctively colored houselight but not another. Then, conventional autoshaping trials were carried out in the presence of each houselight. In Experiment 1, the keylight readily elicited responding in the presence of the houselight that had been negatively correlated with food, but not in the presence of the houselight that had been positively correlated with food. In Experiment 2, the keylight readily elicited responding in the presence of the houselight positively correlated with food, but only when the amount of food used on the autoshaping trials was either greater or less than that previously delivered in the presence of the houselight. Experiment 3 examined the overexpectation effect. Conventional autoshaping trials were first carried out by presenting each of two keylights individually. Then, additional autoshaping trials were carried out by presenting the two keylights as a compound, with either the same amount of food or a greater amount of food per trial. Finally, the keylights were retested by again presenting them individually. The number of responses per trial elicited by the keylights decreased when the amount of food used in compound trials was the same as that used in individual trials. However, the number of responses per trial remained approximately the same when the amount of food used in compound trials was greater than that used in individual trials. Taken together, the results of the three experiments demonstrate (a) the generality of the blocking, unblocking, and overexpectation effects by virtue of their extension to appetitive unconditioned stimuli; (b) the suitability of pigeons as subjects and autoshaping as a procedure for studying classical conditioning; and (c) the appropriateness of single-subject designs.     

Autoshaping, random control, and omission training in the rat

The role of the stimulus-reinforcer contingency in the development and maintenance of lever contact responding was studied in hooded rats. In Experiment I, three groups of experimentally naive rats were trained either on autoshaping, omission training, or a random-control procedure. Subjects trained by the autoshaping procedure responded more consistently than did either random-control or omission-trained subjects. The probability of at least one lever contact per trial was slightly higher in subjects trained by the omission procedure than by the random-control procedure. However, these differences were not maintained during extended training, nor were they evident in total lever-contact frequencies. When omission and random-control subjects were switched to the autoshaping condition, lever contacts increased in all animals, but a pronounced retardation was observed in omission subjects relative to the random-control subjects. In addition, subjects originally exposed to the random-control procedure, and later switched to autoshaping, acquired more rapidly than naive subjects that were exposed only on the autoshaping procedure. In Experiment II, subjects originally trained by an autoshaping procedure were exposed either to an omission, a random-control, or an extinction procedure. No differences were observed among the groups either in the rate at which lever contacts decreased or in the frequency of lever contacts at the end of training. These data implicate prior experience in the interpretation of omission-training effects and suggest limitations in the influence of stimulus-reinforcer relations in autoshaping.     

Automaintenance without stimulus-change reinforcement: Temporal control of key pecks

Yoked pairs of experimentally naive pigeons were exposed to a modified autoshaping procedure in which key pecking by the leader birds postponed both keylight termination and access to grain for the leader and the follower bird. Key pecking developed and was maintained in all birds and continued through two reversals of roles in the yoked procedure. Although temporal control developed more slowly in follower birds, asymptotic temporal distributions of key pecking were similar for all birds in both leader and follower roles; maximum responding occurred soon after keylight onset and decreased to a minimum prior to reinforcement. Response distributions for both leader and follower birds were described by Killeen's (1975) mathematical model of temporal control. Follower birds received response-independent reinforcement, and the development by these birds of temporal distributions which are minimal immediately prior to reinforcement is without precedent in Pavlovian appetitive conditioning. However, maintenance of key pecking by the leader birds, whose responses postponed both stimulus-change and food reinforcement, supports an interpretation of autoshaped and automaintained key pecking as responding elicited by signaled grain presentation.     

The associative relation underlying autoshaping in the pigeon

Fifteen pigeons were exposed to either response-independent or response-dependent schedules of water reinforcement, whereby water was injected directly into the unrestrained pigeons' mandibles. Key-contact responses were released by a lighted key correlated with water, but not by a lighted key uncorrelated with water. A negative response-reinforcer contingency suppressed autoshaped key-contact responses, resulting in responding directed away from the lighted key. In all pigeons, water injected directly into the mandibles elicited a consummatory fixed-action pattern of “mumbling” and swallowing. The lighted key correlated with water released a broader set of both appetitive and consummatory responses: approach to the lighted key, “bowing”, “rooting”, “mumbling”, and swallowing. Key-contact responses were “rooting” and “mumbling” motions of the beak on the surface of the key. Views of autoshaping based on stimulus substitution or stimulus surrogation do not fully explain the origin of autoshaped responses not previously elicited by the reinforcer. The present findings are consonant with views of conditioning that emphasize the large degree of biological pre-organization in conditioned response patterns, and the importance of associative factors in the control of such patterns.     

Autoshaped key pecking maintained by access to a social space.

When four experimentally naive pigeons were exposed to occasional forward pairings of a keylight followed by a doorlight (that signaled access to a large social space), all subjects began to peck the lit key. In a second experiment, where the keylight either preceded the presentation of the doorlight or was presented independently of it, key pecking was maintained only in the former circumstance. The unconditioned stimulus in these experiments--arrival in the social space--did not elicit pecking. Hence, the conditioned response of key pecking and the unconditioned response of entering the social space differed. This demonstration of autoshaping with a social-space unconditioned stimulus argues against a stimulus-substitution account of the findings.     

Autoshaping with common and distinctive stimulus elements, compact and dispersed arrays

Four groups of pigeons were trained with a standard autoshaping procedure in which a brief fixed-duration interval always followed by a grain delivery alternated with a longer variable-duration interval never associated with grain delivery. One of two stimuli was always presented during each interval. One of them contained three black dots and a black star on a green background; the other contained four black dots on a green background. The four elements of each stimulus were arranged in a more compact array for two groups and in a more dispersed array for the other two groups. Which of the two stimuli preceded grain delivery was counterbalanced within each pair of groups. The speed of occurrence of the first autoshaped peck was not affected by whether the stimulus containing the distinctive star element preceded grain delivery, but autoshaping was faster when the stimulus arrays were compact than when they were dispersed. During 560 response-independent training trials that followed the first autoshaped peck, this pattern reversed; both discriminative control over responding and the relative frequency of pecking the stimulus that preceded grain delivery were greater for the two groups where this stimulus contained the discriminative element than for the two groups where it contained only common elements. During subsequent testing with stimuli containing only a single element each, the distinctive feature was responded to proportionately more often by the two groups for which it had been an element of the stimulus preceding grain delivery than by the two groups for which it had been an element of the stimulus complex that never was associated with grain delivery. These data add further support to the hypothesis that the initial occurrence of autoshaped responding and its subsequent maintenance are not affected by the same variables. They also suggest that automaintenance is as sensitive as response-dependent training to the presence or absence of a distinctive stimulus element among several common elements and that this sensitivity appears to be independent of the specific method used for presenting the stimuli during automaintenance.     

Automaintenance in guinea pigs: effects of feeding regimen and omission training

Behavior maintained by stimulus-reinforcer pairings was examined. Guinea pigs maintained at 85 per cent of free-feeding weights reliably contacted a retractable lever presented before delivery of a single piece of guinea-pig chow or a 45-milligram guinea-pig pellet. When animals were given free access to one food and received the second food preceded by the lever, contact responses persisted. Such responses seldom occurred when a single food was freely available and was also delivered after lever presentation. Introduction of an omission training (negative automaintenance) procedure, in which lever contacts resulted in lever retraction and prevented food delivery, strongly reduced lever contacts. Observation indicated that mouthing the food cup, instead of the lever, became the prominent behavior during the prefood stimulus under the omission training procedure.     

Discrimination and differentiation of response number in stimulus directed pecking of pigeons.

In Experiment 1, autoshaping trials terminated with food only if pigeons emitted more than a target number of responses during a trial in one condition and fewer than a target number in another. The median number of responses per trial shifted in accordance wtih the requirements. The responding of yoked-control birds that received response-independent reinforcers did not vary with the response requirements. In Experiment 2, the number of responses in autoshaping trial became the discriminative stimulus for reinforcement in the second component of a chained schedule. In one condition, responding was reinforced only if the number of responses in the first component was above a target value; in the other condition, responding was reinforced only if the number was below the target value. The distribution of the first-component response numbers did not shift systematically between discrimination conditions, but response rates in the second component indicated that the number of responses in the autoshaping trial was a discriminable property behavior.     

Second-order autoshaped key pecking based on an auditory stimulus.

In Experiment 1, pigeons were exposed either to paired or to unpaired presentations of a tone and grain, and then to paired presentations of a keylight with the tone. Substantial second-order conditioned pecking to the keylight was produced in the birds that had received paired presentations of tone and grain. In Experiment 2, second-order pecking to the keylight increased in probability across four groups that had received, respectively, 20, 80, 140, or 200 paired presentations of tone and grain. In Experiment 3, the amount of pecking directed towards a keylight which predicted the first-order, tone CS was as substantial in birds without a prior history of key pecking as in birds with such a history. A further experiment failed to discover any significant differences in the levels of second-order pecking to a keylight paired with a first-order tone CS or with a first-order keylight CS. Thus, an auditory signal that does not itself support pecking may enable a localized visual stimulus to evoke key pecking.