The relative aversiveness of signalled vs unsignalled avoidance

Subjects avoided shock by pressing on one lever under an unsignalled condition, but by pressing a separate lever they changed the condition to signalled avoidance for 1-min periods. Signalled avoidance periods were identified by a correlated stimulus. All eight subjects responded to change the unsignalled schedule to a signalled one. Once contact with signalled avoidance was made, subjects continued responding to remain in that condition. Other tests showed that changeover responding was greater when the correlated stimulus was presented without the signal than when the signal was presented without the correlated stimulus. An analysis based upon shock and shock-free periods is presented.     

Choice of higher density signalled shock over lower density unsignalled shock

Unsignalled, inescapable shocks were presented to four albino rats in Experiment 1. By pressing a lever subjects could change the condition to signalled shock for 3-min periods after which unsignalled shock was automatically reinstated. All subjects changed from unsignalled to signalled shock when shock density was the same or when the density of signalled shock was two times greater than unsignalled shock. When the density of signalled shock was four times that of unsignalled shock, three subjects changed to the higher density schedule. One subject changed to a density of signalled shock eight times that of unsignalled shock. The second study showed that the two shock schedules most similar in Experiment 1 were discriminably different because subjects chose lower over higher shock densities when both densities were unsignalled. An analysis stressing safe (signal absent) and unsafe (signal present) periods was discussed.     

Choice of longer or stronger signalled shock over shorter or weaker unsignalled shock

Unsignalled, inescapable shocks were presented to four albino rats in one study and to six rats in a second study. By pressing a lever, subjects could change the condition to signalled shock for 3 min after which unsignalled shock was automatically reinstated. All subjects changed frequently to the signalled shock schedule. After a minimum of three 6-hr sessions or after changeover responding stabilized at the previous values, higher values of signalled shock intensity or duration were introduced. In the first study, the duration of signalled shock was increased in increments of 0.5 sec. In the second study, the intensity of signalled shock was increased in increments of either 0.2 or 0.4 mA. Duration subjects chose signalled shock four (2.0 sec) to nine times (4.5 sec) longer than unsignalled shock (0.5 sec). Intensity subjects chose signalled shock two (2.0 mA) to three times (3.0 mA) more intense than unsignalled shock (1.0 mA).     

Choice and the dependability of stimuli that predict shock and safety

This study assessed whether choosing a signalled shock condition over an unsignalled one is controlled by a stimulus that predicts the presence of shock (Experiment I), or by a stimulus that predicts the absence of shock (Experiment II). The dependability of these stimuli as predictors of either the presence or the absence of shock was parametrically varied over a wide range, and subjects (rats) were given an option to change from an unsignalled to a signalled condition. In the first experiment, all shocks were preceded by signals; however, the probability of a signal being followed by shock varied from 1.0 to 0.02. The data obtained indicate that the dependability of the signal as a predictor of shock is unimportant. Rats changed to the signalled condition when the signal was completely dependable (all signals followed by shock) and when the dependability of the signal was systematically degraded. In the second experiment, all signals were followed by shock; however, some shocks were not preceded by a signal. The data show that the dependability of a stimulus predicting the absence of shock is important in that, as dependability decreases, changing to the signalled condition also decreases.     

Choosing between fixed time and variable time shock

Two experiments are reported dealing with choice of fixed or variable time shock schedules with and without signals. Response independent shock was presented on either a fixed-time or a variable-time schedule and subjects could change from one condition to the other for short periods after which the initial condition was automatically reinstated. In the first experiment shocks for both schedules were either unsignalled (6 subjects) or signalled (3 subjects) and all subjects changed from a schedule of variable-time shock to a fixed-time one. Subjects that were given the opportunity to change in the reverse direction did not do so. Opposite findings were obtained in the second experiment (7 subjects) comparing unsignalled fixed-time shock with signalled variable-time shock. Six of the seven subjects changed from the fixed-time schedule to the signalled variable-time one but not the reverse. The data were considered consistent with an analysis of choice based on the reinforcing value of discriminable shock-free periods.     

Choice of extinction-signalling stimuli by rats

Rats in a two-lever situation were exposed to alternating periods of intermittent reinforcement and extinction. Extinction periods were either unsignalled or were signalled by a response-produced stimulus. The signal was sometimes a stimulus paired with food delivery in the reinforcement periods and sometimes a stimulus that occurred only in extinction periods. Both kinds of signal accelerated extinction relative to the unsignalled condition. When the signal was the stimulus paired with food in reinforcement periods, the rats tended to prefer the lever that gave that signal even though the signal accelerated extinction. There was no comparable effect for the stimulus that occurred only in extinction periods; when this signal was contingent on only one of the two levers, the rats either avoided it (Experiment 3) or were indifferent (Experiment 4). It is concluded that a stimulus can be a “secondary reinforcer” as measured by preference, even though it decreases resistance to extinction; the implications are discussed with reference to formal theories of choice behavior.     

Some factors involved in the comparison of response systems: acquisition, extinction, and transfer of head-poke and lever-press Sidman avoidance

Head poking, a suggested natural escape reaction to shock for the rat, was compared to lever pressing in a Sidman avoidance study. Both responses could be emitted at any time, but only one was effective in a given session. Acquisition and extinction of the two responses were compared under both signalled and unsignalled avoidance. Then, a test for transfer was conducted in which acquisition conditions were re-instated, but the effectiveness of the responses was reversed. Three differences between responses were noted: (a) head poking was superior in reducing shock rates under signalled conditions; (b) head poking was more resistant to extinction, especially under signalled conditions; (c) under unsignalled conditions, animals were unable to learn to head poke if they had previously learned to lever press. Findings a and c were pursued in later experiments. Finding a depended on the location of the warning signal with respect to the response system. When the lever press required approach to the warning signal, the head poke was superior. But when the head poke required approach to the warning signal, the two responses were equally effective. Finding c depended on the absence of feedback for head poke during transfer. Two conclusions are offered: first, the two responses appear to obey the same laws when their topographical differences are taken into account. Second, response feedback appears to be more critical in transfer than in original acquisition.     

Summation of punishment suppression

In two experiments, eight rats were trained to lever press with food on a variable-interval schedule. Bar pressing produced shock on a variable-interval schedule in the presence of two independently presented stimuli, a light and a tone. Two rats in each experiment received alternative presentations of the light and the tone and were consequently always in the presence of a stimulus that signalled variable-interval punishment. The other two rats in each experiment were treated similarly except that they received periods in which neither light nor tone was present. During these periods, bar pressing was not punished. The two stimuli that signalled punishment were then presented simultaneously to evaluate the effect of stimulus compounding on response suppression. The subjects trained without punishment-free periods did not show summation to the compound stimulus; the subjects trained with punishment-free periods showed summation of suppression. The major difference between the two experiments was the longer mean interval of variable-interval punishment used in the second experiment. This manipulation made the summation effect more resistant to extinction and thus increased its magnitude.     

A temporal parameter influencing choice between signalled and unsignalled shock schedules

The present study investigated whether choice of a signalled variable-time shock schedule over an unsignalled one was influenced by the average intershock interval. Eight rats were given a choice between signalled and unsignalled shock schedules in a series of conditions with average intershock intervals of 510, 270, 150, 90, 60, and 45 sec. Each test condition was preceded by a training-baseline condition, and schedule values were arranged in an ascending (four subjects) or descending (four subjects) order. Choice of the signalled conditions was directly related to the average intershock interval of the variable-time schedule for six of the eight subjects. The per cent of time in the signalled condition was highest when the average intershock interval was 150 sec or longer and lowest when the average intershock interval was 45 sec. The findings were interpreted as being due to changes in the safety features of the signalled schedule, rather than to changes in the average intershock interval per se.     

Time allocation in concurrent schedules: the effect of signalled reinforcement

The responses of five pigeons were reinforced on concurrent variable-interval variable-interval reinforcement schedules in which changeover key responses changed the stimulus and reinforcement schedules associated with the food key. While the reinforcement availability in one component remained unchanged throughout the experiment, the reinforcement availability in the other component was, during several conditions, signalled by the onset of an additional discriminative stimulus. During unsignalled conditions, both the relative frequency of responding and the relative time spent in each component approximated the obtained relative reinforcement frequency in each component. The effect of signalling reinforcer availability in one component was to (1) reduce responding in the signalled component to near-zero levels, and (2) increase the relative time in the unsignalled component, without a corresponding increase in the obtained relative reinforcement frequency. The magnitude of the increase in relative time in the unsignalled component decreased as the overall frequency of reinforcement increased. This deviation in the matching relation between relative time and the obtained relative reinforcement frequency was eliminated if the overall reinforcement frequency was increased before the signal was introduced and then, without removing the signal, gradually reduced.     

The relative aversiveness of signalled versus unsignalled shock-punishment

Six rats were trained on a two-component multiple schedule with each component consisting of a two-link chain schedule. Differential response suppression in the two initial links, as well as in the two terminal links of the chain schedules, was used as a measure of the relative aversiveness of stimulus events in the two terminal links. When signalled and unsignalled shock-punishment (in addition to equal numbers of food reinforcers) were scheduled in the separate terminal links, subjects responded at lower rates in the initial link preceding unsignalled shock-punishment than in the initial link preceding signalled shock-punishment. Similarly, subjects responded at lower rates in the terminal link containing unsignalled shock-punishment than in the terminal link containing signalled shock-punishment. Reversing the terminal-link positions of signalled and unsignalled shock-punishment led to a reversal of the differential response suppression in the two initial and the two terminal links of the chain schedules. These results indicate that signalled punishment is relatively less aversive than unsignalled punishment and support an “information hypothesis”, which assumes that a condition in which information is provided about the onset of environmental events, even negative events such as shock punishment, is more reinforcing than a condition in which such information is absent.     

Analysis of the pavlovian properties of signals for punishment

Rats learned to suppress lever pressing in the presence of a compound stimulus that signalled either response-independent shock (conditioned suppression) or response-dependent shock (punishment). Suppression to one element of this compound was blocked if the other element had previously signalled the same contingency as that holding in the presence of the compound. Two experiments, however, failed to find significant evidence of blocking if the pretrained element had signalled conditioned suppression and the compound signalled a punishment contingency. On the other hand, if one stimulus signalled punishment of one response it was able to block the acquisition of control by the second stimulus when the compound signalled punishment of a different response. Finally, although animals showed no suppression to one element of a compound signalling conditioned suppression if the other had previously signalled punishment, this apparent blocking effect concealed that what they learned was that the added element signalled the cancellation of the instrumental contingency. These results provide little support for the view that stimuli signalling punishment contingencies suppress responding in whole or in part by virtue of their Pavlovian relation to shock.     

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.     

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.     

Conditioned reinforcement and choice

In a series of three experiments, rats were exposed to successive schedule components arranged on two levers, in which lever pressing produced a light, and nose-key pressing produced water in 50% of the light periods. When one auditory signal was presented only during those light periods correlated with water on one lever, and a different signal was presented only during those light periods correlated with nonreinforcement on the other lever, the former lever was preferred in choice trials, and higher rates of responding were maintained on the former lever in nonchoice (forced) trials. Thus, the rats preferred a schedule component that included a conditioned reinforcer over one that did not, with the schedules of primary reinforcement and the information value of the signals equated. Preferences were maintained when one or the other of the auditory signals was deleted, but were not established in naive subjects when training began with either the positive or negative signal only. Discriminative control of nose-key pressing by the auditory signals was highly variable across subjects and was not correlated with choice.     

Contextual Fear after Signalled versus Unsignalled Shocks: Effect of Extent of Prior Experience with Context and Signal

In the first two experiments, rats were differentially familiarized with a discrete stimulus and/ or a context prior to receiving either shocks signalled by that stimulus or unsignalled shocks in that context. As indexed by freezing, in none of the pre-exposure conditions did the signalled-shock rats consistently acquire less contextual fear than the unsignalled-shock animals. Both pre-exposure to the stimulus and relatively short pre-exposure to the future conditioning context resulted in more contextual fear in the signalled-shock than in the unsignalled-shock subjects. In a third experiment, freezing in the target conditioning context was especially enhanced in rats that had been familiarized with a stimulus, conditioned with the stimulus as a signal for shock, and subsequently further conditioned to the stimulus in a different, non-target context. The level of freezing to the stimulus in a neutral test context was positively related to the level of freezing in the target conditioning context in all experiments. These results were discussed in terms of context-shock, stimulus-shock, and context-stimulus associations.     

A rate measure of the relative aversiveness of signalled vs unsignalled shock

Five rats were trained on a two-component multiple schedule with each component consisting of a two-link chain schedule. Differential response suppression in the initial links of the chain schedules was used as a measure of the relative aversiveness of events introduced into the subsequent terminal links. When unsignalled shock was scheduled in one terminal link and signalled shock in the other (in addition to equal numbers of food reinforcers), responding was suppressed to a greater degree in the initial link preceding the unsignalled-shock condition. Reversing the terminal-link positions of unsignalled shock and signalled shock led to a reversal of the differential response suppression in the initial links. These results confirm previous findings that signalled shock is less aversive than unsignalled shock and extend the generality of this phenomenon from choice measures to rate measures of aversiveness.     

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.     

Choice for signalled over unsignalled shock as a function of shock intensity

Choice between a signalled shock schedule and an unsignalled one was examined at various shock intensities. Three rats were given the opportunity to change from the unsignalled schedule to the signalled one at intensity values between 0.15 mA and 1.0 mA. Steps were usually 0.15 mA and both ascending and descending series were given. For two other rats, shock intensity increased from 0.20 mA to 1.0 mA in 0.20-mA increments; for two additional rats, shock intensity was first 3.0 mA and was then reduced to 1.0 mA. Subjects tended to remain in the unsignalled schedule at the lower shock intensities, but spent most of each session under the signalled schedule at the higher intensities (1.0 mA and 3.0 mA). In addition, the time spent in the signalled schedule tended to vary systematically with shock intensity over at least part of the range of intensity values. It was concluded that the relationship between shock intensity and choice behavior is similar to the relationship between intensity and behavior in procedures involving avoidance, escape, and punishment.     

The effect of a pre-shock signal on a free-operant avoidance response

After 25 free-operant avoidance training sessions, a 1-min signal followed by a brief shock was presented on the average of once every 4 min. During the signal, the avoidance schedule was suspended (20 sessions). Response rates during the signal were markedly reduced. Shock rates during non-signalled periods increased. Fifteen additional sessions were given during which the signal was presented without shock. Response rates during signalled periods were greater than previously observed during signalled periods, indicating that signalled shock had suppressive control over a previously acquired avoidance response rate.