Apparent Incentive Contrast Effects in Autoshaping with Rats

The effects of shifts in reward quality and quantity on Pavlovian acquisition were studied in rats. In Experiment 1, animals preexposed to unsignaled food pellets, 10% sucrose solution, or home cage controls subsequently received autoshaping training (response-independent lever-pellet or lever-solution pairings, in three groups each). Unsignaled preexposure to sucrose solution facilitated autoshaping for pellets (relative to unshifted controls), whereas unsignaled preexposure to pellets retarded autoshaping for sucrose solution. In Experiment 2, unsignaled preexposure to 30% sucrose solution impaired acquisition reinforced by food pellets, relative to 2% solution. Using a choice procedure, Experiment 3 demonstrated that rats prefer pellets to either 2 or 10% sucrose solutions, but they prefer the 30% solution to the pellets. Experiment 4 demonstrated the facilitatory effect after an upward shift in reward magnitude rather than quality (from 1 to 12 pellets), but provided weaker evidence for retardation following a downward magnitude shift. Experiment 5 was similar to Experiment 4, except that animals received autoshaping training from the outset. No evidence of successive positive contrast was obtained, but there was a significant successive negative contrast effect. Moreover, extinction was faster after acquisition with 12 pellets rather than 1. These results suggest the presence of incentive contrast effects under Pavlovian training conditions.     

Acquisition of the autoshaped key peck as a function of amount of preliminary magazine training

Three experiments evaluated the effect of magazine training on acquisition of the pigeon's key peck during autoshaping. In Experiment I, pigeons were exposed to two days of extended magazine training, followed on the third day by keylight-only presentations. All pigeons pecked the keylight early in the keylight-only session. Experiment II examined the relationship between the number of magazine-training trials and trials to the first peck. Pigeons were given either 0, 3, 10, or 25 magazine-training trials followed by the standard autoshaping procedure. The number of trials to the first peck was related to the number of magazine-training trials. In Experiment III, pigeons were exposed to the standard autoshaping procedure without prior magazine training. The data from Experiment III suggested that key pecking will occur only after the response of eating from the lighted hopper has occurred. Taken together, these results suggest that initial magazine training is an important variable in autoshaping. Key pecking is discussed as a generalized consummatory response.     

Autoshaping, random control, and omission training in the rat

The role of the stimulus-reinforcer contingency in the development and maintenance of lever contact responding was studied in hooded rats. In Experiment I, three groups of experimentally naive rats were trained either on autoshaping, omission training, or a random-control procedure. Subjects trained by the autoshaping procedure responded more consistently than did either random-control or omission-trained subjects. The probability of at least one lever contact per trial was slightly higher in subjects trained by the omission procedure than by the random-control procedure. However, these differences were not maintained during extended training, nor were they evident in total lever-contact frequencies. When omission and random-control subjects were switched to the autoshaping condition, lever contacts increased in all animals, but a pronounced retardation was observed in omission subjects relative to the random-control subjects. In addition, subjects originally exposed to the random-control procedure, and later switched to autoshaping, acquired more rapidly than naive subjects that were exposed only on the autoshaping procedure. In Experiment II, subjects originally trained by an autoshaping procedure were exposed either to an omission, a random-control, or an extinction procedure. No differences were observed among the groups either in the rate at which lever contacts decreased or in the frequency of lever contacts at the end of training. These data implicate prior experience in the interpretation of omission-training effects and suggest limitations in the influence of stimulus-reinforcer relations in autoshaping.     

The role of preliminary magazine training in acquisition of the autoshaped key peck

A series of experiments tested the hypothesis that initial key pecks in the autoshaping procedure are generalized pecks at the illuminated grain hopper. Experiment I found that autoshaping readily occurred when the chamber was continuously illuminated by a house-light. In Experiment II, pigeons given magazine training and autoshaping with an unlighted grain hopper failed to autoshape in 200 trials. Acquisition of autoshaped key pecking was retarded in Experiment III when stimulus control by the magazine light was reduced. In the fourth study, pigeons were given magazine training with either a red or white magazine light and then given autoshaping with concurrently presented red and white keys. For all pigeons in this experiment, the first key peck occurred on the key of the same color as that pigeon's magazine light. The results of these experiments were interpreted as supporting an account of autoshaping that identifies initial key pecks as arising due to generalization of pecking at the lighted grain hopper to pecking at the lighted key.     

The effects of ITI fillers in autoshaping

The present experiments used pigeons in an autoshaping procedure to examine the effects of a nonreinforced, nontarget stimulus presented during the intertrial interval on responding to a target CS. Experiments 1 and 2 found that a filler stimulus presented during a substantial portion of the ITI retarded responding to the target CS relative to a group not exposed to the filler. This group difference in performance was subsequently abolished by continued training and omitting the filler in the former group (Experiment 1) or adding a filler for the latter group (Experiment 2). Experiment 3 found that when the “filler” occupied most of the interreinforcement interval, CS-US pairings embedded within the “filler” stimulus yielded superior autoshaping relative to a group that received CS-US pairings embedded in static apparatus cues in the absence of the filler. The results are discussed with reference to the ways that a nontarget stimulus during the ITI can influence contextual modulation of responding to a discrete CS and the necessity for comparator theories to incorporate a “local context” view of cycle time to explain the present findings.     

Errorless discrimination established by differential autoshaping

In Experiment I, pigeons exposed to a differential autoshaping procedure pecked a key in the presence of the stimulus associated with reinforcement but did not peck, or pecked infrequently, in the presence of the stimulus associated with nonreinforcement. In Experiment II, pigeons were exposed to a differential autoshaping procedure in which one stimulus was associated with reinforcement and two stimuli were associated with nonreinforcement. The birds initially responded in the presence of one stimulus associated with nonreinforcement but never responded in the presence of the second stimulus associated with nonreinforcement. They were subsequently exposed to an autoshaping procedure in which reinforcement followed both these stimuli. The number of stimulus-reinforcement pairings required to establish pecking in the presence of the stimulus during which responses had not previously occurred suggested that such stimuli are inhibitory. These findings have implications for autoshaping, errorless discrimination, inhibition, and theories of discrimination byproducts.     

Duration of signals for intertrial reinforcement and nonreinforcement in random control procedures

In the random control procedure, responding to a conditioned stimulus (target CS) is prevented when the probability of unsignaled, unconditioned stimuli (USs) in the intertrial interval (ITI) is equal to the probability of the US in the presence of the target CS. Three experiments used an autoshaping procedure with White Carneaux pigeons to examine the effects of the temporal duration of signals for the ITI USs (cover CSs) and for concomitant periods of nonreinforcement. In Experiment 1, a short duration cover, but not a long duration cover, resulted in responding to the target CS. In Experiment 2, an explicit CS- cue during periods of nonreinforcement did not affect target acquisition. In Experiment 3, a long CS-, but not a short cover CS, was a sufficient condition for the acquisition of responding to the target CS. These results imply that the acquisition of responding to a target CS requires a discriminable period of nonreinforcement that is long relative to the target CS duration.     

Autoshaping and automaintenance of a key-press response in squirrel monkeys

Following exposure for a minimum of 500 to 600 trials, three of four naive squirrel monkeys eventually pressed a response key, illumination of which always preceded delivery of a food pellet. Three other naive monkeys did not press the key when the pellets were delivered randomly with respect to key illumination. Despite some similarities to autoshaping using pigeons, the data indicate many points of difference when squirrel monkeys are used as subjects. Although key-food pairings were shown to be important in the acquisition of the key-press response, they were ineffective in maintaining the response when either a negative response-reinforcer dependency was introduced, or when there was no scheduled response-reinforcer dependency (fixed trial). Not all demonstrations of autoshaping can be considered to be under the control of those processes that are primarily responsible for the phenomena obtained in pigeons.     

The influence of "preparedness" on autoshaping, schedule performance, and choice.

Two groups of experimentally naive pigeons were exposed to an autoshaping procedure in which the response key was mounted on the wall (the conventional location) or on the floor of the chamber. In two experiments, subjects readily responded to the wall key, but floor-key subjects required shaping. A subsequent experiment compared performance of wall- and floor-key groups on an ascending series of fixed-ratio schedule values, resistance to extinction, differential reinforcement of other behavior, and reversal of key assignment. Each experiment was followed by several sessions of fixed-ratio training; the performance of the wall- and floor-key groups was almost identical throughout. In the final experiment, a fixed-ratio requirement could be completed on either or both keys. Birds initially chose the key on which they had responded during the preceding (reversal of key assignment) experiment. However, within a few sessions both groups showed almost exclusive preference for the floor key. Preference for a key located on the floor may follow from the fact that pigeons are ground feeders and may thus be more "prepared" to peck the floor than to peck a wall. However, autoshaping, under the conditions prevailing here, occurred much more readily to the wall key, suggesting that pecking a vertical surface is more highly prepared. Difficulties in determining relative preparedness seem moot, however, given the lack of between-group differences in the intervening experiments. It is thus unlikely that schedule performances critically depend upon the specific operant response involved.     

The effects of perceptual pretraining on concept identification and preference

The effects of perceptual pretraining on preferences and concept identification performance in five- and eight-year-old Ss were investigated. The results indicated that perceptual pretraining facilitated performance on a concept identification task with a non-preferred relevant cue for the five-year-olds, but not for the eight-year-olds. However, perceptual pretraining did not affect preference in either age group and Ss were as consistent in their preference responding before and after perceptual pretraining as was a control group that had not received perceptual pretraining. Preferences were highly consistent in both age groups over a one week period. Perceptual pretraining was interpreted to increase the usability of the less preferred dimensions for the younger Ss, and to leave the affective preference response unaltered in both groups.     

Element pretraining influences the content of appetitive serial compound conditioning in rats

Four experiments with rat subjects in a Pavlovian appetitive conditioning procedure examined the effects of prior pairings of S2 with the unconditioned stimulus (US) on the nature of the associations formed in S1----S2----US serial compound conditioning. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that prior training of S2 prevented the acquisition of stimulus-stimulus (S-S) associations between S1 and stimulus features of S2, but enhanced the acquisition of stimulus-response (S-R) associations between S1 and the emotional conditioned response (CR) evoked by S2. Experiments 3 and 4 showed that the effects of S2 pretraining were not due to S2 training itself, but rather to its endowing S2 with the ability to evoke a strong CR during the early stages of serial compound conditioning. In Experiment 3, suppression of the CR to a pretrained S2 during serial compound conditioning permitted the establishment of S-S associations. In Experiment 4, the induction of a CR in the presence of an untrained S2 during serial compound conditioning prevented the acquisition of S-S associations. Implications of these data for our understanding of compound conditioning are discussed.     

Failure to obtain positive contrast when pigeons press a bar

In Experiment 1, two groups of pigeons were exposed to multiple variable-interval 1-min variable-interval 1-min schedules of reinforcement. The required response was a key peck for one group, and a foot press of a bar for the other. When the procedure was shifted to multiple variable-interval 1-min extinction, positive contrast occurred with pigeons that key pecked, whereas negative induction occurred with those that bar pressed. Moreover, the absence of contrast could not be ascribed to the lack of inhibition, since negative generalization gradients after bar press training were U-shaped in Experiment 2. The results are discussed in terms of possible relationships between positive contrast and the phenomenon of autoshaping.     

Blocking, unblocking, and overexpectation in autoshaping with pigeons

Three experiments used pigeons in an autoshaping procedure and a single-subject design to examine compound stimulus control in classical conditioning. Experiment 1 examined the blocking effect, and Experiment 2 examined the unblocking effect. In both experiments, response-independent food was first delivered intermittently in the presence of one distinctively colored houselight but not another. Then, conventional autoshaping trials were carried out in the presence of each houselight. In Experiment 1, the keylight readily elicited responding in the presence of the houselight that had been negatively correlated with food, but not in the presence of the houselight that had been positively correlated with food. In Experiment 2, the keylight readily elicited responding in the presence of the houselight positively correlated with food, but only when the amount of food used on the autoshaping trials was either greater or less than that previously delivered in the presence of the houselight. Experiment 3 examined the overexpectation effect. Conventional autoshaping trials were first carried out by presenting each of two keylights individually. Then, additional autoshaping trials were carried out by presenting the two keylights as a compound, with either the same amount of food or a greater amount of food per trial. Finally, the keylights were retested by again presenting them individually. The number of responses per trial elicited by the keylights decreased when the amount of food used in compound trials was the same as that used in individual trials. However, the number of responses per trial remained approximately the same when the amount of food used in compound trials was greater than that used in individual trials. Taken together, the results of the three experiments demonstrate (a) the generality of the blocking, unblocking, and overexpectation effects by virtue of their extension to appetitive unconditioned stimuli; (b) the suitability of pigeons as subjects and autoshaping as a procedure for studying classical conditioning; and (c) the appropriateness of single-subject designs.     

Transfer after pretraining with the negative stimulus

Two groups of rats trained in the jumping stand acquired a horizontal stripes vs. vertical stripes discrimination and then learned its reversal. The groups differed in their pretraining. One group had previously learned a black vs. white discrimination; the other a discrimination in which the S- was the same as that used in the horizontal against vertical problem. S- pretraining facilitated not only acquisition but also the reversal of the orientation discrimination thereby confirming a prediction that reversal learning will be rapid when the original problem is learned chiefly in terms of the S-. It is suggested that overtraining may facilitate reversal learning, in some cases at least, by inducing animals to concentrate on the S-.     

Hippocampal lesions in pigeons (Columba livia) disrupt reinforced preexposure but not overshadowing or blocking

Three experiments examined the effects of hippocampal lesions in pigeons on overshadowing, blocking, and a latent inhibition treatment (non-differential reinforced preexposure) using a simultaneous visual discrimination paradigm. The results showed that hippocampal damage did not influence overshadowing (Experiment 1) or blocking (Experiment 2) but did attenuate the retardation in conditioning associated with non-differential reinforced preexposure to to-be-discriminated stimuli (Experiment 3). Hippocampal birds also displayed impaired autoshaping (Experiments 1, 2, and 3). The correspondence between the behavioural effects of avian and mammalian hippocampal lesions is discussed, and the implications of the present pattern of results for avian hippocampal function are considered.     

Instrumental to Pavlovian transfer: Learning about response-reinforcer contingencies affects subsequent learning about stimulus-reinforcer contingencies

Two experiments examined the interaction between response-reinforcer (R-S) and stimulus-reinforcer (S-S) learning. In both experiments, three groups of rats were exposed to escapable, yoked inescapable, or no shocks. All groups were then exposed to either two or four sessions of truly random control (TRC) conditioning (Experiment 1) or to an excitatory conditioning procedure (Experiment 2) in which the shock US occurred with either moderate or low probability. Excitatory strength of the CS was assessed during extinction by a conditioned emotional response (CER) test. Inescapably shocked rats conditioned less than did their escapably shocked and nonshocked partners under all TRC conditions of Experiment 1, but only conditioned less than their partners in Experiment 2 when exposed to the moderate CS-US contingency for four sessions. These results provide a clear demonstration of transfer between instrumental training and Pavlovian excitatory conditioning and thus, support the influence of learning about R-S contingencies upon subsequent learning about S-S contingencies. Both a contextual blocking interpretation and an expansion of the learned helplessness theory were discussed as possible explanations of this transfer.     

Categorization of natural movements by pigeons: visual concept discrimination and biological motion

In three experiments, pigeons were exposed to a discriminated autoshaping procedure in which categories of moving stimuli, presented on videotape, were differentially associated with reinforcement. All stimuli depicted pigeons making defined responses. In Experiment 1, one category consisted of several different scenes of pecking and the other consisted of scenes of walking, flying, head movements, or standing still. Four of the 4 birds for which pecking scenes were positive stimuli discriminated successfully, whereas only 1 of the 4 for which pecking was the negative category did so. In the pecking-positive group, there were differences between the pecking rates in the presence of the four negative actions, and these differences were consistent across subjects. In Experiment 2, only the categories of walking and pecking were used; some but not all birds learned this discrimination, whichever category was positive, and these birds showed some transfer to new stimuli in which the same movements were represented only by a small number of point lights (Johansson's “biological motion” displays). In Experiment 3, discriminations between pecking and walking movement categories using point-light displays were trained. Four of the 8 birds discriminated successfully, but transfer to fully detailed displays could not be demonstrated. Pseudoconcept control groups, in which scenes from the same categories of motion were used in both the positive and negative stimulus sets, were used in Experiments 1 and 3. None of the 8 pigeons trained under these conditions showed discriminative responding. The results suggest that pigeons can respond differentially to moving stimuli on the basis of movement cues alone.     

Comparison of the rates of associative change during acquisition and extinction

Five experiments used a compound test procedure to compare the rate parameters for the associative changes resulting from reinforcement and nonreinforcement. Experiments 1 and 4, using a magazine-approach procedure in rats, found initial acquisition to proceed more rapidly but to generalize less broadly than extinction. Experiments 2 and 5 repeated these observations in an autoshaping preparation with pigeons. Experiment 3 found no evidence for differential disruption of acquisition and extinction in testing. These results were obtained in a test procedure that compares responding with stimulus compounds in order to remove the differences in overall performance, which have complicated inferences about associative changes in earlier experiments.     

The effect of intertrial conditioned stimuli in autoshaping

Three autoshaping experiments, using pigeon subjects, examined the effect of presenting an S+ or an S- on acquisition to a different conditioned stimulus (CS). Experiment 1 found that signalling intertrial food with an S+ or an S- allowed acquisition of responding to the target-CS; however, that acquisition was slower when the signal was the S+. Experiment 2 found that even when the S+ or S- were presented without food in the intertrial interval, acquisition was slower in the group receiving the S+. Experiment 3 found that a similar, but weaker effect occurred when the S+ or S- stimuli were presented in the session prior to target-CS training, rather than intermixed. These results have implications for the interpretation of experiments that use a signalling manipulation to assess the interaction of CS and context in Pavlovian conditioning; they suggest that signalling unconditioned stimuli (USs) may have consequences other than that of modulating context-US learning.