Effects of D-amphetamine on response acquisition with immediate and delayed reinforcement.

The present study examined in 8-hour sessions the effects of d-amphetamine (1.0, 5.6, and 10 mg/kg) on the acquisition of lever-press responding in rats that were exposed to procedures in which water delivery was delayed by 0, 8, or 16 seconds relative to the response that produced it. Both nonresetting- and resetting-delay conditions were studied. Although neither shaping nor autoshaping occurred, substantial levels of operative-lever responding developed under all conditions in which responses produced water. The lowest dose (1.0 mg/kg) of d-amphetamine either had no effect on or increased operative-lever pressing, whereas higher doses typically produced an initial reduction in lever pressing. Nonetheless, overall rates of operative-lever pressing at these doses were as high as, or higher than, those observed with vehicle. Thus, response acquisition was observed under all reinforcement procedures at all drug doses. In the absence of the drug, most responding occurred on the operative lever when reinforcement was immediate. Such differential responding also developed under both nonresetting- and resetting-delay procedures when the delay was 8 seconds, but not when it was 16 seconds. d-Amphetamine did not affect the development of differential responding under any procedure. Thus, consistent with d-amphetamine's effects under repeated acquisition procedures, the drug had no detrimental effect on learning until doses that produced general behavioral disruption were administered.     

Response acquisition with delayed reinforcement: a comparison of two-lever procedures.

Groups of 8 experimentally naive rats were exposed during 8-hr sessions to resetting delay procedures in which responses on one lever (the reinforcement lever) produced water after a delay of 8, 16, 32, or 64 s. For rats in one condition, responses on a second (no-consequences) lever had no programmed consequences. For rats in another condition, responses on a second (cancellation) lever during a delay initiated by a response on the reinforcement lever prevented delivery of the scheduled reinforcer; responses on the cancellation lever at other times had no programmed consequences. Under both conditions and at all delays, most subjects emitted more responses on the reinforcement lever than did control rats that never received water emitted on either lever. At 8-s delays, both conditions engendered substantially more responding on the reinforcement lever than on the other lever, and performance closely resembled that of immediate-reinforcement controls. At delays of 16 and 32 s, however, there was clear differential responding on the two levers under the cancellation condition but not under the other condition. When the delay was 64 s, differential responding on the two levers did not occur consistently under either condition. These findings provide strong evidence that the behavior of rats is sensitive to consequences delayed by 8, 16, and 32 s, but only equivocal evidence of such sensitivity to consequences delayed 64 s. They also indicate that acquisition depends, in part, on the measure of performance used to index it.     

Acquisition of lever-press responding in rats with delayed reinforcement: A comparison of three procedures

The present study examined the acquisition of lever pressing in rats under three procedures in which food delivery was delayed by 4, 8, and 16 seconds relative to the response. Under the nonresetting delay procedure, food followed the response selected for reinforcement after a specified interval elapsed; responses during this interval had no programmed effect. Under the resetting procedure, the response selected for reinforcement initiated an interval to food delivery that was reset by each subsequent response. Under the stacked delay procedure, every response programmed delivery of food t seconds after its occurrence. Two control groups were studied, one that received food immediately after each lever press and another that never received food. With the exception of the group that did not receive food, responding was established with every procedure at every delay value without autoshaping or shaping. Although responding was established under the resetting delay procedure, response rates were generally not as high as under the other two procedures. These findings support the results of other recent investigations in demonstrating that a response not previously reinforced can be brought to strength by delayed reinforcement in the absence of explicit 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.     

Body weight and response acquisition with delayed reinforcement.

The relation between body weight and responding established with unsignaled delayed reinforcement was investigated. In three experiments, naive rats were deprived to either 70%, 80%, or 90% of ad libitum weight and were then exposed to tandem variable-interval 15-s differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior 30-s schedules. The tandem schedule defined a resetting unsignaled delay-of-reinforcement procedure. In the first experiment, speed of magazine training, acquisition of lever pressing, and final rate of lever pressing were related to body weight. In the next experiment, lever pressing was established and maintained in rats that were magazine trained at 70% of ad libitum weight but that were then exposed to the delay procedure at 90% of ad libitum weight. Responding did not change consistently either across or within subjects in subsequent conditions in which body weight was manipulated. In the final experiment, lever pressing was established and maintained with delayed reinforcement in the absence of magazine training for each of 2 rats at 70% and for 1 of 2 rats at 90% of ad libitum weight. The results further illuminate the conditions under which responding can be established in the absence of training and when such responses are reinforced only following an unsignaled delay period.     

Response induction during the acquisition and maintenance of lever pressing with delayed reinforcement

The acquisition of lever pressing by rats and the occurrence of unreinforced presses at a location different from that of the reinforced response were studied using different delays of reinforcement. An experimental chamber containing seven identical adjoining levers was used. Only presses on the central (operative) lever produced food pellets. Groups of 3 rats were exposed to one of seven different tandem random-interval (RI) fixed-time (FT) schedules. The average RI duration was the complement of the FT duration such that their sum yielded a nominal 32-s interreinforcement interval on average. Response rate on the operative lever decreased as the FT value was lengthened. The spatial distribution of responses on the seven levers converged on the operative lever when the FT was 0 or 2 s and spread across the seven levers as the FT value was lengthened to 16 or 32 s. Presses on the seven levers were infrequent during the FT schedule. Both operative- and inoperative-lever pressing intertwined in repetitive patterns that were consistent within subjects but differed between subjects. These findings suggest that reinforcer delay determined the response-induction gradient.     

Effects of reinforcement rate and delay on the acquisition of lever pressing by rats.

The acquisition of lever pressing by naive rats, in the absence of shaping, was studied as a function of different rates and unsignaled delays of reinforcement. Groups of 3 rats were each exposed to tandem schedules that differed in either the first or the second component. First-component schedules were either continuous reinforcement or random-interval 15, 30, 60 or 120 s; second-component schedules were fixed-time 0, 1, 3, 6, 12, or 24 s. Rate of responding was low under continuous immediate reinforcement and higher under random-interval 15 s. Random interval 30-s and 60-s schedules produced lower rates that were similar to each other. Random-interval 120 s controlled the lowest rate in the immediate-reinforcement condition. Adding a constant 12-s delay to each of the first-component schedule parameters controlled lower response rates that did not vary systematically with reinforcement rate. The continuous and random-interval 60-s schedules of immediate reinforcement controlled higher global and first-component response rates than did the same schedules combined with longer delays, and first-component rates showed some graded effects of delay duration. In addition, the same schedules controlled higher second-component response rates in combination with a 1-s delay than in combination with longer delays. These results were related to those from previous studies on acquisition with delayed reinforcement as well as to those from similar reinforcement procedures used during steady-state responding.     

Acquisition of cocaine self-administration with unsignaled delayed reinforcement in rhesus monkeys

Six experimentally naive rhesus monkeys produced 0.01 mg/kg/infusion cocaine by lever pressing under a tandem fixed-ratio 1 differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule. One lever press initiated an unsignaled 15- or 30-s delay culminating in cocaine delivery. Each press made during the delay reset the delay interval. With two exceptions, responding was acquired and maintained at higher rates than responding on a second (inoperative) lever. For the exceptions, a cancellation contingency was arranged in which each formerly inoperative-lever response reset the tandem schedule. This manipulation reduced presses on the inoperative lever. Subsequently, the consequences of responding on the two levers were reversed, and the monkeys again responded at higher rates on the operative lever. As a comparison, 3 additional experimentally naive monkeys received response-independent cocaine deliveries. Although lever pressing was observed, it extinguished and was subsequently reestablished under the tandem schedule. The results suggest that although response-reinforcer contiguity is not required for cocaine to acquire reinforcing functions, a response-reinforcer relation appears necessary.     

Behavioral effects of delayed timeouts from reinforcement

Timeouts are sometimes used in applied settings to reduce target responses, and in some circumstances delays are unavoidably imposed between the onset of a timeout and the offset of the response that produces it. The present study examined the effects of signaled and unsignaled timeouts in rats exposed to concurrent fixed‐ratio 1 fixed‐ratio 1 schedules of food delivery, where each response on one lever, the location of which changed across conditions, produced both food and a delayed 10‐s timeout. Delays of 0 to 38 s were examined. Delayed timeouts often, but not always, substantially reduced the number of responses emitted on the lever that produced timeouts relative to the number emitted on the lever that did not produce timeouts. In general, greater sensitivity was observed to delayed timeouts when they were signaled. These results demonstrate that delayed timeouts, like other delayed consequences, can affect behavior, albeit less strongly than immediate consequences.     

Effects of reinforcement history on response rate and response pattern in periodic reinforcement

Several researchers have suggested that conditioning history may have long-term effects on fixed-interval performances of rats. To test this idea and to identify possible factors involved in temporal control development, groups of rats initially were exposed to different reinforcement schedules: continuous, fixed-time, and random-interval. Afterwards, half of the rats in each group were studied on a fixed-interval 30-s schedule of reinforcement and the other half on a fixed-interval 90-s schedule of reinforcement. No evidence of long-term effects attributable to conditioning history on either response output or response patterning was found; history effects were transitory. Different tendencies in trajectory across sessions were observed for measures of early and late responding within the interreinforcer interval, suggesting that temporal control is the result of two separate processes: one involved in response output and the other in time allocation of responding and not responding.     

The effects of schedule history and the opportunity for adjunctive responding on behavior during a fixed-interval schedule of reinforcement.

The effects of schedule history and the availability of an adjunctive response (polydipsia) on fixed-interval schedule performance were investigated. Two rats first pressed levers under a schedule of food reinforcement with an interresponse time greater than 11 s, and 2 others responded under a fixed-ratio 40 schedule. All 4 were then exposed to a fixed-interval 15-s schedule. Water was continuously available under these conditions, but after responding became stable on the fixed-interval schedule, access was experimentally manipulated. With water freely available, subjects did not display characteristic fixed-interval response rates and patterns (i.e., scalloping or break-and-run). Instead, they exhibited predictable, stable patterns of behavior as a function of their schedule histories: Subjects with the interresponse-time history exhibited low response rates, and those with the fixed-ratio history exhibited high rates. Manipulating the amount of water available resulted in marked changes in response rates for rats with the interresponse-time history but not for those with the fixed-ratio history. The results illustrate the multiple causation of behavior by its previous and current schedules of reinforcement and other concurrent factors.     

Contingency tracking during unsignaled delayed reinforcement

Three experiments were conducted with rats in which responses on one lever (labeled the functional lever) produced reinforcers after an unsignaled delay period that reset with each response during the delay. Responses on a second, nonfunctional, lever did not initiate delays, but, in the first and third experiments, such responses during the last 10 s of a delay did postpone food delivery another 10 s. In the first experiment, the location of the two levers was reversed several times. Responding generally was higher on the functional lever, though the magnitude of the difference diminished with successive reversals. In the second experiment, once a delay was initiated by a response on the functional lever, in different conditions responses on the nonfunctional lever either had no effect or postponed food delivery by 30 s. The latter contingency typically lowered response rates on the nonfunctional lever. In the first two experiments, both the functional and nonfunctional levers were identical except for their location; in the third experiment, initially, a vertically mounted, pole-push lever defined the functional response and a horizontally mounted lever defined the nonfunctional response. Higher response rates occurred on the functional lever. These results taken together suggest that responding generally tracked the response-reinforcer contingency. The results further show how nonfunctional-operanda responses are controlled by a prior history of direct reinforcement of such responses, by the temporal delay between such responses and food delivery, and as simple generalization between the two operanda.     

Differential acquisition of lever pressing in inbred and outbred mice: comparison of one-lever and two-lever procedures and correlation with differences in locomotor activity

Recent progress in mouse genetics has led to an increased interest in developing procedures for assessing mouse behavior, but relatively few of the behavioral procedures developed involve positively reinforced operant behavior. When operant methods are used, nose poking, not lever pressing, is the target response. In the current study differential acquisition of milk-reinforced lever pressing was observed in five inbred strains (C57BL/6J, DBA/2J, 129X1/SvJ, C3H/HeJ, and BALB/cJ) and one outbred stock (CD-1) of mice. Regardless of whether one or two levers (an "operative" and "inoperative" lever) were in the operant chamber, a concomitant variable-time fixed-ratio schedule of milk reinforcement established lever pressing in the majority of mice within two 120-min sessions. Substantial differences in lever pressing were observed across mice and between procedures. Adding an inoperative lever retarded acquisition in C57BL/6J, DBA/2J, 129X1/SvJ, and C3H/HeJ mice, but not in CD-1 and BALB/cJ mice. Locomotor activity was positively correlated with number of lever presses in both procedures. Analyses of durations of the subcomponents (e.g., time to move from hopper to lever) of operant behavior revealed further differences among the six types of mice. Together, the data suggest that appetitively reinforced lever pressing can be acquired rapidly in mice and that a combination of procedural, behavioral, and genetic variables contributes to this acquisition.     

Social reinforcement of operant behavior in rats: a methodological note.

An apparatus was developed to study social reinforcement in the rat. Four Long-Evans female rats were trained to press a lever via shaping, with the reinforcer being access to a castrated male rat. Responding under a fixed-ratio schedule and in extinction was also observed. Social access was found to be an effective reinforcer. When social reinforcement was compared with food reinforcement under similar conditions of deprivation and reinforcer duration, no significant differences were observed.     

The effects of reinforcement frequency and response requirements on the maintenance of behavior.

Six rats responded under fixed-interval and tandem fixed-interval fixed-ratio schedules of food reinforcement. Basic fixed-interval schedules alternated over experimental conditions with tandem fixed-interval fixed-ratio schedules with the same fixed-interval value. Fixed-interval length was varied within subjects over pairs of experimental conditions; the ratio requirement of the tandem schedules was varied across subjects. For both subjects with a ratio requirement of 10, overall response rates and running response rates typically were higher under the tandem schedules than under the corresponding basic fixed-interval schedules. For all subjects with ratio requirements of 30 or 60, overall response rates and running response rates were higher under the tandem schedules than under the corresponding basic fixed-interval schedules only with relatively short fixed intervals. At longer fixed intervals, higher overall response rates and running rates were maintained by the basic fixed-interval schedules than by the tandem schedules. These findings support Zeiler and Buchman's (1979) reinforcement-theory account of response strength as an increasing monotonic function of both the response requirement and reinforcement frequency. Small response requirements added in tandem to fixed-interval schedules have little effect on reinforcement frequency and so their net effect is to enhance responding. Larger response requirements reduce reinforcement frequency more substantially; therefore their net effect depends on the length of the fixed interval, which limits overall reinforcement frequency. At the longest fixed intervals studied in the present experiment, reinforcement frequency under the tandem schedules was sufficiently low that responding weakened or ceased altogether.     

Acquisition of a spatially defined operant with delayed reinforcement.

Two experiments investigated the role of an immediate, response-produced auditory stimulus during acquisition, via delayed reinforcement, of a response selected to control for possible unprogrammed, operandum-related sources of response feedback. Experimentally naive rats were exposed to a delayed-food reinforcement condition, specifically a tandem fixed-ratio 1 differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior 30-s schedule. The response was defined as breaking a photocell beam located near the ceiling at the rear of the operant conditioning chamber. In Experiment 1, rates of photobeam breaking by each rat increased from near zero, regardless of the presence or absence of a tone that immediately followed the response initiating the delay interval. Though not essential, the tone facilitated response acquisition and resulted in more efficient response patterns at stability. Experiment 2 demonstrated that photobeam-breaking response rates under the delayed reinforcement contingency exceeded those in a preceding baseline condition in which no food was delivered. In addition, upon introduction of the delayed reinforcement procedure, correspondence between response patterns and the requirements of the reinforcement schedule increased over baseline levels in the absence of a food contingency. Together with a previous report of Lattal and Gleeson (1990), the present results suggest that response acquisition with delayed reinforcement is a robust phenomenon that may not depend on a mechanically defined response or an immediate external stimulus change to mediate the temporal gap between response and reinforcer.     

Response acquisition by zebrafish (Danio rerio) with delayed reinforcement

Zebrafish (Danio rerio) is a common vertebrate animal model in biomedical research and is a promising species for studying how genes interact with environmental factors in determining behavior. The present study investigated how reinforcement parameters affect zebrafish behavior by assessing response acquisition with delayed reinforcement, which has been studied with other species (e.g., rats, pigeons, humans, etc.) but not with zebrafish. Twenty‐four experimentally naïve subjects were exposed to a tandem fixed‐ratio 1 differential‐reinforcement‐of‐other‐behavior x‐s schedule of reinforcement, where x varied across subjects. There were six different delay‐to‐reinforcement durations and sets of four fish were assigned to each delay duration. All of the fish assigned to a 0‐, 0.5‐, or 1‐s delay acquired responding. Two fish acquired responding with a 3‐s delay and one fish appeared to have acquired it with a 6‐s delay although the latter result was less clear. None acquired responding with a 12‐s delay. These results suggest that zebrafish behavior is sensitive to delays to reinforcement and the time frame over which reinforcement is effective may be limited approximately to 6 s. This time frame is shorter than that found with other species. Practical and theoretical implications of the present finding are discussed.     

Quantification of rats' behavior during reinforcement periods

What is treated as a single unit of reinforcement often involves what could be called a reinforcement period during which two or more acts of ingestion may occur, and each of these may have associated with it a series of responses, some reflexive, some learned, that lead up to ingestion. Food-tray presentation to a pigeon is an example of such a “reinforcement period.” In order to quantify this behavior, a continuous-reinforcement schedule was used as the reinforcement period and was chained to a fixed-ratio schedule. Both fixed-ratio size and reinforcement-period duration were manipulated. Rats were used as subjects, food as reinforcement, and a lever press as the operant. Major findings included (a) a rapid decline in response rates during the first 15 to 20 seconds of the reinforcement periods, and (b) a strong positive relationship between these response rates and the size of the fixed ratio. Also revealed was a short scallop not normally found in fixed-ratio response patterns, whose length was a function of fixed-ratio size and reinforcement-period duration. It is suggested that rapidly fluctuating excitatory processes can account for many of these findings and that such processes are functionally significant in terms of behavioral compensation.     

Observing behavior: effects of rate and magnitude of primary reinforcement

Four experiments examined the free-operant observing behavior of rats. In Experiment 1, observing was a bitonic function of random-ratio schedule requirements for the primary reinforcer. In Experiment 2, decreases in the magnitude of the primary reinforcer decreased observing. Experiment 3 examined observing when a random-ratio schedule or a yoked random-time schedule of primary reinforcement was in effect across conditions. Removing the response requirement for the primary reinforcer increased observing, suggesting that the effects of the random-ratio schedule in Experiment 1 likely were due to an interaction between observing and responding for the primary reinforcer. In Experiment 4, decreasing the rate of primary reinforcement by increasing the duration of a random-time schedule decreased observing monotonically. Overall, these results suggest that observing decreases with decreases in the rate or magnitude of the primary reinforcer, but that behavior related to the primary reinforcer can affect observing and potentially affect measurement of conditioned reinforcing value.