Effects of a pre-shock stimulus on temporal control of behavior

Rats were exposed to a situation in which a response on lever B was followed by reinforcement if a preceding response on lever A had been made at least 5, 10, or 15 sec before. The effects of signalled unavoidable shock were studied on the behavior maintained by this procedure. All rats made fewer A-to-B sequences during the periods of pre-shock stimulus. In addition, when the A-to-B delay was 10 or 15 sec, the distribution of A-to-B times changed, there being more shorter intervals. However, for animals where the A-to-B delay was 5 sec, the distribution of A-to-B times was not changed during the pre-shock stimulus. In all cases, there was an increased proportion of inappropriate B responses (i.e., with no preceding A response) during the pre-shock stimulus; this was most marked with animals exposed to a 15-sec A-to-B delay.     

Rapid acquisition of a sidman avoidance response

Rats were trained on a Sidman avoidance task with a 22-sec R-S and a 6-sec S-S interval for six daily 30-min training sessions. Disabling the response lever during and 0.5 sec after shock termination represented one factor in the 2 by 2 factorial design and the presentation of a feedback light cue accompanying an effective response was the other. Rats in the lever-disable condition with feedback light made significantly more avoidance responses than the other treatment groups. In a second experiment, daily 60-min sessions were observed. Using a lever-disable plus feedback light treatment, rats made more avoidance responses and received fewer shocks during the second 30-min as opposed to the first 30 min period.     

Short-term memory for time intervals

The effect of intertrial interval, preset interval, and retention interval on the performance of rats in a time estimation task was described. On each trial a signal was presented for a duration of 2 to 8 sec. Eighteen rats were trained to press one lever (the short response) if the signal was shorter than 4 sec, and another lever (the long response) if the signal was longer than 4 sec. When trials were massed (Experiment 1), the percentage long response was affected by the classification of the previous signal, but not by its actual duration. This suggests that the animals remembered the response made on the previous trial, but not the signal duration. If a response was not permitted on the previous trial (Experiment 2), the duration or classification of the previous signal had no effect on performance. This supports the conclusion from the first experiment and suggests that an animal can reset its internal clock in less than 2 sec. In Experiment 3, the difference limen of the psychophysical function increased with the duration of the retention interval, but the point of subjective equality did not change. This suggests that resetting of the internal clock occurs on a non-time dimension.     

Effects of electric-shock delivery on schedule-induced water intake: delay of shock, shock intensity, and body-weight loss.

In each of four experiments, schedule-induced water intake in the rat was studied under fixed-time 40-sec food delivery. Experiments I and II studied the temporal relationship between response-independent electric-shock delivery and licking. Shock was delivered under a variable-time 60-sec schedule. A lick-dependent delay was imposed so that licking and shock delivery were systematically separated in time by a minimum of 1 to 15 sec. Over a wide range of shock intensities the data failed to reveal a consistent delay-of-shock effect. Similar shock intensities led to similar reduction of water intake at each delay of shock interval. Experiments III and IV studied the effects of body-weight loss on water intake during independent shock delivery. In Experiment III, shock was delivered under variable-time 60-sec with a minimum separation between shock and licking of 5 sec. In Experiment IV, shock was delivered under variable-time 180-sec. The minimum separation between shock and licking was 10 sec. In each study, the resistance of water intake to suppression by shock delivery increased as the degree of body-weight loss increased. Schedule-induced water intake was affected more by shock when the animal was maintained at 90% of free-feeding weight than at 70%.     

Effect of delay-interval illumination on matching behavior in the capuchin monkey

Experiment 1 demonstrated that delayed matching-to-sample in the capuchin monkey was superior when the delay interval was spent in darkness rather than in moderate illumination. In contrast with previous studies in which the delayed-matching ability of primates appeared limited to 60 sec or less, in the dark condition all subjects showed above-chance matching at a 120-sec delay interval. Experiment 2 verified that darkness during the delay interval can facilitate delayed matching and provided evidence that the effective variable was the illumination level of the delay interval rather than change in illumination, which in Exp. 1 was confounded with illumination level.     

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

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

Effects of different delay of reinforcement procedures on variable-interval responding

Two experiments studied responding in the rat when the first bar press after a variable period of time produced a cue light that remained on for either 10, 30, or 100 sec and terminated with the delivery of food. In Experiment I, response rate decreased and time to the first response after reinforcement increased as the delay of reinforcement increased. Similar results were obtained whether the delay consisted of retracting the lever during the delay, a fixed delay with no scheduled consequence for responding, or every response during the delay restarted the delay interval. In Experiment II, fixed-delay and fixed-interval schedules of the same duration during the delay period had no differential effect on either response rate or time to the first response after reinforcement, but differentially controlled responding during the delay periods.     

Free-operant acquisition with delayed reinforcement

The acquisition of free-operant lever pressing by hungry rats was investigated under a schedule in which the first lever press in each second programmed a reinforcer delivery after a fixed delay. In two studies acquisition was observed under programmed delays ranging between 0 and 32 sec, although animals trained with a delay of 64 sec pressed no more than yoked, non-contingent controls. In the final study an attempt was made to enhance sensitivity to the instrumental contingency under a 64-sec delay by exposing the animals to the operant chamber in the absence of the lever prior to each training session. Only animals receiving such exposure pressed significantly more than their non-contingent controls.     

The role of response-reward correlation in stimulus-response overshadowing

Rats pressed levers for food reward which was delivered, when appropriate, 0·4 s after the response. For one group, the delay interval was filled by a light cue; for the other group, the same number of lights was given but they were not correlated with food delivery. In Experiment I, all lever presses were reinforced and there were no differences in response rate between groups. In Experiments II and III, lever pressing was rewarded according to a VI and VR schedule respectively. Group differences were observed in Experiment II but they disappeared in Experiment III. The results of Experiments I and II show that a reward-related stimulus does not overshadow a lever response unless the stimulus is a better predictor of reward. Differences in salience or competition from sign-tracking behaviors were ruled out as causes of this phenomenon. Experiment III demonstrated, however, that a weak response-reward correlation is not a sufficient condition for the overshadowing effect. A fourth experiment replicated the results of Experiment III using naive animals. The results of these last two experiments are not consistent with an information theory approach unless (a) a response-units concept is adopted or (b) the cue involved in overshadowing is not the pre-food light but the end of a temporal interval, whose salience is enhanced by the light.     

Two temporal parameters of food postponement

Rats were trained to press a lever under schedules of food postponement. In the absence of lever presses, food was delivered periodically (food-food interval). Responses initiated a second interval (response-food interval) that was reset by each additional response. Performance was first studied at different response-food intervals with the food-food interval fixed at 30 or 60 sec, or 10 min. Response-food intervals were examined in ascending order and then recovery was studied at shorter intervals. Finally, the food-food interval was manipulated with response-food interval fixed at 30 sec. At food-food intervals of 30 and 60 sec, responding first increased and then decreased as the response-food interval increased. At the 10-min food-food interval, responding decreased with increasing response-food interval. In general, very low rates of responding occurred when the response-food interval was 60 sec or more and when it equalled or exceeded the food-food interval. However, responding was maintained in one animal when the food-food interval was decreased from 120 to 15 sec with the response-food interval at 30 sec. Results, in terms of several dependent variables, are compared with data on shock avoidance. Effects of response-independent and response-produced food and shock are discussed.     

Rate changes after unscheduled omission and presentation of reinforcement

Changes in response rate similar to frustration effects were studied in a two-lever situation. Responding on one lever on a fixed-interval schedule produced access to water for 5 sec and an exteroceptive stimulus. In the presence of this stimulus, responding on another lever on a fixed-interval schedule produced access to water for 5 sec and terminated the stimulus. Occasional omission of a previously scheduled reinforcer after responding on the first lever resulted consistently in increases in rate on the second lever during the immediately succeeding interval. In another procedure, occasional presentation of a previously unscheduled reinforcer after responding on the first lever resulted consistently in decreases in rate on the second lever during the immediately succeeding interval. Changes occurred after the first omissions or presentations and were about the same in magnitude as the procedure continued over several sessions. Typically, an increase or decrease in rate was maintained throughout an entire 100-sec interval. Changes in rate on the second lever of approximately the same magnitude also occurred when rate on the first lever was near-zero under a schedule that differentially reinforced behavior other than lever pressing.     

Rats' lever-press durations as psychophysical judgments of time

Hungry rats received food following lever-press durations exceeding a minimum value, which ranged from 0 to 6.4 sec. When no intertrial intervals separated successive presses, modal press durations remained at very short values as the minimum value required for food was increased. This was particularly true immediately after a food presentation. When an 8-sec intertrial interval followed each lever release, modal press durations were always at or beyond the minimum value required for food, and outcome of the preceding press had no effect on press duration. Possible reasons for the effects of intertrial intervals included punishment of short presses, increased delay of reinforcement of short presses, and reduced density of reinforcement. In addition, functions relating discrete-trials lever-press duration to minimum duration required for food were found to be qualitatively and quantitatively similar to the power functions recently proposed by Catania (1970) for interresponse time and response latency. This similarity was taken as support for a general psychophysical law of temporal judgments.     

The Temporal Placement of Interpolated Movements in Short-Term Motor Memory,

Directional response biasing as a function of the recency of an interpolated act was examined on a lever device in a within-S design. The temporal occurrence of an interpolated act was systematically varied (5, 30, or 55 sec. after the criterion act) for three retention intervals (15, 40, and 65 sec.), and the location of the interpolated movement was held constant ± 40 deg. from the criterion position. Analysis of constant errors showed significant positive directional biasing for interpolated acts greater than criterion positions. Further analyses at the 40-and 65-sec. retention intervals supported a recency interpretation. As the retention interval increased, the positive constant error was maintained for interpolated acts with the same post-biasing interval, whereas constant error became increasingly negative as the post-biasing interval increased. Examination of variable error revealed a slight increase over time and no significant differences between directional conditions. The recency findings were discussed in terms of the view that reproduction of a criterion act is dependent on the relative decay states between the interpolated and criterion traces.     

Compounding of discriminative stimuli that maintain responding on separate response levers

In Experiment 1, rats' responses were reinforced on a fixed-interval 30-sec schedule in the presence of either a light or a tone and were not reinforced in their absence. Each stimulus was correlated with its own response lever, with only one lever present during a session. When light and tone were compounded in the presence of the tone-correlated lever, no change in responding occurred. However, when tone was compounded with light in the presence of the light-correlated lever, level of responding was greater than to light alone (response summation). Summation was also found when each stimulus was correlated with the same lever. Next, light and tone were again correlated with separate levers, but both levers were always simultaneously present. Compounding produced both summation and emission of most responses on the light-correlated lever. This prepotency of light was reduced (1) by leaving a houselight on throughout the session; and (2) by correlating each stimulus with a different schedule (either fixed-interval 4.7-sec or fixed-interval 30-sec). With a medium- and high-intensity houselight and with the different reinforcement schedules, similar results were obtained during compounding, regardless of whether compounding occurred in the presence of the light- or tone-correlated lever.     

Integrated delays to shock as negative reinforcement

Rats were shocked at the rate of two per minute until they pressed a lever. In Experiment I, shocks were delivered at variable-time intervals averaging 30 sec; in Experiment II, shocks were delivered at fixed-time intervals of 30 sec. A response produced an alternate condition for a fixed-time period. The shock frequency following a response, calculated over the whole alternate condition, was two per minute. The pattern of shocks in the alternate condition was controlled so that the first shock occurred at the same time as it would have occurred had the response not been emitted; the remaining shocks were delayed until near the end of the alternate condition. Bar pressing was acquired in both experiments. This finding is not explained by two-factor theories of avoidance and is inconsistent with the notion that overall shock-frequency reduction is necessary for negative reinforcement. The data imply that responding is determined by the integrated delays to each shock following a response versus the integrated delays to shock in the absence of a response.     

Effects of signaled versus unsignaled delay of reinforcement on choice

Pigeons chose between 5-s and 15-s delay-of-reinforcement alternatives. The first key peck to satisfy the choice schedule began a delay timer, and food was delivered at the end of the interval. Key pecks during the delay interval were measured, but had no scheduled effect. In Experiment 1, signal conditions and choice schedules were varied across conditions. During unsignaled conditions, no stimulus change signaled the beginning of a delay interval. During differential and nondifferential signal conditions, offset of the choice stimuli and onset of a delay stimulus signaled the beginning of a delay interval. During differential signal conditions, different stimuli were correlated with the 5-s and 15-s delays, whereas the same stimulus appeared during both delay durations during nondifferential signal conditions. Pigeons showed similar, extreme levels of preference for the 5-s delay alternative during unsignaled and differentially signaled conditions. Preference levels were reliably lower with nondifferential signals. Experiment 2 assessed preference with two pairs of unsignaled delays in which the ratio of delays was held constant but the absolute duration was increased fourfold. No effect of absolute duration was found. The results highlight the importance of delayed primary reinforcement effects and challenge models of choice that focus solely on conditioned reinforcement.     

Exteroceptive control of response under delayed reinforcement

Three white rats, after 50 continuous reinforcements, were exposed successively, under dim illumination, to reinforcement delays of 1, 3, 5, 7.5, 10, 15, and 20 sec, with prolonged training at the 20-sec level. Behavior was maintained at each level, and an increase in interval was accompanied by an increase in post-reinforcement pause. Subsequently, under both 20- and 30-sec delays, the animals were tested during half of each daily session to determine the effect of introducing darkness during each delay interval. The result of this stimulus “support” was to regularize and increase response rate for each animal at both interval values.     

The establishment of flavor-flavor associations using a sensory preconditioning training procedure

In Experiment 1, rats drank two distinct flavors in sequence during preconditioning; during training, the second of these flavors was paired with a toxin. During testing, there was an aversion to the flavor not directly paired with the toxin. In Experiment 2, the time interval between the two flavors (0, 3, 9, and 27 sec) in the preconditioning phase was varied; learning occurred only if the flavors were separated by 9 sec or less. Experiment 3, using a 60-sec interstimulus interval also did not reveal learning. These results reveal that the temporal gradient for flavor-flavor associative learning is similar to conventional audio-visual sensory preconditioning delay gradients and different from those obtained in flavor-toxicosis experiments. The results are discussed in terms of their critical implication for Revusky's concurrent interference theory of associative learning.     

Rapid acquisition of discrete-trial lever-press avoidance: effects of signal-shock interval

Acquisition of discrete-trial lever-press avoidance learning was studied in three experiments. Experiment I compared a new training procedure, which produces rates of lever-press avoidance learning comparable to those obtained in shuttle boxes, with a “conventional”, less efficient training procedure. A factorial design was used to compare continuous versus intermittent shock and a long-variable versus a short-fixed signal-shock interval. Learning was best in the groups trained with the long and variable interval and poorest in those trained with the short and fixed interval. Type of shock had no effect. Experiment II separated the effects of duration from those of variability of the signal-shock interval. Fixed and variable intervals of 10 and 60 sec were tested and duration was the only significant factor. Experiment III addressed the effect of the differential opportunity to avoid provided by long signal-shock intervals by varying this interval from 10 to 60 sec in 10-sec steps. Only the 10-sec group showed slow acquisition relative to the others. Analysis of avoidance response latencies showed that the distributions for all groups were positively skewed and that skewness increased with increasing duration of the signal-shock interval. At intervals longer than 20 sec, the animals made progressively less use of their increased opportunity to respond. The data do not support the opportunity-to-respond interpretation of the effects of duration of signal-shock interval and suggest that some type of inhibitory process may block lever-press avoidance learning at intervals as short as 10 sec. The significance of these findings for species-specific defense reaction and preparedness theories was emphasized.