Lever attacking by rats during free-operant avoidance

Rats pressed a lever to avoid shock on a free-operant avoidance schedule. Some subjects were also exposed to extinction in which the response-shock contingency was eliminated while the shock-shock contingency remained in effect. A specially constructed lever was used that registered not only presses, but also biting attacks on the lever. Throughout various phases of the study, shocks often elicited lever biting as well as post-shock responding. The results suggested that shock-elicited attacks that are forceful enough to activate the operandum might account for some of the responding that occurs in experiments on free-operant avoidance behavior. In particular, shock-elicited operandum attacking might account for post-shock response bursting during free-operant avoidance and the extreme persistence of responding sometimes noted when shocks are delivered during the extinction of avoidance behavior. To the extent that this is true, these phenomena should not be characterized as operant behavior in interpreting the results of experiments on free operant avoidance.     

The elimination of interfering response patterns in lever-press avoidance situations

Lever holding into shock and short-latency responses to shock onset are two response patterns that interfere with avoidance acquisition in free-operant and discriminated avoidance situations. In an attempt to eliminate these patterns, an additional timer disabled the lever for a period slightly longer than shock duration. A free-operant avoidance schedule with a warning stimulus, but without the additional timer, constituted the control condition. The lever-disabling timer was turned on by different events in two experimental conditions: (a) release of the lever at the onset of shock, (b) shock onset. Interfering responses diminished most rapidly, and efficient avoidance behavior appeared earliest, when the lever-disabling timer was turned on by shock onset.     

Lever holding under free-operant avoidance

Rate of response under a free-operant avoidance procedure decreases as the response-shock interval increases. The present experiment demonstrated an inverse relation between rate of response and lever-holding time. An invariance was found in the total time per session that a subject was in contact with the lever. It is suggested that lever-holding behavior may be as sensitive as response rate to changes in the response-shock interval.     

Signalled and unsignalled free-operant avoidance in the pigeon

Pigeons were trained to depress a lever to avoid electric shock under free-operant avoidance schedules without a warning signal, or with a warning signal that could be terminated only by a response. Most birds in the signalled avoidance procedure terminated more than 50% of the warning signals before shock. In the unsignalled avoidance procedure, several birds formed a temporal discrimination and received relatively few shocks; other birds responded only in post-shock bursts, and received many more shocks.     

Electroencephalographic correlations of temporally spaced responding and avoidance behavior

This study was undertaken to determine whether any EEG changes occurred during a multiple schedule of reinforcement consisting of repeated periods of avoidance behavior, a time-out (TO) period, and a period of differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL). The two monkeys were permanently implanted with bipolar electrodes in various subcortical areas. The EEG was recorded from these electrodes for several weeks before any behavioral training was undertaken. Training was then begun in the multiple schedule, and EEG recordings were taken frequently throughout the training period. When a stable performance level was achieved, drugs (dl-amphetamine and sodium pentobarbital) were introduced which disrupted the DRL performance but had little or no effect on avoidance behavior. The EEG recordings continued throughout these drug studies.

The data indicate that the marked behavioral differences noted in each component of the schedule were not reflected in the EEG. However, the EEG did correlate with the general level of alertness of the animals during the various components. The drugs which differentially affected the behavior in the components of the schedule did not differentially affect the EEG, but they did change the brain-wave activity equally in all components. Finally, EEG changes correlated with the complex motor response of lever pressing were not observed.

     

Extinction of responding maintained by timeout from avoidance

The resistance to extinction of lever pressing maintained by timeout from avoidance was examined. Rats were trained under a concurrent schedule in which responses on one lever postponed shock on a free-operant avoidance (Sidman) schedule (response-shock interval = 30 s) and responses on another lever produced 2 min of signaled timeout from avoidance on a variable-ratio 15 schedule. Following extended training (106 to 363 2-hr sessions), two experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1 two different methods of extinction were compared. In one session, all shocks were omitted, and there was some weakening of avoidance but little change in timeout responding. In another session, responding on the timeout lever was ineffective, and under these conditions timeout responding showed rapid extinction. The within-session patterns produced by extinction manipulations were different than the effects of drugs such as morphine, which also reduces timeout responding. In Experiment 2 shock was omitted for many consecutive sessions. Response rates on the avoidance lever declined relatively rapidly, with noticeable reductions within 5 to 10 sessions. Extinction of the timeout lever response was much slower than extinction of avoidance in all 4 rats, and 2 rats continued responding at baseline levels for more than 20 extinction sessions. These results show that lever pressing maintained by negative reinforcement can be highly resistant to extinction. The persistence of responding on the timeout lever after avoidance extinction is not readily explained by current theories.     

A comparison of escape and avoidance conditioning in wild and domesticated rats

In the first of two experiments, three cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus) and three albino rats were exposed to instrumental escape, unsignaled avoidance, and signaled avoidance, in that order. All subjects learned the escape procedure quickly, with the albino rats having generally shorter latencies, higher response rates, and requiring fewer sessions to reach the criterion. When the avoidance contingency was introduced, the cotton rats continued to respond almost entirely in the presence of the shock, whereas the albino rats responded in its absence, thus displaying effective avoidance behavior. Introduction of a pre-aversive stimulus did not improve the performance of the cotton rats. In the second experiment, five cotton rats and four albino rats were exposed to a free-operant (Sidman) avoidance procedure with a shock-shock interval of 3 sec and a response-shock interval of 20 sec. The cotton rats initiated responding at lower shock intensities than the albino rats, but their asymptotic avoidance responding was far less effective.     

The discriminative control of free-operant avoidance despite exposure to shock during the stimulus correlated with nonreinforcement

Four rats were trained in darkness on a free-operant avoidance procedure in which shocks occurred randomly, but lever presses could reduce their frequency. Discrimination training followed, during which responses in light continued to reduce shock frequency, but responses in darkness had no effect. During each cycle, the light period was 4 min, while darkness lasted only until a 20-sec interval had elapsed without a response. This no-response requirement was increased to 40 sec for three animals and eventually to 60 sec for two of them. Discriminative control developed, despite a greater shock density in the dark, with response rate and number of responses per shock maintained or increasing during light and decreasing to very low values in darkness. Two animals were later exposed to a procedure in which shock density was unaffected by responding either in light or darkness. A 60-sec no-response requirement was continued in the dark. Discriminative control persisted through 42 sessions for one animal and required 45 sessions to approach extinction for the other animal. The role of the light as a potential conditioned reinforcer of other behavior in the dark was implicated in the development and persistence of discriminative control. These data support shock-frequency reduction as reinforcement for avoidance behavior.     

Timing the second response in two-response avoidance.

Rats were trained on a free-operant avoidance task requiring two lever presses within R seconds, with the opportunity for each response distinguished by differing stimuli. Response latencies at a variety of response-shock intervals were found to be proportional to the time available for the response. These results are shown to be consonant with a scalar expectancy model of timing behavior.     

Variable-interval schedules of timeout from avoidance

Rats were trained on concurrent schedules in which pressing one lever postponed shock and pressing the other occasionally produced a 2-min timeout during which the shock-postponement schedule was suspended and its correlated stimuli were removed. Throughout, the shock-postponement schedule maintained proficient levels of avoidance. Nevertheless, in Experiment 1 responding on the timeout lever was established rapidly, was maintained at stable levels on variable-interval schedules, was extinguished by withholding timeout, was reestablished when timeout was reintroduced, and was brought under discriminative control with a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule of timeout. These results are in contrast with Verhave's (1962) conclusion that timeout is an ineffective reinforcer when presented to rats on intermittent schedules. In Experiment 2 the consequence of responding on the timeout lever was altered so that the shock-postponement schedule remained in effect even though the stimulus conditions associated with timeout were produced for 2 min. Responding extinguished, indicating that suspension of the shock-postponement schedule, not stimulus change, was the source of reinforcement. By establishing the reinforcing efficacy of timeout with standard variable-interval schedules, these experiments illustrate a procedure for studying negative reinforcement in the same way as positive reinforcement.     

Human, free-operant avoidance of “time out” from monetary reinforcement

To assess the aversive effects of withdrawing monetary reinforcement, human subjects were exposed to a free-operant avoidance procedure in which periods of no reinforcement occurred if the subject failed to respond, and each response postponed withdrawal of reinforcement. Avoidance behavior was developed either through specific instructions about the consequence of responding or through preliminary escape-avoidance training. In all cases, rates of response were found to be a positively accelerated function of decreases in the duration by which responding postponed reinforcement withdrawal. The findings with respect to the function relating avoidance behavior to the interval of postponement were viewed as similar to those obtained when shock is used as the aversive event in free-operant avoidance conditioning.     

A comparison of operant licking and lever pressing in the rat

Two groups of rats were trained on a signaled, free-operant, avoidance procedure to lick or to lever press in order to avoid shock while water-deprived or satiated and, in the case of licking, while ingesting deionized water, isotonic saline, or 10% sucrose. The most effective avoidance licking occurred while the rats were water-deprived and ingesting 10% sucrose. Water deprivation level had no effect on lever pressing for shock avoidance. Two other groups of rats were operantly conditioned to lick or to lever press for food pellets while waterdeprived or satiated and, in the case of licking, while ingesting deionized water or 10% sucrose. The most effective licking for food reinforcement occurred while the rats were water-deprived and ingesting 10% sucrose. Water deprivation level had no effect on lever pressing for food reinforcement. The data indicated that effective operant licking must be supported by factors related to water regulation and taste palatability.     

Comparisons of two measures of free-operant avoidance under two conditions of response feedback

Lever-pressing responses of 6 rats were studied under a free-operant avoidance procedure, in 6 two-hour sessions. Three of the subjects were given an added visual feedback for each response; they avoided shocks more effectively than the subjects without the feedback. Two different measures of overall performance in free-operant avoidance were applied to the results of the experiment. There was little difference between the measures: both reflected the subjects' performance equally well. Relative merits of the measures and the criteria for selecting one of them were discussed.     

ASSESSING THE ROLE OF EFFORT REDUCTION IN THE REINFORCING EFFICACY OF TIMEOUT FROM AVOIDANCE

Rats responded on concurrent schedules of shock‐postponement or deletion (avoidance) and timeout from avoidance. In Experiment 1, 3 rats' responses on one lever postponed shocks for 20 s and responses on a second lever produced a 1‐min timeout according to a variable‐interval 45‐s schedule. Across conditions, a warning signal (white noise) was presented 19.5 s, 16 s, 12 s, 8 s, or 4 s before an impending shock. Raising the duration of the warning signal increased both avoidance and timeout response rates. Timeout responding, although positively correlated with avoidance responding, was not correlated with the prevailing shock rate. In Experiment 2, 3 rats' responses on one lever deleted scheduled shocks according to a variable‐cycle 30‐s schedule and responses on a second lever produced a 2‐min timeout as described above. After this baseline condition, the avoidance lever was removed and noncontingent shocks were delivered at intervals yoked to the receipt of shocks in the baseline sessions. Timeout responding decreased when the avoidance lever was removed, even though the shock‐frequency reduction afforded by the timeout remained constant. These results suggest that a key factor in the reinforcing efficacy of timeout is suspension of the requirement to work to avoid shock, rather than the reduction in shock frequency associated with timeout.     

Summation of food and shock based responding

In a multiphase experiment, dogs first received discriminative, discretetrial, barrier-jumping training with two tones (S^D, S^Δ) in a shuttle box reinforced by either shock avoidance (Group I) or by food (Group II). Then the dogs were trained on free-operant barrier-jumping reinforced by the qualitatively opposite reinforcer—food in Group I and shock avoidance in Group II. Finally, test presentations of the tone stimuli were superimposed on the free-operant behavior. The tone S^Ds markedly facilitated responding in all animals. This experiment demonstrates a summation of responding maintained by shock avoidance and food reinforcement and casts doubt on explanations of conditioned suppression outcomes that appeal solely to incompatible motivational states within the organism.     

Signal functions in discriminated avoidance behavior

Four rats were trained to lever press under a discriminated avoidance/escape schedule in which separately signalled safe and warning periods were 100 sec and 32 sec respectively. The auditory and not the visual component of the compound warning signal became associated with the discriminative control of lever pressing. Avoidance behavior also came under temporal control, in that the probability of lever pressing increased as the warning period progressed. Timing began with the onset of the warning signal rather than the offset of the safe signal. However, after the warning signal had been progressively eliminated, timing began with the offset of the safe signal. When neither signal was normally available, the temporal distribution of avoidance behavior changed markedly. Drifts in the temporal distribution of lever pressing occurred throughout the study; these were manipulated for two animals.     

Behavioral regulation of gravity: schedule effects under escape-avoidance procedures

Squirrel monkeys were restrained in a centrifuge capsule and trained to escape and avoid increases in artificial gravity. During escape-avoidance, lever responses reduced centrifugally simulated gravity or postponed scheduled increases. The effect of variation in the interval of postponement (equal to the duration of decrease produced by escape responses) was studied under a multiple schedule of four components. Three components were gravity escape-avoidance with postponement times of 20, 40, and 60 sec. The fourth component was extinction. Each component was associated with a different auditory stimulus. Rate of responding decreased with increasing postponement time and higher mean g-levels occurred at shorter intervals of postponement. Effects of the schedule parameter on response rate and mean g-level were similar to effects of the schedule on free-operant avoidance and on titration behavior maintained by shock.     

On the independence of stimulus evocation of fear and fear evocation of responses

Dogs in an experimental group were first trained in a shuttlebox on a free-operant avoidance response; then a second, discriminative avoidance response was trained in a second apparatus to a tone. Following criterion, the second avoidance response was “extinguished” through unsignaled. response-independent US presentations. Finally, the tone was presented in the shuttlebox as a test for residual fear. The tone produced as much facilitation of the free-operant avoidance responding as it did in two control groups; one control had not had the second avoidance response extinguished, while the other had received only Pavlovian conditioning in the second apparatus. Thus, the elimination of a discriminative avoidance response to a CS does not impair the CS's ability to control a second independent avoidance response. This result reflects and confirms the separability and independence of the CS-fear and fearavoidance response links hypothesized by two-process theories.     

Increased reinforcement when timeout from avoidance includes access to a safe place

Three experiments investigated the reinforcing value of access to a safe place during timeout from an avoidance schedule. Rats were trained on conjoint schedules in which responding both postponed shock on a free-operant avoidance schedule and produced periods of timeout on fixed-ratio schedules. In some conditions, a shelf was inserted into the operant chamber during timeout, enabling subjects to get off the grid floor. The combination of timeout and shelf maintained substantially higher response rates than the baseline avoidance schedule with ratio requirements as high as 90 (Experiment I). Adding the shelf to timeouts in one component of multiple fixed-ratio schedules of timeout resulted in higher response rates in the component where the shelf was included (Experiment II). When timeouts with and without the shelf were arranged on concurrent schedules, the shelf-timeout combination was preferred, even when of shorter duration than timeout alone (Experiment III). In all three experiments, subjects climbed on the shelf, although all shocks were cancelled during timeout periods. The results could not be accounted for solely in terms of the reinforcing properties of changes in shock rates, but required an interpretation that ascribed conditioned reinforcing value to stimuli associated with such changes.     

Punishment and the potential for negative reinforcement with histamine injection

The present study examined punishment of responding with histamine injection, and its potential to generate avoidance of punishment. Sprague–Dawley rats were trained under concurrent schedules in which responses on one lever (the punishment lever) produced food under a variable‐interval schedule, and under some conditions intermittent injections of histamine, which suppressed behavior. Responses on a second (avoidance) lever prevented histamine injections scheduled on the punishment lever. After stabilization of punished responding, a variable‐interval 15‐s schedule of cancellation of histamine (avoidance) was added for responding on the second/avoidance lever, without subsequent acquisition of responding on that lever. Progressive decreases in the length of the punishment variable‐interval schedule increased suppression on the punishment lever without increases in response rates on the avoidance lever. Exchanging contingencies on the levers ensured that response rates on the avoidance lever were sufficiently high to decrease the histamine injection frequency; nonetheless response rates on the avoidance lever decreased over subsequent sessions. Under no condition was responding maintained on the avoidance lever despite continued punishing effectiveness of histamine throughout. The present results suggest that avoidance conditioning is not a necessary condition for effective punishment, and confirm the importance of empirical rather than presumed categorization of behavioral effects of stimulus events.