Acquisition of lever-press responding in rats with delayed reinforcement: A comparison of three procedures

The present study examined the acquisition of lever pressing in rats under three procedures in which food delivery was delayed by 4, 8, and 16 seconds relative to the response. Under the nonresetting delay procedure, food followed the response selected for reinforcement after a specified interval elapsed; responses during this interval had no programmed effect. Under the resetting procedure, the response selected for reinforcement initiated an interval to food delivery that was reset by each subsequent response. Under the stacked delay procedure, every response programmed delivery of food t seconds after its occurrence. Two control groups were studied, one that received food immediately after each lever press and another that never received food. With the exception of the group that did not receive food, responding was established with every procedure at every delay value without autoshaping or shaping. Although responding was established under the resetting delay procedure, response rates were generally not as high as under the other two procedures. These findings support the results of other recent investigations in demonstrating that a response not previously reinforced can be brought to strength by delayed reinforcement in the absence of explicit training.     

Effects of reinforcement rate and delay on the acquisition of lever pressing by rats.

The acquisition of lever pressing by naive rats, in the absence of shaping, was studied as a function of different rates and unsignaled delays of reinforcement. Groups of 3 rats were each exposed to tandem schedules that differed in either the first or the second component. First-component schedules were either continuous reinforcement or random-interval 15, 30, 60 or 120 s; second-component schedules were fixed-time 0, 1, 3, 6, 12, or 24 s. Rate of responding was low under continuous immediate reinforcement and higher under random-interval 15 s. Random interval 30-s and 60-s schedules produced lower rates that were similar to each other. Random-interval 120 s controlled the lowest rate in the immediate-reinforcement condition. Adding a constant 12-s delay to each of the first-component schedule parameters controlled lower response rates that did not vary systematically with reinforcement rate. The continuous and random-interval 60-s schedules of immediate reinforcement controlled higher global and first-component response rates than did the same schedules combined with longer delays, and first-component rates showed some graded effects of delay duration. In addition, the same schedules controlled higher second-component response rates in combination with a 1-s delay than in combination with longer delays. These results were related to those from previous studies on acquisition with delayed reinforcement as well as to those from similar reinforcement procedures used during steady-state responding.     

Tests of behavior momentum in simple and multiple schedules with rats and pigeons.

Four experiments examined the relationship between rate of reinforcement and resistance to change in rats' and pigeons' responses under simple and multiple schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, 28 rats responded under either simple fixed-ratio, variable-ratio, fixed-interval, or variable-interval schedules; in Experiment 2, 3 pigeons responded under simple fixed-ratio schedules. Under each schedule, rate of reinforcement varied across four successive conditions. In Experiment 3, 14 rats responded under either a multiple fixed-ratio schedule or a multiple fixed-interval schedule, each with two components that differed in rate of reinforcement. In Experiment 4, 7 pigeons responded under either a multiple fixed-ratio or a multiple fixed-interval schedule, each with three components that also differed in rate of reinforcement. Under each condition of each experiment, resistance to change was studied by measuring schedule-controlled performance under conditions with prefeeding, response-independent food during the schedule or during timeouts that separated components of the multiple schedules, and by measuring behavior under extinction. There were no consistent differences between rats and pigeons. There was no direct relationship between rates of reinforcement and resistance to change when rates of reinforcement varied across successive conditions in the simple schedules. By comparison, in the multiple schedules there was a direct relationship between rates of reinforcement and resistance to change during most tests of resistance to change. The major exception was delivering response-independent food during the schedule; this disrupted responding, but there was no direct relationship between rates of reinforcement and resistance to change in simple- or multiple-schedule contexts. The data suggest that rate of reinforcement determines resistance to change in multiple schedules, but that this relationship does not hold under simple schedules.     

Preference for signaled over unsignaled shock schedules: Ruling out asymmetry and response fixation as factors

Experiment 1 tested whether a “symmetrical” choice procedure yields results different from those previously reported using the “unidirectional” standard changeover procedure (e.g., Badia & Culbertson, 1972). Subjects could change at any time from unsignaled to signaled shock by pressing a lever and from signaled to unsignaled shock by pressing a second lever. Results were identical to those of the standard procedure and showed that the standard procedure is fully adequate. Experiment 2 tested whether choice of high density signaled shock over low-density unsignaled shock (Badia, Coker, & Harsh, 1973) resulted from initial training with equal-density schedules. Subjects were trained and tested with signaled shock twice as dense as unsignaled shock. Three of four subjects strongly preferred the signaled condition, thus ruling out carry-over and “response fixation” as alternative explanations.     

Choosing between predictable shock schedules: Long- versus short-duration signals

Two experiments assessed the relative aversiveness of different duration preshock signals (5 and 20 seconds) and different duration stimuli identifying shock-free periods. In the first experiment, the responding of 15 of 18 rats was maintained when it produced changes from a predictable-shock condition with a 5-second preshock signal to an identical schedule with a 20-second preshock signal; responding was not maintained when it produced the opposite changes. These results occurred with intershock intervals of both 120 seconds and 240 seconds. The second experiment assessed whether changing to the 20-second schedule was maintained by properties of the preshock signals identifying the shock periods or by properties of the stimuli identifying the shock-free periods. Four subjects were given training with the two signaled schedules in an operant chamber and then later given off-baseline preference tests in a shuttlebox. When given a choice between preshock signals, subjects chose the 5-second signals over the 20-second signals. However, when given a choice between stimuli identifying shock-free periods, subjects chose the stimulus identifying the shorter shock-free periods (i.e., the one previously correlated with the 20-second signals). These findings are discussed within the Rescorla and Wagner model of stimulus compounds and within the context of safety as a contrast phenomenon.     

Reductions in shock frequency and response effort as factors in reinforcement by timeout from avoidance

Rats' presses on one lever canceled shocks programmed after variable cycles, while presses on a second lever occasionally produced a 2-min timout during which the shock-delection schedule was suspended and its correlated stimuli removed. These concurrent schedules of avoidance and timeout were embedded in a multiple schedule whose components differed, within and across conditions, in terms of the programmed shock rate associated with the shock-deletion schedule. Analyses based on the generalized matching law suggest that the reduction in the response requirement correlated with termination of the avoidance schedule was a more important factor in the reinforcing effectiveness of timeout than was shock-frequency reduction, at least in 2 of 3 rats. After training in each condition, responding on the timeout lever was extinguished by withholding timeouts in both components over seven sessions. Resistance to extinction varied directly with the rates of both shock-frequency reduction and avoidance-response reduction experienced during training. Although reduction in response effort appeared to dominate shock-frequency reduction in the maintenance of responding, neither factor had a clear advantage in predicting the course of extinction.     

Differences in the effect of Pavlovian contingencies upon behavioral momentum using auditory versus visual stimuli.

We examined the role of Pavlovian and operant relations in behavioral momentum by arranging response-contingent alternative reinforcement in one component of a three-component multiple concurrent schedule with rats. This permitted the simultaneous arranging of different response-reinforcer (operant) and stimulus-reinforcer (Pavlovian) contingencies during three baseline conditions. Auditory or visual stimuli were used as discriminative stimuli within the multiple concurrent schedules. Resistance to change of a target response was assessed during a single session of extinction following each baseline condition. The rate of the target response during baseline varied inversely with the rate of response-contingent reinforcement derived from a concurrent source, regardless of whether the discriminative stimuli were auditory or visual. Resistance to change of the target response, however, did depend on the discriminative-stimulus modality. Resistance to change in the presence of visual stimuli was a positive function of the Pavlovian contingencies, whereas resistance to change was unrelated to either the operant or Pavlovian contingencies when the discriminative stimuli were auditory. Stimulus salience may be a factor in determining the differences in resistance to change across sensory modalities.     

The control of responding by sounds: unusual effect of reinforcement.

Naive rats were trained to respond on one lever in the presence of noise bursts from one speaker and on a second lever in the presence of noise bursts from a second speaker. The speakers were mounted behind the levers. When responding on the lever adjacent to the sounding speaker was reinforced, control developed within fewer than five trials. When responding on the nonadjacent lever was selectively reinforced, responding on the lever adjacent to the sounding speaker increased in probability for several sessions. Naive rats were trained to respond on the nonadjacent lever following preexposure to the sound. Responding on the lever adjacent to the sounding speaker increased in probability, showing that novelty was not responsible for the effect. Naive rats were run on automaintenance procedures in which there was no explicit pairing of sound and magazine operation, 100% pairing of sound and magazine operation, or magazine operation following 40% of sound presentations. None of the rats acquired the response of approaching and sniffing the sounding speaker, indicating that sound-magazine pairing was not responsible for the effect.     

Social reinforcement of operant behavior in rats: a methodological note.

An apparatus was developed to study social reinforcement in the rat. Four Long-Evans female rats were trained to press a lever via shaping, with the reinforcer being access to a castrated male rat. Responding under a fixed-ratio schedule and in extinction was also observed. Social access was found to be an effective reinforcer. When social reinforcement was compared with food reinforcement under similar conditions of deprivation and reinforcer duration, no significant differences were observed.