Conditioned suppression to odorous stimuli in pigeons,

The conditioned suppression technique was employed to establish criterion discrimination of an amyl acetate concentration of 3% of vapor saturation, and to generate differential response rates in the presence of equal concentrations of amyl acetate and butyl acetate. The magnitude of suppression was also recorded as a function of amyl acetate concentration, with the concentrations presented in descending, ascending, and irregular series. The three stimulus presentation procedures generated approximately equivalent suppression versus concentration functions. Amyl acetate suppression thresholds were 0.16%, 0.50%, and 0.73% of vapor saturation for three subjects. Amyl acetate, butyl acetate, and butyric acid thresholds for two additional subjects were approximately 0.10% of vapor saturation. No suppression was recorded during control trials.     

Conditioned suppression under positive, negative, and no contingency between conditioned and unconditioned stimuli

Using a conditioned suppression procedure, the effects of three contingent relationships between conditioned (CS) and unconditioned (US) stimuli were investigated. A traditional positive (if CS—then US) contingency suppressed response rate during the CS relative to responding during stimulus-free minutes of the session. A negative (if CS—then no US) contingency resulted in suppressed responding during CS-off minutes, and rate increases during the CS. A no-contingency control procedure, during which CS and US were randomly related, almost totally suppressed responding throughout the session and showed no differential effects of the CS on response rate. An analysis of changes in response rate during the minute after US-offset revealed acceleration under the no-contingency condition and, to a somewhat lesser degree, under the negative contingency. Both conditioned suppression and non-suppression are analyzed in terms of the temporal relationship between CS and US.     

Conditioned suppression in the gerbil

The present report describes apparatus and procedures for investigating conditioned suppression of a running response in the gerbil. Data are presented which demonstrate that the conditioned suppression observed in this situation is not an artifact of alpha responses, pseudoconditioning, or sensitization. An analysis of differential conditioning indicated that cue similarity and US intensity are negatively related to cue-specific differential responding.     

Conditioned suppression and conditioned enhancement with the same positive UCS: an effect of CS duration

Previous experiments have shown that positively reinforced operant responding is suppressed during a conditioned stimulus terminated with an electric shock (conditioned suppression). In the present experiment, the conditioned stimulus was terminated with a positive unconditioned stimulus, and it was found that the duration of the conditioned stimulus was a key factor in determining whether response suppression or response enhancement was observed during the stimulus. The lever-pressing responses of rats were maintained by a variable-interval schedule of food reinforcement. While the rats were pressing the lever, a light was occasionally turned on, its offset coincident with a brief period of access to a sucrose solution. In consecutive blocks of sessions, the light duration was 40 sec, 12 sec, or 120 sec. Results showed that the rate of lever pressing was substantially suppressed during the 12-sec stimulus, slightly suppressed during the 40-sec stimulus, and enhanced during the 120-sec stimulus.     

Conditioned suppression and variable ratio reinforcement

Conditioned suppression is a decrease in response rate during a relatively short duration stimulus that terminates independently of the animal's behavior and coincidentally with a brief unavoidable shock. The degree of conditioned suppression was measured for each of three birds on three variable ratio schedules; that is, the number of responses required for food reinforcement was varied around a mean of 50, 100, or 200. The results indicated a slight and possibly negligible decrease in the degree of suppression as the mean number of responses required on the schedule was increased from 50, to 100, and 200. In general, it was found that all of the variable ratio schedules tested were quite insensitive to the conditioned suppression procedure, although almost complete suppression was obtained on a few occasions. Since the reinforcement was contingent upon the emission of responses, the birds typically displayed a high rate of response during the pre-shock stimulus on all schedules. In addition, the rate during the pre-shock stimulus often changed abruptly independent of the presentation of a reinforcement. As a result of the high rate of response and the abrupt changes in rate, the degree of suppression from trial to trial was quite variable. A clear analysis of an experimental variable on this baseline is thus difficult.     

Conditioned suppression of free-operant avoidance

The responses of white rats were maintained on an unsignalled free-operant avoidance schedule. Superimposed on the avoidance schedule was a blinking white light followed immediately by response-independent electric shock. Duration of the light stimulus was either 1 or 3 min. Avoidable shock was 1.5 mA; response-independent shock was 7.5 mA. Suppression of responding during the light stimulus (both durations) developed over sessions. Responding immediately following the response-independent light-shock sequence was neither suppressed nor accelerated. The similarity is noted between the present result and findings of “positive conditioned suppression”.     

Time-dependent changes in conditioned suppression

Time-dependent changes in a response following aversive conditioning were investigated using a conditioned suppression procedure in a within-subjects design. Four groups of pigeons received Pavlovian conditioning “off the baseline”, immediately followed by an operant task. During the Pavlovian phase, two groups received a forward pairing of a tone with shock, one group received a backward pairing, and one group received a truly random pairing. One of the forward pairing groups also received a delay between the Pavlovian and operant phases. For all groups, key pecking was reinforced on a variable-interval schedule during the operant phase. Testing sessions were identical to training sessions, except that the tone used during Pavlovian conditioning was presented either 0, 15, 30, 45, of 60 minutes after the operant phase began. Testing sessions in which the Pavlovian phase was omitted were also included. The results showed suppression to change as a function of the retention interval, with maximum suppression occurring at intermediate intervals. This U-shaped function was obtained for 11 of the 12 pigeons in the forward-pairing groups and for three of the five in the truly random group. Pigeons in the background pairing group did not show changes in suppression as a function of the retention interval.     

Conditioned suppression of counting behavior in rats

Three rats were trained on a schedule in which a response on lever B was reinforced only if it was preceded by a minimum number of consecutive responses on lever A. The minimum requirement was 27 A responses for Rat 1, and 20 A responses for Rats 2 and 3. The schedule maintained high rates of responding on lever A, and a slow, spaced pattern of responding on lever B. The mean number of consecutive responses on lever A was slightly greater than the minimum required. The effect of superimposing on this behavior a stimulus that ended with an unavoidable shock was the suppression of responding on both levers during the pre-shock stimulus. Responses on lever A were more suppressed, and the proportion of relatively short response runs on lever A during the pre-shock stimulus increased. With all three rats, the mean number of consecutive responses on lever A during the pre-shock stimulus decreased to a value below the minimum requirement for reinforcement of the subsequent B response.     

Conditioned suppression, punishment, and aversion

Three experiments were conducted to assess the aversive properties of a visual stimulus in the presence of which one group of birds received response-contingent shock (discriminated punishment) while a yoked group of birds received non-contingent shocks (conditioned suppression). In Experiment 1, presentation of the visual stimulus contingent on key pecking reduced the response rate (conditioned punishment effect) for birds under the conditioned suppression procedure but did not reduce the response rate of birds under the discriminative punishment procedure. Non-contingent shocks also produced greater suppression of responding maintained by positive reinforcement in the presence of a visual stimulus than did response-contingent shocks. In Experiment 2, a greater shock intensity (2 mA) was used. All the differences between the two groups found in Experiment 1 were also found in Experiment 2. Experiment 3 demonstrated that response-contingent shock did not result in a conditioned punishment effect even when positive reinforcers were unavailable during the discriminative punishment schedule. The exteroceptive stimulus that was paired with shock in the conditioned suppression procedure acquired the ability to punish behavior. The exteroceptive stimulus in the discriminative punishment schedule did not acquire this ability.     

Habituation of conditioned suppression

Habituation of a conditioned emotional response was investigated using a procedure which eliminated contaminating temporal discriminations. Three rats were trained to bar press on a random interval 60 sec schedule of milk reinforcement and variable duration tone-shock pairings were superimposed upon this baseline. Very little recovery from conditioned suppression was found over 60 sessions of testing and no systematic differences were found after a month's “vacation” from the procedure. Analysis of responding within the CS period showed uniform suppression. The data are discussed in terms of stimulus predictability.     

Summation of conditioned suppression

Four rats were trained to suppress responses in the presence of two separately presented stimuli that signalled shock in a conditioned-suppression paradigm. The two stimuli that signalled shock were then presented simultaneously to evaluate the effect of stimulus compounding on conditioned suppression. Two rats were tested by presenting the compound conditioned stimulus while conditioned suppression was being maintained to the individual conditioned stimuli. The other two rats were tested by giving them random presentations of the compound conditioned stimulus and the single conditioned stimuli during extinction of conditioned suppression. All four rats showed greater suppression to the compound stimulus than to either stimulus presented alone.     

Conditioned suppression of an avoidance response

A signal followed by shock was presented at irregular intervals during a free-operant avoidance schedule. The effects of this procedure were studied in terms of the rate of unavoided shock in the presence and absence of the signal and the rate of response before and during the signal. Three shock intensities were employed. Response enhancement as well as response suppression were observed; irrespective of changes in responding, shock rates substantially increased during signalled periods compared to non-signalled periods. Shock rates in non-signalled periods were generally higher than during training.     

Conditioned stimulus informativeness governs conditioned stimulus-unconditioned stimulus associability

In a conditioning protocol, the onset of the conditioned stimulus ([CS]) provides information about when to expect reinforcement (unconditioned stimulus [US]). There are two sources of information from the CS in a delay conditioning paradigm in which the CS-US interval is fixed. The first depends on the informativeness, the degree to which CS onset reduces the average expected time to onset of the next US. The second depends only on how precisely a subject can represent a fixed-duration interval (the temporal Weber fraction). In three experiments with mice, we tested the differential impact of these two sources of information on rate of acquisition of conditioned responding (CS-US associability). In Experiment 1, we showed that associability (the inverse of trials to acquisition) increased in proportion to informativeness. In Experiment 2, we showed that fixing the duration of the US-US interval or the CS-US interval or both had no effect on associability. In Experiment 3, we equated the increase in information produced by varying the C/T ratio with the increase produced by fixing the duration of the CS-US interval. Associability increased with increased informativeness, but, as in Experiment 2, fixing the CS-US duration had no effect on associability. These results are consistent with the view that CS-US associability depends on the increased rate of reward signaled by CS onset. The results also provide further evidence that conditioned responding is temporally controlled when it emerges.     

Positive conditioned suppression: conditioned suppression using positive reinforcers as the unconditioned stimuli

Research has revealed the phenomenon of conditioned suppression in which the rate of responding is reduced during a stimulus that is paired with noncontingent shock. The present study replicated this procedure, but used noncontingent positive reinforcers instead of the aversive shock. The lever-pressing responses of rats were reinforced with food or water. While the rats were responding, a stimulus was occasionally presented and paired with the delivery of a noncontingent positive reinforcer, which was either food, water, or brain stimulation for different rats. The result was a reduction in the rate of responding during the conditioned stimulus. This finding shows that conditioned suppression occurs during a signal for reinforcing as well as aversive stimuli.