Comparing Locomotion With Lever-press Travel In An Operant Simulation Of Foraging

An operant model of foraging was studied. Rats searched for food by pressing on the left lever, the patch, which provided one, two, or eight reinforcers before extinction (i.e., zero reinforcers). Obtaining each reinforcer lowered the probability of receiving another reinforcer, simulating patch depletion. Rats traveled to another patch by pressing the right lever, which restored reinforcer availability to the left lever. Travel requirement changed by varying the probability of reset for presses on the right lever; in one condition, additional locomotion was required. That is, rats ran 260 cm from the left to the right lever, made one response on the right lever, and ran back to a fresh patch on the left lever. Another condition added three hurdles to the 260-cm path. The lever-pressing and simple locomotion conditions generated equivalent travel times. Adding the hurdles produced longer times in patches than did the lever-pressing and simple locomotion requirements. The results contradict some models of optimal foraging but are in keeping with McNair's (1982) optimal giving-up time model and add to the growing body of evidence that different environments may produce different foraging strategies.     

Signal modality and choice between signaled and unsignaled food

Choice between signaled and unsignaled response-independent food schedules was assessed in three experiments using a commitment procedure. In Experiment 1, subjects tested with a 5-s visual signal consistently changed from the signaled to the unsignaled schedule. Changing from the unsignaled to the signaled schedule was observed only occasionally and only at low levels. The same outcome was observed in Experiment 2 with different types of visual signals and with different stimulus combinations identifying the signal period, the signal-absent period, and the unsignaled schedule. In Experiment 3 the visual signal was replaced with an auditory signal for four of the subjects tested in Experiment 2. The subjects then changed from the unsignaled to the signaled schedule or showed a substantial reduction in choice for the unsignaled schedule. The data were assessed using a conditioned-reinforcement interpretation of choice.     

Preference for signaled over unsignaled shock schedules: Ruling out asymmetry and response fixation as factors

Experiment 1 tested whether a “symmetrical” choice procedure yields results different from those previously reported using the “unidirectional” standard changeover procedure (e.g., Badia & Culbertson, 1972). Subjects could change at any time from unsignaled to signaled shock by pressing a lever and from signaled to unsignaled shock by pressing a second lever. Results were identical to those of the standard procedure and showed that the standard procedure is fully adequate. Experiment 2 tested whether choice of high density signaled shock over low-density unsignaled shock (Badia, Coker, & Harsh, 1973) resulted from initial training with equal-density schedules. Subjects were trained and tested with signaled shock twice as dense as unsignaled shock. Three of four subjects strongly preferred the signaled condition, thus ruling out carry-over and “response fixation” as alternative explanations.     

Time-allocation matching between punishing situations

In the presence and absence of white noise, response-independent aversive events were delivered to rats according to several variable-time electric-shock schedules. The animals could switch from the noise component to the no-noise component and vice versa by making a single lever-press response. If the schedule in one component was not in operation when the animal was in the other component, the proportion of time allocated to one component equalled or matched the proportion of obtained punishers in the other component. If both schedules were always in operation, minimizing tended to occur: the animals allocated almost all of their time to the component having the lower shock rate. An analysis of these results, in terms of the expected time until an aversive event, is presented.     

Choice and the rate of punishment in concurrent schedules

Rats' responses on two levers were reinforced according to independent random-interval 1.5-min food schedules. In addition, both lever presses were intermittently punished according to several concurrent random-interval random-interval shock schedules. For the left, the scheduled rate of punishment was kept constant according to a random-interval 6-min schedule. For the right, the rate of punishment varied. As the frequency of punishment for the right lever press increased, its rate decreased. The rate of the left punished lever press increased, however, even though its scheduled reinforcement rate and punishment rate remained unchanged.     

Effects of reinforcer delays on choice as a function of income level

Three rats earned their daily food ration by responding during individual trials either on a lever that delivered one food pellet immediately or on a second lever that delivered three pellets after a delay that was continuously adjusted to ensure substantial responding to both alternatives. Choice of the delayed reinforcer increased when the number of trials per session was reduced. This result suggests that models seeking closure on choice effects must include a parameter reflecting how preference changes with sessionwide income. Moreover, models positing that reinforcer probability and immediacy (1/delay) function equivalently in choice are called into question by the finding that probability and immediacy produce opposing effects when income level is changed.     

An animal model of excessive eating: schedule-induced hyperphagia in food-satiated rats.

Nineteen rats were maintained throughout the experiment on ad libitum wet mash and water and were trained to press a lever on fixed-interval or fixed-ratio schedules of reinforcement with electrical brain stimulation. Fourteen rats ate at least 150% more mash during intermittent reinforcement sessions than during baseline, massed reinforcement control, and/or extinction sessions. In a 3-hr session, 11 of those 14 consumed more than 22 g of wet mash (13 g dry weight), the equivalent of nearly half an animal's daily food intake. In subsequent control sessions, the electrodes did not support stimulus-bound eating despite attempts to make stimulation parameters optimal. These results indicate that the eating was schedule induced or adjunctive, and suggest that the procedure may provide an animal model of excessive nonregulatory eating that contributes to obesity in humans.     

Choosing between predictable shock schedules: Long- versus short-duration signals

Two experiments assessed the relative aversiveness of different duration preshock signals (5 and 20 seconds) and different duration stimuli identifying shock-free periods. In the first experiment, the responding of 15 of 18 rats was maintained when it produced changes from a predictable-shock condition with a 5-second preshock signal to an identical schedule with a 20-second preshock signal; responding was not maintained when it produced the opposite changes. These results occurred with intershock intervals of both 120 seconds and 240 seconds. The second experiment assessed whether changing to the 20-second schedule was maintained by properties of the preshock signals identifying the shock periods or by properties of the stimuli identifying the shock-free periods. Four subjects were given training with the two signaled schedules in an operant chamber and then later given off-baseline preference tests in a shuttlebox. When given a choice between preshock signals, subjects chose the 5-second signals over the 20-second signals. However, when given a choice between stimuli identifying shock-free periods, subjects chose the stimulus identifying the shorter shock-free periods (i.e., the one previously correlated with the 20-second signals). These findings are discussed within the Rescorla and Wagner model of stimulus compounds and within the context of safety as a contrast phenomenon.     

KNOWING BEFORE DOING: DISCRIMINATION BY RATS OF A BRIEF INTERRUPTION OF A TONE

Eight rats' lever presses were reinforced after an interruption in a tone, provided the lever had not been pressed before the tone interruption. After a few sessions, long before the animals reliably refrained from lever pressing before the interruption, the latencies of postinterruption presses (time from the termination of the interruption to the moment of the lever press) dissociated into two classes: short ones for to-be-rewarded presses, and long ones for presses in the other trials, which contained no reward because one or more lever presses had occurred before the interruption. Thus discrimination of impending reinforcement in the current trial occurred before there was evidence of sensitivity to reinforcement in the reinforcement-producing aspect of behavior. This finding is related to Shimp's (1981) contention that the temporal properties of recent behavior are reinforceable, if remembered. The present finding shows that learning to discriminate whether one's behavior has met a contingency, and learning to carry out this behavior, need not go together, implying that memory of temporal properties is probably a necessary but not a sufficient condition for learning the latter.     

Conservation, choice, and the concurrent fixed-ratio schedule

Five rats got all of their water in daily 60-minute sessions. Two levers and a water spout were freely available throughout baseline sessions. Contingency sessions offered a choice between two alternative fixed-ratio components, in the form of a choice between the two levers. Each component required a specified number of lever presses for access to the spout, and then a specified number of licks for another choice between components. Given the observed relative frequency, the absolute frequency of selecting each component was predicted accurately by assuming that the subject conserved between baseline and contingency the total amount of a dimension attributable to lever pressing and licking. Several quantitative models for predicting relative frequency were examined. The best of these assumed that the subject would show a nonexclusive preference for the component requiring fewer lever presses.     

Quinine pellets as an inferior good and a Giffen good in rats.

In Experiment 1, 4 rats earned their daily food ration by choosing between two levers. One lever delivered two regular and one quinine-adulterated food pellets, and the other delivered two regular and four quinine pellets. A 20-s intertrial interval separated successive choices. Sessions began with 10 forced trials during which only one lever, selected with p = .5 and cued by a light above it, could deliver its reinforcer. Forced trials were followed by 30 or 150 trials, depending on the condition, during which choices to either lever could be reinforced. Over this range, absolute choice of the four-quinine, two-regular-pellet lever was inversely related to the number of free-choice trials, establishing this reinforcer as an inferior good. In Condition 1 of Experiment 2, the prior design was altered in two ways: (a) one lever delivered four quinine pellets, and the other lever delivered one standard pellet; and (b) sessions ended after 140 free-choice trials. When the number of free-choice trials was reduced to 100 (Condition 2), all 3 rats increased their preference for quinine pellets, confirming their status as an inferior good. In the next several conditions, the number of quinine pellets provided for selecting its associated lever was varied between three and four. Preference for the quinine-pellet alternative was inversely related to the number of pellets it provided, a result defining it as a Giffen good. These findings are not accommodated readily by extant choice models and complicate the search for a unitary model of choice.     

The control of responding by sounds: unusual effect of reinforcement.

Naive rats were trained to respond on one lever in the presence of noise bursts from one speaker and on a second lever in the presence of noise bursts from a second speaker. The speakers were mounted behind the levers. When responding on the lever adjacent to the sounding speaker was reinforced, control developed within fewer than five trials. When responding on the nonadjacent lever was selectively reinforced, responding on the lever adjacent to the sounding speaker increased in probability for several sessions. Naive rats were trained to respond on the nonadjacent lever following preexposure to the sound. Responding on the lever adjacent to the sounding speaker increased in probability, showing that novelty was not responsible for the effect. Naive rats were run on automaintenance procedures in which there was no explicit pairing of sound and magazine operation, 100% pairing of sound and magazine operation, or magazine operation following 40% of sound presentations. None of the rats acquired the response of approaching and sniffing the sounding speaker, indicating that sound-magazine pairing was not responsible for the effect.     

Preference for mixed versus constant delays of reinforcement: Effect of probability of the short, mixed delay

Preference for mixed versus constant delays of reinforcement was studied with a concurrent-chain procedure. Lever pressing by rats in concurrently available variable-interval 60-second initial links occasionally produced mutually exclusive terminal-link reinforcement delays. A constant delay of reinforcement (either 15 seconds or 30 seconds) composed one terminal link and mixed delays (.2 second and twice the value of the constant delay) were arranged in the other terminal link. The proportion of .2-second delays in the mixed-delay terminal link took on values of 0, .1, .25, .5, .75, .9, and 1.0 over experimental conditions. Based on relative rates of responding in the initial links, preference for the mixed delays was a negatively accelerated function of the proportion of short, mixed delays. Three of five rats preferred the mixed delays to the constant delays when the proportion of short, mixed delays was .1 or higher, and all five rats preferred the mixed delays when the proportion of short, mixed delays was .25 or higher. Neither Squires and Fantino's (1971) delay-reduction model of choice nor a model based on the harmonic mean reinforcement delay provided a close estimate of choice proportions over the range of short-delay proportions studied. The delay-reduction model underestimated choice for the mixed delays at low and intermediate proportions of short delays, and the harmonic-mean-delay model overestimated choice for the mixed delays at intermediate and high proportions of short delays.