Concurrent avoidance of shocks by pigeons pecking a key

Three pigeons were studied on concurrent, unsignaled, avoidance schedules in a two-key procedure. Shock-shock intervals were two seconds in both schedules. The response-shock interval on one key was always 22 seconds, while the response-shock interval associated with the other key was varied from 7 to 52 seconds in different experimental conditions. Response rates on the key associated with the varied schedule tended to decrease when the response-shock interval length was increased. Responding on the key associated with the constant schedule was not systematically affected.     

Parameters affecting the maintenance of negatively reinforced key pecking

Three negative reinforcement experiments employing a key-peck response are described. In Experiment I, pigeons shocked on the average of twice per minute (imposed condition) could produce, by pecking a key, an alternate condition with correlated stimuli. Delayed shocks were added, across sessions, to the alternate condition until pecking stopped. Two of three pigeons continued to peck despite a 100% increase in shock frequency. In Experiment II, pigeons were shocked in the imposed condition four times per minute. The postresponse delay to shock was held constant by delivering, in the alternate condition, the next shock, or the next two, three, or four shocks from the imposed-condition shock schedule. All three subjects continued to peck with no change in delay to the first two postresponse shocks but with a 75% reduction in shock frequency. In Experiment III, a response produced an immediate shock followed by a shock-free period. Three of four subjects continued to respond despite reduced delay to shock. Delay-to-shock or shock-frequency reduction was sufficient to maintain key pecking, but neither was necessary. The conditions that negatively reinforce the pigeon's key peck were similar to conditions that negatively reinforce the rat's bar press.     

Nondiscriminated avoidance of shock by pigeons pecking a key

Four pigeons were trained to avoid shock by pecking a key on a free-operant avoidance schedule in which no exteroceptive stimulus signalled impending shock. Response rate was an inverse function of response-shock interval when shock-shock interval was held constant at 2 sec and response-shock intervals varied from 5 to 40 sec. Amphetamine increased response rates in two subjects and reserpine markedly reduced responding in one.     

Escape and avoidance of shock by pigeons pecking a key

Pigeons had been trained to peck a key when each peck removed a slowly increasing series of electric shocks. Without loss of the established key-pecking response, the birds were gradually weaned from this procedure to one where intense shocks were presented suddenly, duplicating features that had proved ineffective for initial shaping of the response. Finally, a procedure was introduced in which key pecks could avoid shock. Avoidance responding was maintained in two of three pigeons.     

Conditioning of within-trial patterns of key pecking in pigeons

The possibility of conditioning systematic patterns of responding during brief discrete trials was studied by requiring hungry pigeons to key peck and then pause or to pause and then key peck in order to gain access to food. These schedules were highly effective in promoting decelerated and accelerated rates of responding, respectively, within individual trials; indeed, performance was quite similar to that observed when explicit external stimuli were correlated with “peck” and “pause” portions of the daily trials. Finally, schedules of reinforcement that did not selectively reinforce peck-pause or pause-peck patterns neither generated these patterns nor maintained them at the previous high levels. The results, therefore, confirm Shimp's (1976) proposal that organized groupings of discrete responses may function as operants—even in the absence of strict response-reinforcer contiguity.     

Acquisition and maintenance of autoshaped key pecking as a function of food stimulus and key stimulus similarity.

The results of a number of recent studies suggest that acquisitions of autoshaped key pecking in pigeons is affected by the similarity of the grain-hopper stimulus and response-key stimulus. In Experiment 1 this hypothesis was tested by training independent groups of pigeons to key peck under six different hopper-stimulus and key-stimulus similarity conditions, and three procedures containing either immediate reinforcement, variable delay of reinforcement, or omission of reinforcement for key pecking. Number of trials to acquisition was found to be related to the similarity variable. Maintained responding was affected by the response-reinforcer contingency. This effect was found both within and between subjects. Under two of the contingencies (automaintenance and omission), maintained responding continued to be affected by the similarity of the hopper stimulus and key stimulus. In Experiment 2 pigeons were given omission training with a hopper light on or off. Both acquisition and maintenance of key pecking were facilitated by the presence of the hopper light. The present findings suggest that much of the responding reported in various automatic shaping and training procedures may reflect the effects of key stimulus/food stimulus similarity.     

Key pecking in pigeons produced by pairing keylight with inaccessible grain

In Experiment I, keylight was paired with inaccessible grain delivery (under two conditions of keylight intensity) to determine if autoshaping would occur in the absence of primary reinforcement. In Experiment II, the procedure was repeated with accessible grain, for comparison. In Experiment III, the procedures were repeated with explicitly unpaired presentations of keylight and either inaccessible or accessible grain. The results indicated that key pecking occurred as quickly in the presence of keylight pairings with inaccessible grain as with accessible grain, though (except for one bird) key pecking was not maintained with inaccessible grain. Furthermore, compared to the dim keylight, the bright keylight greatly suppressed key pecking when paired with inaccessible grain, and reduced the rate of key pecking when paired with accessible grain. Little key pecking occurred in groups exposed to explicitly unpaired presentations of keylight (whether bright or dim) and grain (whether accessible or inaccessible). When the birds in Experiment III were retested with explicitly paired presentations of keylight and grain, little key pecking was observed, suggesting suppressive effects of prior explicitly unpaired presentations. It is suggested that the effects of key-brightness manipulation were produced by the association of grain with cues other than the response key, or by distraction produced by partial illumination of the grain hopper.     

Stimulus control of respondent and operant key pecking: A single key procedure

Pigeons' responses to a uniformly illuminated response key were either reinforced on a variable-interval one-minute schedule of reinforcement or extinguished for one-minute periods. When 1.5 second signals were presented at the beginning of each component, so as to differentially predict reinforcement, the pigeons pecked at the signals, at rates higher than rates during the remainder of the component. When the brief signals were not differentially predictive of reinforcement, pecking in their presence decreased to near zero levels. Similar results were obtained with signals based upon colors and upon line orientations. Changes in rates of (unreinforced) pecking occurred during the signal whether pigeons responded differentially during the remainder of the component or not. Experiment II demonstrated that the presence of the signal correlated with extinction was not necessary for pecking to develop at the signal which preceded the component in which responding was intermittently reinforced. The experiments demonstrated a clear dissociation of respondent control from operant control of a response. In addition, operant behavior was shown to be relatively insensitive to differing rates of reinforcement, as compared to the sensitivity of respondent behavior to differing rates of reinforcement produced by the very same operant behavior.     

Second-order autoshaped key pecking based on an auditory stimulus.

In Experiment 1, pigeons were exposed either to paired or to unpaired presentations of a tone and grain, and then to paired presentations of a keylight with the tone. Substantial second-order conditioned pecking to the keylight was produced in the birds that had received paired presentations of tone and grain. In Experiment 2, second-order pecking to the keylight increased in probability across four groups that had received, respectively, 20, 80, 140, or 200 paired presentations of tone and grain. In Experiment 3, the amount of pecking directed towards a keylight which predicted the first-order, tone CS was as substantial in birds without a prior history of key pecking as in birds with such a history. A further experiment failed to discover any significant differences in the levels of second-order pecking to a keylight paired with a first-order tone CS or with a first-order keylight CS. Thus, an auditory signal that does not itself support pecking may enable a localized visual stimulus to evoke key pecking.     

Conditioning of two-response patterns of key pecking in pigeons

On discrete trials, two response keys were made available to hungry pigeons and food reinforcement depended on the order in which the required two key pecks occurred. In different phases, only one of the four possible two-peck sequences (left-left, left-right, right-left, and right-right) produced food reinforcement. In each case, the pigeons learned to perform the correct two-peck sequence more often than the incorrect sequences. Furthermore, the course of differentiation mastery indicated that both reinforcement history and response-reinforcer contiguity influenced performance. These results reveal that response patterns comprising two instances of the same response left-left and right-right) or instances of two different responses (left-right and right-left) may function as operants, thereby extending the generality of conditioning principles from discrete responses to structured sequences of behavior. These and other results are discussed in terms of contiguity-based and memory-based models of learning.     

Effects of response-independent negative reinforcers on negatively reinforced key pecking

Previous research has shown that presenting response-independent positive reinforcers reduces the response rate of an operant maintained by positive reinforcement. The present experiment investigated a similar effect using shock-free time as a negative reinforcer. Brief shocks were delivered in the presence of a distinctive stimulus, and pigeon's key pecks were reinforced by the occasional presentation of a 2-minute shock-free period. Extra 2-minute shock-free periods were added independently of behavior. For each of three pigeons, response rate during shock-on periods declined with added shock-free periods; the more frequently the extra shock-free periods occurred the greater the decline in response rate. This outcome is predicted by extending the Law of Effect to include negative reinforcement.     

Control of pigeons' pecking by trace stimuli

In Experiment I, pigeons' pecking a white key was reinforced with grain when white was immediately preceded by a vertical white line on a green surround, but not by green alone. This procedure produced control of pecking by the line. Next, pecking white was reinforced after vertical line on green, but not after green alone or other orientations of the white line on green. The line-tilt dimension initially did not control pecking, a result that showed that interdimensional (line versus no line) training does not always result in dimensional control. Line-tilt control was eventually established but was accompanied by a decrease in interdimensional control. In Experiment II, interdimensional training, with or without a trace interval intervening between line on green or green alone and white, was followed by tests for line-tilt control. While interdimensional control was unaffected by the trace interval, line-tilt control tended to be less with the trace interval. This dissociation of interdimensional and dimensional control, as well as the failure of interdimensional training to produce dimensional control in Experiment I, suggests that the line stimulus is multidimensional.     

Stimulus generalization from feeder to response key in the acquisition of autoshaped pecking

During autoshaping, a 6-second presentation of one stimulus and a variable time 30-second presentation of a second stimulus alternated in appearance on a pigeon key. Grain always was delivered for 3 seconds at the end of the first stimulus interval. In the first experiment, autoshaped pecking of the stimulus preceding grain delivery began much sooner when that stimulus was a black vertical line on a white background and the other stimulus was green than when the opposite stimulus arrangement was used. Because these two stimuli differed in form, hue, brightness, and similarity in hue and brightness to the illumination of the raised feeder, three subsequent experiments examined whether the differential speed of autoshaping in the two groups was due to a feature-positive, feature-negative effect, a preference for brighter over darker stimuli, a simple preference for white over green, or stimulus generalization from the brightness or hue of the illuminated, raised feeder to the stimulus on the key preceding grain delivery. The data from these experiments showed that the first autoshaped key peck was most likely to be made to the stimulus of the same hue as that illuminating the feeder, regardless of whether that stimulus was positively or negatively associated with grain delivery. At least under some conditions, therefore, stimulus-generalization mediated response transfer of pecking grain in the presence of the hue illuminating the feeder to pecking the key illuminated by a similar hue appears to account for the occurrence of autoshaped key pecking.     

Observational learning of two visual discriminations by pigeons: a within-subjects design.

Pigeon's observational learning of successive visual discrimination was studied using within-subject comparisons of data from three experimental conditions. Two pairs of discriminative stimuli were used; each bird was exposed to two of the three experimental conditions, with different pairs of stimuli used in a given bird's two conditions. In one condition, observers were exposed to visual discriminative stimuli only. In a second condition, subjects were exposed to a randomly alternating sequence of two stimuli where the one that would subsequently be used as S+ was paired with the operation of the grain magazine. In a third experimental condition, subjects were exposed to the performance of a conspecific in the operant discrimination procedure. After exposures to conspecific performances, there was facilitation of discriminative learning, relative to that which followed exposures to stimulus and reinforcement sequences or exposures to stimulus sequences alone. Exposure to stimulus and food-delivery sequences enhanced performance relative to exposure to stimulus sequences alone. The differential effects of these three types of exposure were not attributable to order effects or to task difficulty; rather, they clearly were due to the type of exposure.     

Stimulus-food relations and free-operant postponement of timeout from response-independent food presentation

Grain was briefly presented to food-deprived pigeons intermittently and response-independently except during signaled timeouts. During Experiment 1, key pecks postponed the next timeout for a specified interval. Rates of pecking during time in were inversely related to the length of time pecking postponed the next timeout. Response-independent presentation of temporal distributions of timeouts exactly matched to a preceding postponement condition decreased pecking rates during Experiment 2. These results indicate that key pecking of pigeons can be controlled by response-dependent postponement of timeout, but that responses elicited by stimulus-reinforcer relations inherent in timeout-postponement procedures may substantially modify rates and patterns of pecking.     

Stimulus stringing by pigeons

Pigeons were trained to peck one, two, three, and then four colors in a predetermined sequence from a five-key array where, over trials, each color appeared equally often in each position of the array. Incorrect pecks resulted in a buzzer and trial termination, with the same array presented for the next trial. Correct pecks produced feedback and correct strings could produce food. All subjects performed at a high level of accuracy with no difference at asymptote between a continuous and a mixed spectral sequence as the required order. Transfer to a new set of arrays had little effect on accuracy. Errors forward in the sequence had the highest probability, followed by repeat errors, backward errors, and dark-key errors. Some arrays had a higher level of accuracy than others but a corresponding systematic variable could not be identified.     

Signal-controlled responding

Pigeons' key pecks were reinforced with grain, then extinguished. An 8-second tone preceded the availability of peck-dependent grain 1 second after tone offset. When a tone signalled grain and an 8-second clicking sound did not, three pigeons pecked during a high percentage of tone periods, but they pecked during a low percentage of click periods. When the roles of the tone and clicking sound were reversed, performance reversed. For other birds, when a key peck during the tone cancelled the availability of grain (omission procedure), the tendency to key peck during the tone decreased some, but still remained high. A third group of pigeons received the omission procedure with the addition that the tone could not end unless 2 seconds had elapsed without a key peck. The pigeons continued to respond in a high percentage of tone periods. The experiments favor an explanation based on the pairing of the tone with a reinforced response, such as Pavlovian conditioning.     

Autoshaped key pecking maintained by access to a social space.

When four experimentally naive pigeons were exposed to occasional forward pairings of a keylight followed by a doorlight (that signaled access to a large social space), all subjects began to peck the lit key. In a second experiment, where the keylight either preceded the presentation of the doorlight or was presented independently of it, key pecking was maintained only in the former circumstance. The unconditioned stimulus in these experiments--arrival in the social space--did not elicit pecking. Hence, the conditioned response of key pecking and the unconditioned response of entering the social space differed. This demonstration of autoshaping with a social-space unconditioned stimulus argues against a stimulus-substitution account of the findings.     

Stimulus discriminability in free-operant and discrete-trial detection procedures.

Six pigeons were trained to discriminate different light intensities in four experimental procedures. Experiment 1 compared stimulus discriminability in a yes-no signal-detection task with discriminability measures obtained from two free-operant procedures. Discriminability estimates were significantly lower in the detection procedure. Experiment 2 showed this lowered discriminability to be a function of the delay between stimulus presentation and the availability of the choice-response keys in the standard detection task. In addition, reinforcement sensitivity was lowest when correct choice responses were intermittently, rather than continuously, reinforced.     

Reduction of shock duration as negative reinforcement in free-operant avoidance

Rats were trained on a free-operant procedure in which shock duration was controlled by responses within a limited range of interresponse times. Shocks of 1.6-mA intensity occurred randomly with average density of 10 shocks per minute. As long as interresponse times were 15 seconds or less, any shocks received were at the briefer of two durations (.3 second). Whenever interresponse times exceeded 15 seconds, any shocks received were at the longer duration (1.0 second). For six of eight animals, avoidance responding developed quickly and reached levels of better than 90%. Four yoked animals stopped responding within the first few sessions. Shock duration reduction without change in shock probability or intensity was sufficient for the acquisition and maintenance of avoidance responding.