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).     

Making the sour sweet? Upcoming food-pellet reinforcement produces positive induction when rats press a lever for unsweetened lemon juice

Research has suggested that rats increase their response rate for a low-valued reinforcer when a high-valued reinforcer will soon be available (i.e., positive induction) because the value of the low-valued substance has increased. The present study tested if such a procedure could be used to increase rats’ responding for a non-reinforcing food. Rats pressed a lever for unsweetened lemon juice in the first half of a 50-min session and, in treatment conditions, for food pellets in the second half. Experiment 1 demonstrated that rates of responding for the lemon juice generally varied directly with the upcoming rate of food-pellet reinforcement and that responding in lemon juice-only sessions did not differ significantly from that observed during extinction. Experiment 2 demonstrated that rats consumed more lemon juice following a condition in which they were displaying positive induction than following a condition in which they only responded for lemon juice. The present results are consistent with the increase in value account of positive induction. More importantly, they may indicate that certain environmental conditions can increase food-directed behavior for a non-reinforcing food, a finding which may have implications for our understanding of eating behavior and dysfunctions (e.g., overeating).     

Three factors that promote positive induction when rats respond for 1% sucrose

Studies have demonstrated that rats will increase their operant rate of response for a low-valued reinforcer if a high-valued reinforcer will be available later in the session. Research on this positive induction effect suggests that at least three factors account for its appearance: premature responding for the yet unavailable high-valued reinforcer, an increase in the reinforcing value of the low-valued reinforcer, and responding controlled (e.g., elicited) by the response manipulandum. The present experiment tested whether the size of induction could be systematically altered by varying these factors. Twenty-four rats responded in sessions in which 1% sucrose or a food pellet served as the reinforcer in the first or second half of the session. In some sessions, the same operant response was required in both halves of the session. In others, different responses were required. Half of the rats received the different reinforcers in one food trough while the other half received reinforcers in the different halves of the session in different food troughs. Results demonstrated that a large positive induction effect was observed when all of the above factors were present to contribute to the effect (i.e., high-valued reinforcer upcoming, earned by making the same response, delivered to the same food trough). A small, but significant, induction effect remained when all three were absent (i.e., high-valued reinforcer delivered first, earned by making a different response, delivered to a different food trough). The results support the idea that these three factors are the main contributors to the appearance of this positive induction effect. However, at least one additional factor must also contribute.     

Investigating the devaluation explanation for negative anticipatory contrast

This study addressed whether negative anticipatory contrast results in a decrease in the value of the low-valued substance. Rats responded in training conditions designed to produce negative contrast. They then responded in test sessions in which the low-valued substance from the training sessions was the reinforcer for an operant response. Despite the finding of contrast in the training conditions, the low-valued substance was a more effective reinforcer early in testing after training conditions in which it had been followed by access to the high-valued substance than after training conditions in which it had not. The findings question the devaluation explanation for contrast but may be similar to other findings of reversals of "preference."     

The role of temporal intervals on reinforcer accumulation

Animals accumulate reinforcers when they forgo the opportunity to consume available food in favor of acquiring additional food for later consumption. Laboratory research has shown that reinforcer accumulation is facilitated when an interval (either spatial or temporal) separates earning from consuming reinforcers. However, there has been no systematic investigation on the interval separating consuming reinforcers from earning additional reinforcers. This oversight is problematic because this second interval is an integral part of much of the previous research on reinforcer accumulation. The purpose of the current study was to determine the independent contributions of these two temporal intervals on reinforcer accumulation in rats. Each left lever press earned a single food pellet; delivery of the accumulated pellet(s) occurred upon a right lever press. Conditions varied based on the presence of either an intertrial interval (ITI) that separated pellet delivery from the further opportunity to accumulate more pellets, or a delay‐to‐reinforcement that separated the right lever press from the delivery of the accumulated pellet(s). Delay and ITI values of 0, 5, 10 and 20 s were investigated. The delay‐to‐reinforcement conditions produced greater accumulation relative to the ITI conditions, despite accumulation increasing the density of reinforcement more substantially in the ITI conditions. This finding suggests that the temporal separation between reinforcer accumulation and subsequent delivery and consumption was a more critical variable in controlling reinforcer accumulation.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Contingency effects with maintained instrumental reinforcement

In three experiments we investigated the effect on the performance of thirsty rats of varying the instrumental contingency between lever pressing and the delivery of a saccharin reinforcer. In Experiment 1, the subjects performed more slowly in a non-contingent condition, in which the momentary probability of reinforcement was unaffected by whether or not the animals pressed, than in a contingent condition in which the reinforcer was never presented except following a lever press. This was true of performance under both random ratio and interval schedules in which the function determining the probability of reinforcement following a lever press remained the same across the contingent and non-contingent conditions. Experiment 2 demonstrated that instrumental performance was less affected when the contingency was degraded by the introduction of free reinforcers if these reinforcers were signalled. In Experiment 3, lever pressing was reinstated to some degree after non-contingent training by giving non-reinforced exposure to the operant chamber in the absence of the lever. These results suggest that free reinforcers depress instrumental behaviour through a performance mechanism engaged by their ability to support conditioning of the contextual cues.     

Motivational control of instrumental performance: The role of prior experience of the reinforcer

In four experiments we investigated the conditions that are necessary for instrumental performance to adjust appropriately to a change in drive state. Rats were trained to press a lever and pull a chain concurrently, with one action being reinforced by sucrose solution and the other by food pellets. In Experiment 1 for animals that were hungry throughout training the rate of lever pressing in an extinction test under thirst was unaffected by the type of reinforcer produced by this action during training, even though the sucrose solution would maintain a higher rate than the food pellets during training under thirst. In contrast, animals that experienced the instrumental contingencies arranged by the concurrent schedule while thirsty at some point during training pressed the lever more during the extinction test under thirst when this action had been reinforced with the sucrose solution rather than the food pellets. The remaining three experiments demonstrated that for this incentive effect to occur it is sufficient that the sucrose solution be delivered non-contingently under thirst at some stage of training. Thus, it would appear that performance mediated by an instrumental contingency adjusts appropriately to reinforcer revaluation brought about by a drive shift only if the animals have had prior experience with the incentive under the test drive state. This observation was interpreted in terms of Tolman's “cathexis” theory of motivation.     

Effects of negative incentive shifts in food reward on rats' consumption of concurrent ethanol solutions

Frustration stress, typically operationalized as the unexpected loss of reinforcement, has been shown to engender substance use. Abrupt reductions in reinforcer magnitude likely also function as frustration stressors. These negative incentive shifts were previously shown to produce tap‐ and sweetened‐water drinking in rats. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether these shifts in food reward would occasion oral ethanol self‐administration. Nine male Long‐Evans rats operated on a two‐component multiple fixed‐ratio schedule with signaled components producing either a large (4 pellets) or small (1pellet) reinforcer. Components were pseudorandomly arranged to present 4 transitions between past and upcoming reinforcer magnitudes: small‐to‐large, small‐to‐small, large‐to‐large, and large‐to‐small (negative incentive shift). Experiment 1 investigated the effects of negative incentive shifts on consumption of concurrent, freely available 10% sucrose, 10% sucrose plus 10% ethanol, and following sucrose fading, 10% ethanol. Experiment 2 entailed continuation of schedule contingencies with a dose manipulation of 4 ethanol concentrations (0, 5, 10, and 20%) to assess dose‐dependent differences in transition‐type control and consumption. A lever‐press extinction condition was then conducted with 10% ethanol availability. In this novel model of frustration stress, negative incentive shifts prompted ethanol self‐administration at each dose investigated, whereas the other transitions did not.     

Overshadowing of a stimulus-reinforcer association by an instrumental response

In two experiments, rats were first exposed to pairings of a clicker and food; they were subsequently, in order to measure the effectiveness of the clicker as a conditioned reinforcer, given the opportunity to press a lever which turned the clicker on. For one group of animals the food originally delivered in the presence of the clicker had been contingent on their performance of an instrumental response (running in a running wheel); for a second the contingency between clicker and food had been purely classical. Although the actual correlation between clicker and food was identical for the two groups, the clicker was a less effective conditioned reinforcer for the first group than for the second. In a third experiment, all animals were initially required to run to obtain food in the presence of the clicker, but one group received additional trials on which food was delivered contingent on running in the absence of the clicker. This group showed less tendency to lever press for the clicker than a second group that had received free food on trials when the clicker was not presented. The results of all three experiments suggest that conditioning to the clicker could be overshadowed if the occurrence of food was more reliably predicted by the execution of an instrumental running response; they thus support the view that instrumental conditioning depends on the establishment of an association between response and reinforcer similar to the association between stimulus and reinforcer underlying classical conditioning.     

Contrast, induction, facilitation, suppression, and conservation

Ten rats received all of their water in daily 1-hr sessions. Following a baseline phase in which lever and water spout were freely available throughout each session, subjects were trained to press the lever for water on mixed schedules composed of two alternating components. Each component gave access to water for a fixed cumulation of drinking time every time the rat cumulated a fixed amount of lever-pressing time. Changes in one component produced contrast and induction effects, both positive and negative, with respect to both lever pressing and drinking in the unchanged component. All schedules facilitated lever pressing relative to baseline. All schedules suppressed drinking relative to baseline, even though contingency sessions allowed ample time to perform the baseline amount of drinking. The entire pattern of results was predicted in quantitative detail by assuming that the total amount of a dimension apportioned to lever pressing and drinking is conserved between baseline and contingency sessions. Conservation theory was shown to predict several effects produced by simple fixed-ratio schedules, and was compared favorably with probability-differential (Premack, 1971) and response-deprivation (Timberlake and Allison, 1974) theory.     

Alcohol seeking by rats: Action or habit?

In two experiments, we examined the relative susceptibility to outcome devaluation of lever pressing by rats for either a 10% ethanol solution or food pellets. The rats were trained to press different levers for these two reinforcers using a sucrose-substitution procedure. An aversion was then conditioned from either the ethanol solution or the food pellets by pairing consumption with illness induced by lithium chloride. When instrumental performance was subsequently tested in extinction, the rats pressed less on the pellet lever if the pellets, rather than the ethanol, had been devalued by aversion conditioning. By contrast, performance on the ethanol lever was unaffected by whether the ethanol or pellets were devalued. Moreover, noncontingent presentations of the devalued reinforcer had no impact on test performance. The differential resistance to outcome devaluation suggests that, in contrast to food seeking, alcohol seeking is a stimulus-response habit rather than a goal-directed action mediated by a representation of the action-outcome contingency.     

The influence of upcoming food-pellet delivery on subjects' responding for 1% sucrose reinforcement delivered by concurrent random-interval schedules

Researchers have demonstrated that rats' rates of operant responding that are maintained by 1% liquid-sucrose reinforcement will increase if food-pellet reinforcement is upcoming within the same session. The authors investigated whether a similar induction effect would be observed when rats pressed a lever for 1% sucrose that was delivered by concurrent random-interval schedules of reinforcement. Results demonstrated that upcoming noncontingent food-pellet delivery increased absolute response rates on the concurrent schedules in 10 of 12 possible instances. Upcoming food-pellet delivery also increased subjects' sensitivity to reinforcement on the concurrent schedules, as measured by the generalized matching law (W. M. Baum, 1974), in 5 of 6 possible instances. The present results extended the finding of induction to responding on concurrent schedules. They also added to evidence suggesting that the effect occurs because the reinforcing value of the weak reinforcer (i.e., the 1% sucrose) has been increased.     

Signalling and incentive processes in instrumental reinforcer devaluation

We have previously reported that conditioning an aversion to the reinforcer using an isotonic lithium chloride (LiCl) solution following instrumental training reduces performance in a subsequent extinction test only if animals are re-exposed to the reinforcer prior to the test. Rescorla (1992), in contrast, reported an immediate devaluation effect using a hypertonic LiCl solution that did not depend upon re-exposure. In two experiments we examined the effect of using a hypertonic LiCl solution to condition the aversion to the reinforcer on subsequent instrumental performance in extinction, with and without re-exposure. In Experiment 1 thirsty rats were trained to press a lever for a sucrose solution before being injected with 0.6 M LiCl either immediately or after a delay. Half of the immediate and delay groups were then re-exposed to the sucrose in the absence of the lever, with the remainder being exposed to water. Contrary to the previously reported effects of isotonic LiCl, a hypertonic solution induced a reinforcer devaluation effect in all the immediately poisoned animals, which did not depend upon re-exposure to the reinforcer. In Experiment 2 the possibility that this devaluation effect was induced by the discomfort associated with the hypertonicity of the solution was assessed by replicating Experiment 1 but, in addition, using two immediately poisoned groups given the LiCl injection under anaesthesia. In the absence of anaesthesia, the devaluation effect observed without re-exposure to the reinforcer in Experiment 1 was replicated. When the injection was given under anaesthesia, however, a reinforcer devaluation effect was observed only in animals that were re-exposed to the reinforcer prior to the extinction test. These results were interpreted as evidence that a reinforcer devaluation effect induced by pairing the reinforcer with illness depends upon a process of incentive learning, whereas a devaluation effect mediated by learning a signalling relationship between the reinforcer and somatic discomfort does not.     

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.     

Response duration is sensitive to both immediate and delayed reinforcement

We investigated the duration of lever pressing by rats when the delivery of appetitive reinforcers was contingent upon response duration. In the first experiment, response durations increased when duration requirements were imposed, and they decreased when duration requirements were removed. This effect occurred whether reinforcers were immediate or delayed by 8 s. In order to maintain the integrity of the delay intervals, reinforcer delivery was dependent upon both lever depression and release. In a second experiment, lever depression only and a response duration of at least 4 s were required for reinforcer delivery. Compared to immediate reinforcement conditions, delayed reinforcers increased both variability and the length of the maximum response durations. In a third experiment, immediate reinforcers were delivered contingent upon lever depression and release under a variety of duration requirements. Median lever‐press durations tracked the contingencies rapidly. Across all three experiments, rats emitted numerous response durations that were too short to satisfy the reinforcer requirements, and bimodal distributions similar to those produced by differential reinforcement of low rate schedules were evident for most rats. In many aspects, response duration responds to reinforcement parameters in a fashion similar to rate of discrete responding, but an examination of this continuous dimension of behavior may provide additional information about environment–behavior relationships.     

Transfer of persistence to the acquisition of a new behaviour

Two experiments tested whether the degree of effort required for the reinforcement of one behaviour would affect the acquisition of a second behaviour. In the first experiment, rats were placed in a conditioning chamber and: (a) were required to press a lever for food pellets on a fixed ratio schedule, (b) received free presentation of the pellets, or (c) did not receive pellets. Next, all rats were rewarded for a new behaviour, round trips across the length of a runway. As predicted, the fixed-ratio group had the greatest shuttle rate. In the second experiment, two groups were required to press a lever, and the number of presses per pellet was varied. For two other groups not required to press the lever, the amount of food presented per approach to the feeder was varied. The greater required number of lever presses and the lesser number of pellets per approach to the feeder produced the higher subsequent shuttle rates. Two alternative explanations were compared: the degree of accustomed effort per reinforcer becomes a learned component of behaviour, or high effort increases the habituation of frustration-produced disruptive responses.     

Irrelevant incentive learning during training on ratio and interval schedules

Two experiments investigated the effect of a motivationally-induced change in the value of the training reinforcer on instrumental performance. Initially, thirsty rats were trained to lever press for either a sodium or a potassium solution. Responding in an extinction test was then measured following the induction of sodium appetite. In Experiment I sodium-trained rats responded faster in a test given one day following the end of instrumental training. Furthermore, the relative size of this irrelevant incentive effect did not depend upon whether a ratio or interval schedule was employed during training. Delaying the test for eight days following the end of training abolished the difference between the test performance of sodium- and potassium-trained animals. Experiment II provided a further study of the effect of the training schedule when the introduction of the sodium reinforcer was delayed until responding was well established. Again the relative size of the difference between the performance of sodium- and potassium-trained animals was comparable following training on ratio and interval schedules. The insensitivity of this irrelevant incentive effect to the training contingency is in marked contrast to previous failures to detect an effect of reinforcer revaluation brought about by aversion conditioning following training on an interval schedule (Dickinson, Nicholas and Adams, 1983).