Intercurrent and reinforced behavior under multiple spaced-responding schedules

Lever pressing in rats was reinforced with food under a multiple spaced-responding schedule. A lever, food cup, and drinking tube were mounted in a running wheel so that lever pressing, running, and licking could be recorded. Running and licking had no scheduled consequences. Lever pressing was reinforced under a multiple schedule with three spaced-responding components and an extinction component. Each component was associated with a different auditory stimulus. Spaced-responding components reinforced only lever presses terminating interresponse times equal to or greater than 10, 20, or 60 sec, respectively. Rates of lever pressing, reinforcement, and licking all decreased as schedule parameter increased. Efficiency of spaced responding, as measured by reinforcements per response, also decreased. Rate of wheel running either increased or increased and then decreased with increasing schedule parameter. Individual running rates differed substantially. Neither licking nor running rate correlated with individual differences in efficiency. Analysis of conditional probabilities among the several response classes showed that, as the schedule requirement increased, the probability of running after a lever press increased and the probability of licking after a lever press decreased. After reinforcement, one subject always pressed the lever next. In the other subjects, the conditional probability of lever pressing, given reinforcement, increased while the probability of licking, given reinforcement, decreased with increasing schedule requirement. Results are discussed in relation to the concepts of schedule-induced and mediating behavior.     

The effect of type of behavior on behavior change caused by type of upcoming food substance

Previous research suggests that rats will decrease their consumption of a low-valued substance if a high-valued one will soon be available (anticipatory contrast), but will increase their rate of operant responding for a low-valued substance if a high-valued one will soon be available (positive induction). The present experiments tested whether rats would increase their operant rate of licking or lever pressing for 1% liquid-sucrose reinforcement when 32% sucrose reinforcement was upcoming in the same session. Results indicated that upcoming 32% sucrose increased rates of lever pressing for 1% sucrose, but did not produce similar increases in rates of licking. In fact, upcoming 32% sucrose significantly reduced lick rates in Experiment 2. The present results suggest that the different changes in behavior may be linked to the specific response that the subjects must engage in to obtain the reward (i.e., licking vs. lever pressing), and not to the function of the behavior (i.e., consummatory vs. operant) or to how frequently the substances are available (i.e., continuously vs. intermittently).     

Suppression of operant behavior and schedule-induced licking in rats

The first experiment studied the effects of punishment on rats' lever pressing maintained by a fixed-interval schedule of food reinforcement and on the associated schedule-induced licking. When licking was followed by shock, licking was suppressed but lever pressing was largely unaffected. When lever pressing was followed by shock, lever pressing was suppressed but licking was unaffected. In both cases, the punished behavior recovered its previous unpunished level when the shocks were discontinued. In a second experiment, the rats' lever pressing was maintained by a variable-interval schedule of food reinforcement under which polydipsic licking also developed. Both lever pressing and licking were partially suppressed during a stimulus correlated with occasional unavoidable electric shocks. With a higher shock intensity, both behaviors were suppressed further. Both lever pressing and licking recovered their previous levels when shocks were discontinued. These results show that schedule-induced licking, which has been described as adjunctive behavior, can be suppressed by procedures that suppress reinforced lever pressing, an operant behavior.     

Topography of signal-centered behavior in the rat: Effects of deprivation state and reinforcer type

In a series of three experiments, groups of food-deprived and water-deprived rats were given pairings of a retractable lever (CS⁺) with response-independent deliveries of either solid or liquid reinforcers. In Experiment 1 food-deprived rats given a solid-pellet reinforcer differentially tended to sniff, paw, mouth, and bite the CS⁺ lever more often than a lever that was not paired with food (CS⁻), whereas food-deprived rats given a liquid reinforcer tended to differentially sniff, paw, and lick the CS⁺ lever. 23½-hour water-deprived rats given liquid reinforcers showed very little CS⁺ contact. In Experiment 2 increasing the severity of water deprivation from 23½ to 47½ hours significantly increased CS⁺ contact. In Experiment 3, subjects that were simultaneously food and water deprived and given a water reinforcer failed to exhibit differential CS⁺ contact, but subjects that were simultaneously food and water deprived and given a food reinforcer did acquire differential CS⁺-contact behavior. These results suggest that (a) even under a single motivational state the nature of signal-centered behavior can be determined by type of reinforcer, (b) although water reinforcement produces less signal contact than food reinforcement, this can be facilitated with more severe water-deprivation levels, and (c) high CS-contact rates using food reinforcement are not simply a product of reductions in body weight with food deprivation.     

Induction when rats lick for 1% liquid-sucrose reinforcement

Previous research reported that rats responding for 1% liquid-sucrose reinforcement when 32% sucrose reinforcement is upcoming will decrease their response rate (contrast) if licking is the dependent measure and increase their response rate (induction) if pressing a lever is the dependent measure. The present study investigated whether induction could be observed when licking served as the dependent measure and whether induction in lever pressing and contrast in licking behaviour could be concurrently observed. Experiment 1 found induction when rats licked to earn the rewards but consumed them at a location separate from the spout licked to earn them. Experiment 2 also found induction when rats earned (and consumed) rewards by licking the same spout throughout the session. Experiment 3 separately measured instrumental lever pressing for sucrose rewards and licking the sucrose during the reward period. We found that both measures increased for 1% sucrose when 32% sucrose reinforcement was upcoming. The present results indicate that the type of response is not the sole determinant of whether contrast or induction is observed. Rather, they suggest that other procedural details, such as the location of reinforcer delivery, influence which effect is observed. The results also indicate that associative processes underlie the appearance of induction in responding for 1% sucrose.     

The role of the instrumental contingency in the motivational control of performance

In four experiments we investigated an irrelevant incentive effect based upon a transition from hunger to thirst. Hungry rats were trained to lever press either for sucrose solution or for food pellets before performance was tested in extinction while they were thirsty. Reinforcer-specific motivational control was found in the first experiment in that the animals pressed the lever more on tests following training with the sucrose solution rather than with food pellets. Moreover, this effect was seen only when testing was conducted following water, but not following food deprivation. The outcome of the remaining experiments suggests that this motivational control is not mediated by the instrumental contingency between lever pressing and the sucrose reinforcer during training. In these studies lever pressing and chain pulling were reinforced concurrently, one with sucrose and the other with food pellets, in order to equate the noninstrumental functions of the incentives. Following this training, lever pressing in extinction under thirst was unaffected by the type of incentive used as its reinforcer during training.     

Induction when rats lick for 1% liquid-sucrose reinforcement

Previous research reported that rats responding for 1% liquid-sucrose reinforcement when 32% sucrose reinforcement is upcoming will decrease their response rate (contrast) if licking is the dependent measure and increase their response rate (induction) if pressing a lever is the dependent measure. The present study investigated whether induction could be observed when licking served as the dependent measure and whether induction in lever pressing and contrast in licking behaviour could be concurrently observed. Experiment 1 found induction when rats licked to earn the rewards but consumed them at a location separate from the spout licked to earn them. Experiment 2 also found induction when rats earned (and consumed) rewards by licking the same spout throughout the session. Experiment 3 separately measured instrumental lever pressing for sucrose rewards and licking the sucrose during the reward period. We found that both measures increased for 1% sucrose when 32% sucrose reinforcement was upcoming. The present results indicate that the type of response is not the sole determinant of whether contrast or induction is observed. Rather, they suggest that other procedural details, such as the location of reinforcer delivery, influence which effect is observed. The results also indicate that associative processes underlie the appearance of induction in responding for 1% sucrose.     

Effects of response-dependent and independent electric shock on schedule-induced polydipsia

In Experiment I, lever pressing by rats was maintained by the delivery of food pellets under a 45-sec fixed-interval schedule. Fixed-time 180-sec and fixed-interval 180-sec schedules of shock delivery were systematically superimposed on the baseline food schedule to study effects on schedule-induced water intake. Response-dependent shock had little, if any, effect on water intake, whereas shocks independent of lever pressing attenuated fluid intake. In Experiment 2, rats received food pellets under a fixed-time 60-sec schedule. Electric shock delivered concurrently under a variable-time 180-sec schedule, but never while the animal was licking or within 5 sec after licking terminated, led to similar attenuation of water intake. These findings suggest that schedule-induced polydipsia is sensitive to differences in the functional properties of response-independent and dependent electric shock.     

Effects of signaled and unsignaled shock on schedule-controlled lever pressing and schedule-induced licking: Shock intensity and body weight

Schedule-controlled lever pressing and schedule-induced licking were studied in rats under a multiple fixed-interval fixed-interval schedule of food reinforcement. Following acquisition of stable rates of pressing and licking, a multiple variable-time variable-time schedule of electric-shock delivery was superimposed upon the baseline schedule. In only one component of the multiple schedule, a 5-sec stimulus preceded each shock (signaled shock). In the other component shock was unsignaled. Several shock intensities (Experiment 1) and body weights (Experiment 2) were studied. Lever pressing and licking were affected similarly by experimental manipulations, although with parametric differences. Depending upon shock intensity and body weight, rates of lever pressing and licking were hardly suppressed, suppressed primarily in the unsignaled shock component (differential suppression), or markedly suppressed in both components. Differential suppression during components with signaled and unsignaled shock and conditioned suppression of responding during the preshock stimulus appeared not to be functionally related. Differential suppression depended more on the discriminability of shock-free time, and on shock intensity, body weight, and the type of response than on the “preparatory” behavior preceding shock.     

Is induction produced by upcoming food-pellet reinforcement the outcome of an increase in overall activity or in operant responding?

Researchers have demonstrated that rats reliably increase their rates of pressing a lever for 1% liquid-sucrose reinforcement if they will soon have the opportunity to press a lever for food-pellet reinforcement. In the present experiments, the authors investigated if this increase in response rates occurred because the upcoming food pellets produced an increase in all behaviors (i.e., general arousal) or an increase in only the specific operant response (i.e., lever pressing). The results of Experiments 1 and 2 showed that the appearance of induction in rats' lever pressing for 1% sucrose reinforcement when food-pellet reinforcement was upcoming did not coincide with increases in the frequency of running in a wheel or making a nonreinforced nose-poke response. On the other hand, in Experiment 3, the authors found the appearance of induction coincided with increase nonreinforced lever presses on an adjacent lever. These results shed doubt on the idea that induction is a result of a general increase in all activity, and suggest instead that the increase in responding that occurs during induction is limited to the operant response.     

Electric shock produced drinking in the squirrel monkey.

Squirrel monkeys were periodically exposed to brief electric tail shocks in a test environment containing a rubber hose, response lever, and a water spout. Shock delivery produced preshock lever pressing and postshock hose biting. Additionally, all subjects displayed licking responses following postshock biting-attack episodes. Further experiments showed that licking was: (1) influenced by hours of water deprivation; (2) drinking behavior; (3) the direct result of shock delivery; and (4) developed spontaneously in naive subjects with or without opportunities for hose biting or lever pressing. Removing the opportunity to attack increased postshock drinking. A noxious environmental stimulus that causes aggression can also produce drinking.     

Spaced food but not electrical brain stimulation induces polydipsia and air licking.

An attempt was made to induce polydipsia in rats whose lever pressing was reinforced with food pellets or electrical brain stimulation. Nine food-deprived, water-sated rats drank water excessively during sessions in which food pellets were delivered. When brain stimulation was substituted for food, drinking immediately ceased. Delivering brain stimulation according to a variety of schedules, pairing brain stimulation with food reinforcement, and substituting an air stream for water, each failed to produce polydipsic licking. These results show that polydipsia is not induced by all reinforcers.     

Lick-shock contingencies in the rat

Hungry rats were allowed to lick an 8% sucrose solution and then one of four lick-shock contingency conditions was superimposed on the licking baseline. These conditions were: free-operant avoidance, free shock, punishment, and no shock. From highest to lowest response rates, the groups fell in the order-avoidance, no shock, free shock, and punishment. Lick rates adjusted rapidly to introduction and removal of the contingencies. Post-shock responding was lowest in the punishment condition and highest in the free shock condition. No method was found simultaneously to equate shock frequency and separate response rates for the three shock contingency conditions. Only small, or no, reductions in shock rate occurred over sessions under the free-operant avoidance schedule when the shock-shock interval was 10 sec but large reductions occurred when the shock-shock interval was reduced to either 1 or 2 sec.     

Effects of food deprivation and reinforcement magnitude on conditioned suppression

In Experiment I, the responding of rats lever pressing on a variable-interval schedule for sucrose solution was partially suppressed by a variable duration conditioned stimulus followed by shock. When food deprivation was increased, response rates during and before the conditioned stimulus increased monotonically. Varying the concentration of sucrose across blocks of sessions or from session to session in a semi-random sequence had little effect on response rates either before or during the conditioned stimulus. With a fixed sequence of increasing concentrations across a five-session block, increased concentration produced much more rapid increases in response rates before than during the conditioned stimulus. In Experiment II, rats were presented with the same sequence of increasing concentrations across a five-session block. When tested at 80% body weight, response rates increased rapidly as concentration increased, but at 100%, body-weight rates increased only slightly. The effect of a change in body weight in Experiment II thus mimicked the effect of the conditioned stimulus in the latter part of Experiment I. These findings support the view that the effect of a pre-aversive conditioned stimulus is similar to that of a change in food deprivation, but unlike that of a change in reinforcement magnitude.     

Effects of diazepam on schedule-controlled and schedule-induced behavior under signaled and unsignaled shock.

Schedule-controlled lever pressing and schedule-induced licking were studied in rats under a multiple fixed-interval fixed-interval schedule of food reinforcement upon which was superimposed a multiple variable-time variable-time schedule of electric-shock delivery. Shocks were signaled in one component of the multiple schedule and unsignaled in the other. The effects of diazepam upon the suppression of behavior during the signal (conditioned suppression) and during signaled and unsignaled shock (differential suppression) were studied under several shock intensities (Experiment 1) and at increased body weight (Experiment 2). In each study, diazepam led to dose-dependent increases in the rate of pressing and licking during signaled and unsignaled shock, but had little effect on conditioned suppression. the rate-enhancing effects of diazepam depended upon the intensity of shock, nature of the response, and whether or not shocks were signaled. The data was discussed in terms of (1) implications for understanding the effects of signaled and unsignaled shock on behavior, (2) the effects of diazepam on behavior suppressed by response-independent shock, and (3) comparison between operant and schedule-induced behavior.     

Incubation of conditional suppression is an associatively-based phenomenon

Ten rats were deprived of water and trained to lick a tube for saccharin reinforcement. In each of the two sessions that followed, the rats received six contiguous pairings of a 30-second illumination of the houselight and a 0.75 second, 0.10 mA electric shock while licking. No sign of conditioning was observed during the first experimental session, but profound conditioning was observed on the first and subsequent trials of the second conditioning session. No comparable change in the rate of licking was observed in groups of rats that received only presentations of the visual stimulus, only presentations of the electric shock, or random presentation of the visual stimulus and electric shock during the first conditioning session. These data establish that the incubation of conditional suppression is an associative phenomenon.     

Lever attacking and pressing as a function of conditioning and extinguishing a lever-press avoidance response in rats

Six experimental rats were conditioned to press one of two available levers to avoid shock. The levers registered bites as well as presses. For four of these rats, shock was contingent on lever bites when a specified time period had elapsed after the previous shock. An extinction period, in which only periodic noncontingent shocks were presented, followed avoidance training. Six yoked-control rats received the same sequence of shocks as did the corresponding experimental rats in both the conditioning and extinction phases. All six experimental rats repeatedly bit the avoidance lever. Four bit it more than the nonavoidance lever during conditioning, and five bit it more during extinction. Five of the six experimental rats consistently bit the levers many more times during each session than did their respective control rats, suggesting that avoidance conditioning facilitated lever biting. Rates of lever biting and pressing by all of the experimental rats and by some of the control rats were highest immediately following shock throughout both phases. During later portions of the intervals following shock, characteristic effects of conditioning and extinction were observed. This finding suggests that extinction of avoidance behavior by unavoidable shock presentations can be demonstrated more readily when shock-elicited responding is extricated from the data.     

Incentive learning and the motivational control of instrumental performance

Hungry rats were trained to press a lever and pull a chain concurrently, with one action being reinforced with a sucrose solution and the other with food pellets. In addition, in the first two experiments all animals experienced non-contingent presentations of the two incentives in the absence of the operant manipulanda while either thirsty or hungry and either before (Experiment 1A) or after (Experiment 1B) the instrumental training. When lever pressing was assessed subsequently in extinction under thirst, the animals pressed at a relatively high rate only if (1) this action had been reinforced with the sucrose solution rather than the food pellets during training and (2) they had received the non-contingent presentations of the sucrose solution and food pellets on days on which they were thirsty rather than hungry. A third experiment demonstrated that non-contingent exposure to the sucrose solution alone, but not to water under thirst was sufficient to bring about this type of motivational control of instrumental performance.     

Schedule-induced licking during multiple schedules

Schedule-induced polydipsia was studied in rats bar pressing under two-component multiple schedules of food reinforcement. The first component of the multiple schedule was a variable-interval 1-min schedule throughout the experiment. The schedule comprising the second component was varied over blocks of sessions in terms of rate and magnitude of reinforcement, and was either variable-interval 3-min (one pellet), variable-interval 3-min (three pellets), variable-interval 1-min (one pellet), or extinction. Water intake per session varied with the rate of reinforcement in the schedule comprising the second component and was highest when the schedule was variable-interval 1-min. Both bar-pressing behavior and licking behavior showed behavioral interactions between the two components of the multiple schedules. With magnitude of reinforcement held constant, a matching relationship was observed between lick rate and reinforcement rate; the relative frequency of licks in the constant component matched the relative frequency of reinforcement in that component. Bar pressing, however, showed only a moderate degree of relativity matching. During the schedule-induced licking, a burst of licking followed each delivery of a pellet (post-prandial drinking). The duration of these bursts of licking was observed to be a function of the inter-reinforcement interval.     

The influence of positive and negative reinforcement on selective attention in the rat

In Experiments 1 and 2 rats were trained under two multiple schedules of reinforcement. In one, bar pressing during a tone-light compound stimulus was reinforced under a variable-interval food reinforcement schedule. In the other multiple schedule, bar pressing avoided grid shock on a free-operant schedule. In both multiple schedules, a discrimination was maintained by an extinction schedule that was operative during the absence of the tone-light compound. In Experiments 1 and 2 the intensity of the tone-light compound was manipulated over three levels. Subsequent extinction tests revealed that light was attended to, almost exclusively of the tone, when food reinforcement had maintained bar pressing. On the other hand, the tone gained considerable attentional control under the shock avoidance schedule. This stimulus-reinforcer interaction was maintained for all three levels of the compound intensity. In Experiment 3 it was investigated whether this interaction was associative by presenting shock during the absence of the tone-light compound when food reinforcement maintained responding, and food during the absence of the compound when shock avoidance maintained responding. Since both food and shock were presented during a single session for both schedules, nonassociative effects of the reinforcing stimuli were equivalent across the schedules. Nevertheless, the stimulus-reinforcer interaction was maintained, indicating that the interaction was an associative effect.