Contingency effects with maintained instrumental reinforcement

In three experiments we investigated the effect on the performance of thirsty rats of varying the instrumental contingency between lever pressing and the delivery of a saccharin reinforcer. In Experiment 1, the subjects performed more slowly in a non-contingent condition, in which the momentary probability of reinforcement was unaffected by whether or not the animals pressed, than in a contingent condition in which the reinforcer was never presented except following a lever press. This was true of performance under both random ratio and interval schedules in which the function determining the probability of reinforcement following a lever press remained the same across the contingent and non-contingent conditions. Experiment 2 demonstrated that instrumental performance was less affected when the contingency was degraded by the introduction of free reinforcers if these reinforcers were signalled. In Experiment 3, lever pressing was reinstated to some degree after non-contingent training by giving non-reinforced exposure to the operant chamber in the absence of the lever. These results suggest that free reinforcers depress instrumental behaviour through a performance mechanism engaged by their ability to support conditioning of the contextual cues.     

Context Conditioning and Free operant Acquisition under Delayed Reinforcement

Three experiments examined the effect of context conditioning on the acquisition of freeoperant lever pressing by hungry rats when the presentation of the food reinforcer was delayed for 32 sec. The first study replicated the preexposure effect reported by Dickinson, Watt, and Griffiths (1992): Exposure to the contextual cues with the lever withdrawn prior to each instrumental training session enhanced acquisition, an effect that was attenuated by the presentation of non-contingent reinforcement during the preexposure periods. Signalling the non-contingent reinforcers during the preexposure periods with a brief auditory stimulus enhanced acquisition in a second study, suggesting that the non-contingent reinforcement interferes with acquisition through context conditioning. The final study confirmed this conclusion using a within-subject procedure in which pressing different levers was reinforced in two contexts, one of which was also associated with non-contingent reinforcers.     

Mechanisms of resurgence II: Response-contingent reinforcers can reinstate a second extinguished behavior

Three experiments with rat subjects examined resurgence of an extinguished instrumental response using the procedure introduced by Epstein (1983) with pigeons. There were three phases: (1) initial acquisition of pressing on a lever (L1) for pellet reward, (2) extinction of L1, and (3) a test session in which a second lever (L2) was inserted, briefly reinforced, and then extinguished. Experiment 1 confirmed that if pressing L2 delivered 20 pellets followed by extinction, rats would resume L1 responding in the final test. Experiment 2 compared the effects of response-contingent and non-contingent rewards delivered upon insertion of L2. Although insertion of L2 alone did not increase L1 responding, response-contingent and non-contingent rewards led to comparable increases in L1 responding. Experiment 3 found that the delivery of non-contingent pellets during extinction of L1, which would be expected to reduce the ability of pellets to set the occasion for the L1 response, also reduced the effects of both response-contingent and non-contingent rewards during the final test. The results indicate that in this method, the resurgence treatment leads to an increase in L1 pressing due to simple presentation of the pellet; delivering the reinforcer after extinction of L1 reinstates L1 responding by setting the occasion for the L1 response.     

Overshadowing of a context aversion by a novel incentive in operant conditioning

Two experiments examined the processes underlying the suppression of instrumental behaviours by lithium in rats, as reported by Meachum (1988 and this issue). Experiment 1 examined whether presenting a novel sucrose solution prior to lithium chloride administration would overshadow aversion learning to either the stimuli of the operant chamber or to familiar food pellets. After lever pressing had been established, and in the absence of responding, animals received free deliveries of a novel sucrose solution, familiar food pellets, or both, or they were exposed to only the cues of the operant chamber, prior to lithium injections. Lever pressing for food pellets was then assessed. It was found that the animals receiving the novel sucrose, either alone or with the familiar food pellets, pressed more for pellets than either the group receiving only food pellets or the group exposed to only the context. In addition, there was no appreciable difference in the response rates between the context-only group and the group that received the familiar food pellets. These outcomes were interpreted in terms of the novel sucrose overshadowing aversion learning to the context. Experiment 2 investigated whether in fact aversive contextual conditioning could be obtained using the present parameters. This was accomplished by directly manipulating the contexts. In this experiment animals were trained to lever press in two distinctive contexts. Subsequently, one context was paired with the novel sucrose, and the second was experienced in the absence of reinforcement prior to toxicosis. During a subsequent non-reinforced test it was found that responding in the context paired with the novel sucrose was considerably higher than responding in the context that was experienced alone. These findings stand in contrast to the taste-mediated contextual potentiation observed when a consumatory response is used to assess aversive contextual conditioning.     

The role of response-contingent incentives in lithium chloride-mediated suppression of an operant response

Three experiments investigated what role a novel incentive plays in the development of operant response suppression mediated by lithium chloride. In all experiments animals were trained to press two levers under concurrent schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1 responding on one lever delivered a familiar incentive (food pellets), whereas responding on an alternative lever delivered a novel incentive (sucrose solution) prior to lithium chloride injections. If lithium was administered immediately after the instrumental session, the action associated with the novel, but not with the familiar, incentive was suppressed. By comparison, in a control group for which responding on both levers led to the familiar incentive, both actions were suppressed. Experiment 2 examined whether the novelty, rather than the sensory properties, of the incentive is crucial for observing performance suppression. It was found that animals familiarized with the “target” incentive were insensitive to aversion conditioning by lithium, in that there was no difference in response rates between the action that delivered the familiar incentive from that which earned the “target”. In contrast, if animals were unfamiliar with the “target” incentive at the time of aversion conditioning, they suppressed responding on the lever that was associated with the novel incentive but did not suppress responding on the lever associated with the familiar incentive. Experiment 3 investigated the mechanism underlying instrumental performance suppression. After the completion of concurrent lever press training, novel sucrose was introduced in conjunction with the pellets for responding on one lever; responding on the other lever continued to deliver only familiar pellets. Lithium injections were then administered either immediately following the sessions or several hours after the sessions. It was found that the rate of responding on the lever associated with the contingent delivery of sucrose was suppressed below that of the pellet-alone action. By comparison, if lithium injections were administered several hours following the session, an elevation in responding on the sucrose-plus-pellet lever was observed. The outcomes of all three experiments demonstrate not only that the novelty of an incentive is important in obtaining performance suppression, but also that a novel incentive can punish instrumental responding if it has been associated with toxicosis.     

Incentive learning and the motivational control of instrumental performance

Hungry rats were trained to press a lever and pull a chain concurrently, with one action being reinforced with a sucrose solution and the other with food pellets. In addition, in the first two experiments all animals experienced non-contingent presentations of the two incentives in the absence of the operant manipulanda while either thirsty or hungry and either before (Experiment 1A) or after (Experiment 1B) the instrumental training. When lever pressing was assessed subsequently in extinction under thirst, the animals pressed at a relatively high rate only if (1) this action had been reinforced with the sucrose solution rather than the food pellets during training and (2) they had received the non-contingent presentations of the sucrose solution and food pellets on days on which they were thirsty rather than hungry. A third experiment demonstrated that non-contingent exposure to the sucrose solution alone, but not to water under thirst was sufficient to bring about this type of motivational control of instrumental performance.     

The effect of the instrumental training contingency on susceptibility to reinforcer devaluation

Two experiments investigated performance of instrumental lever pressing by rats following post-conditioning devaluation of the sucrose reinforcer produced by establishing an aversion to it. In Experiment I rats responded less in an extinction test after being averted from the sucrose following training on a ratio schedule, but not following an equivalent amount of training on an interval schedule. This was true even though the devalued sucrose would not act as an effective reinforcer on either the ratio or interval schedule. Experiment II provided a further investigation of the insensitivity of interval responding to reinforcer devaluation by comparing test performance under simple extinction with responding when the devalued reinforcer was presented on either a response-contingent or non-contingent schedule during the test. Once again simple extinction performance was unaffected by prior reinforcer devaluation. Furthermore, neither non-contingent nor contingent presentations of the devalued reinforcer significantly depressed responding below the level seen in the extinction condition. Ratio, but not interval performance appears to be controlled by knowledge about the instrumental contingency that encodes specific properties of the training reinforcer.     

Signaled Delay of Reinforcement: Effects of Postconditioning Manipulation of Context Associative Strength on Instrumental Performance

Two experiments examined the influence of postconditioning treatments of contextual cues on instrumental responding acquired with a signaled delay of reinforcement schedule. In Experiment 1, mere exposure to the conditioning context after instrumental training resulted in an attenuated response rate during an extinction test. In the second experiment, responding was decreased by exposure to the contextual cues or sessions in which signaled noncontingent reinforcements occurred. The greatest response decrement, however, occurred following unsignaled noncontingent food presentations. The results are discussed with respect to the different roles of contextual cues on operant responding.     

Lever attacking and pressing as a function of conditioning and extinguishing a lever-press avoidance response in rats

Six experimental rats were conditioned to press one of two available levers to avoid shock. The levers registered bites as well as presses. For four of these rats, shock was contingent on lever bites when a specified time period had elapsed after the previous shock. An extinction period, in which only periodic noncontingent shocks were presented, followed avoidance training. Six yoked-control rats received the same sequence of shocks as did the corresponding experimental rats in both the conditioning and extinction phases. All six experimental rats repeatedly bit the avoidance lever. Four bit it more than the nonavoidance lever during conditioning, and five bit it more during extinction. Five of the six experimental rats consistently bit the levers many more times during each session than did their respective control rats, suggesting that avoidance conditioning facilitated lever biting. Rates of lever biting and pressing by all of the experimental rats and by some of the control rats were highest immediately following shock throughout both phases. During later portions of the intervals following shock, characteristic effects of conditioning and extinction were observed. This finding suggests that extinction of avoidance behavior by unavoidable shock presentations can be demonstrated more readily when shock-elicited responding is extricated from the data.     

Irrelevant incentive learning during instrumental conditioning: The role of the drive-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relationships

Four experiments investigated the processes by which a motivationally-induced change in the value of the training reinforcer affects instrumental performance. Initially, thirsty rats were trained to lever press for either a sodium or non-sodium solution. In Experiment I sodium-trained rats responded faster in extinction following the induction of a sodium appetite, but not following either food or water deprivation. Thus, enhanced extinction performance depends upon the relevance of the training reinforcer to the test drive state. The remaining experiments examined the role of the instrumental contingency. Animals received response-contingent presentations of one solution alternated either within (Experiments II and III) or between sessions (Experiment IV) with non-contingent presentations of another solution. Neither procedure yielded convincing evidence that contingent sodium presentations generated more responding in extinction under a sodium appetite than did non-contingent sodium presentations. On the basis of these results, we argue that the instrumental contingency itself does not play a major role in this irrelevant incentive effect.     

Extinction of responding maintained by timeout from avoidance

The resistance to extinction of lever pressing maintained by timeout from avoidance was examined. Rats were trained under a concurrent schedule in which responses on one lever postponed shock on a free-operant avoidance (Sidman) schedule (response-shock interval = 30 s) and responses on another lever produced 2 min of signaled timeout from avoidance on a variable-ratio 15 schedule. Following extended training (106 to 363 2-hr sessions), two experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1 two different methods of extinction were compared. In one session, all shocks were omitted, and there was some weakening of avoidance but little change in timeout responding. In another session, responding on the timeout lever was ineffective, and under these conditions timeout responding showed rapid extinction. The within-session patterns produced by extinction manipulations were different than the effects of drugs such as morphine, which also reduces timeout responding. In Experiment 2 shock was omitted for many consecutive sessions. Response rates on the avoidance lever declined relatively rapidly, with noticeable reductions within 5 to 10 sessions. Extinction of the timeout lever response was much slower than extinction of avoidance in all 4 rats, and 2 rats continued responding at baseline levels for more than 20 extinction sessions. These results show that lever pressing maintained by negative reinforcement can be highly resistant to extinction. The persistence of responding on the timeout lever after avoidance extinction is not readily explained by current theories.     

A direct comparison of four methods for eliminating a response

Thirty-two rats pressed one lever (lever A) on a VI 30-sec schedule of food reinforcement and were then shifted to one of four procedures for eliminating the lever A response: extinction, differential reinforcement of other behavior, reinforcement of a different response (pole pushing), and reinforcement of a similar response (pressing lever B). Effectiveness of a response-elimination procedure was measured by (1) how quickly lever A response rate fell to a low level when the procedure was in effect, (2) how much lever A responding recovered when the procedure was discontinued, and (3) how resistant lever A responding was to reinstatement when the VI reinforcement schedule was reimposed. No one method was superior by all three measures. Extinction produced the most variable behavior, while differential reinforcement of other behavior produced the least. Reinforcing alternative behavior produced the greatest recovery in the original lever A response when the response-elimination procedure was discontinued.     

Effects of contextual conditioning and unconditional stimulus presentation on performance in appetitive conditioning

Four experiments with rat subjects examined the effects of contextual conditioning on conditioned appetitive performance. Experiment 1 compared the effects of contextual conditioning on performance to conditioned stimuli (CSs) with different conditioning histories. Contextual conditioning enhanced performance to the CS if the CS had first been conditioned and then extinguished, but had no effect on performance when the CS had been merely paired or unpaired with food. Experiments 2 and 3 then asked whether the effect on the extinguished CS was due to contextual conditioning acting as a cue for conditioning. In Experiment 2, extinction procedures in which extra unconditioned stimuli (USs) were presented during the intertrial intervals were found to reduce the CS's sensitivity to enhancement by contextual conditioning, but had no effect on spontaneous recovery. In Experiment 3, USs added to conditioning or extinction acquired the ability to cue the corresponding performance. Under some conditions, USs added to conditioning could suppress performance (Experiment 4). The results suggest that contextual conditioning has complex effects that can be better understood by recognizing that contextual conditioning, as well as the USs that create it,Mayacquire discriminative control over conditioned responding.     

Differential reinstatement predicted by preextinction response rate

Reinstatement refers to the recovery of previously extinguished responding by the responseindependent delivery of a stimulus that was a reinforcer in training. Two experiments were conducted to examine relative reinstatement following the training of differential preextinction response rates, either with equal (Experiment 1) or unequal (Experiment 2) preextinction reinforcement rates. In Experiment 1, each of 3 pigeons first pecked at relatively high rates in the tandem variable-time 117-sec fixed-interval 3-sec component of a multiple schedule and at lower rates in a separate tandem variableinterval 117-sec fixed-time 3-sec component. Reinforcement rates were equal between components. Pecking then was extinguished in each component, before being reinstated under a multiple variabletime 120-sec variable-time 120-sec schedule. Greater reinstatement occurred in the component previously correlated with higher rates of pecking. In Experiment 2, in an initial condition, the mean rate of lever pressing for one group of 8 rats was significantly higher under a fixed-ratio 3 schedule than for another group of 8 rats under a fixed-ratio 1 schedule. Mean reinforcement rate was significantly higher for the group exposed to the fixed-ratio 1 schedule. For each group, lever pressing then was extinguished, before being reinstated under a variable-time 30-sec schedule. Significantly greater mean reinstatement occurred for the group previously exposed to the fixed-ratio 3 schedule. These results suggest that differential reinstatement may be predicted by preextinction response rate, perhaps independently of preextinction reinforcement rate.     

Instrumental responding following reinforcer devaluation

In two experiments, hungry rats were given instrumental lever-press training for an appetitive reinforcer and, in addition, were exposed to another type of food which was not contingent on lever pressing. In the first experiment, exposure to each type of food was on separate days, whereas in the second experiment rats were exposed to each type of food in strict alternation within each session. Subsequently, a food aversion was conditioned to the reinforcer for the experimental group and to the non-contingent food for the control group. In both experiments, animals with an aversion to the reinforcer responded less in an extinction test than animals with an aversion to the non-contingent food. Subsequent reacquisition tests confirmed that the aversion to the non-contingent food in the control group was of comparable strength with that to the reinforcer in the experimental group. The results were discussed in terms of whether the reinforcer is encoded in the associative structure set up by exposure to an instrumental contingency.     

Resistance to change and relapse of observing

Four experiments examined relapse of extinguished observing behavior of pigeons using a two-component multiple schedule of observing-response procedures. In both components, unsignaled periods of variable-interval (VI) food reinforcement alternated with extinction and observing responses produced stimuli associated with the availability of the VI schedule (i.e., S+). The components differed in the rate of food arranged (Rich = VI 30 s; Lean = VI 120 s). In Experiment 1, following baseline training, extinction of observing involved removal of both food and S+ deliveries, and reinstatement was examined by presenting either response-independent food or S+ deliveries. In Experiment 2, extinction involved removal of only food deliveries while observing responses continued to produce S+. Reinstatement was examined by delivering food contingent upon the first two food-key responses occurring in the presence of the S+. Experiment 3 assessed ABA renewal of observing by extinguishing food-key and observing responses in the presence of one contextual stimulus (i.e., B) and then returning to the original training context (i.e., A) during continued extinction. Experiment 4 examined resurgence by introducing food reinforcement for an alternative response during extinction, and subsequently removing that alternative source of food. Across experiments, relative resistance to extinction and relapse of observing tended to be greater in the component previously associated with the higher rate of primary reinforcement. Relapse of observing or attending to stimuli associated with primary reinforcement appears to be impacted by frequency of primary reinforcement in a manner similar to responding maintained directly by primary reinforcement.     

The role of the instrumental contingency in the motivational control of performance

In four experiments we investigated an irrelevant incentive effect based upon a transition from hunger to thirst. Hungry rats were trained to lever press either for sucrose solution or for food pellets before performance was tested in extinction while they were thirsty. Reinforcer-specific motivational control was found in the first experiment in that the animals pressed the lever more on tests following training with the sucrose solution rather than with food pellets. Moreover, this effect was seen only when testing was conducted following water, but not following food deprivation. The outcome of the remaining experiments suggests that this motivational control is not mediated by the instrumental contingency between lever pressing and the sucrose reinforcer during training. In these studies lever pressing and chain pulling were reinforced concurrently, one with sucrose and the other with food pellets, in order to equate the noninstrumental functions of the incentives. Following this training, lever pressing in extinction under thirst was unaffected by the type of incentive used as its reinforcer during training.     

Behavioral momentum theory fails to account for the effects of reinforcement rate on resurgence

The behavioral‐momentum model of resurgence predicts reinforcer rates within a resurgence preparation should have three effects on target behavior. First, higher reinforcer rates in baseline (Phase 1) produce more persistent target behavior during extinction plus alternative reinforcement. Second, higher rate alternative reinforcement during Phase 2 generates greater disruption of target responding during extinction. Finally, higher rates of either reinforcement source should produce greater responding when alternative reinforcement is suspended in Phase 3. Recent empirical reports have produced mixed results in terms of these predictions. Thus, the present experiment further examined reinforcer‐rate effects on persistence and resurgence. Rats pressed target levers for high‐rate or low‐rate variable‐interval food during Phase 1. In Phase 2, target‐lever pressing was extinguished, an alternative nose‐poke became available, and nose‐poking produced either high‐rate variable‐interval, low‐rate variable‐interval, or no (an extinction control) alternative reinforcement. Alternative reinforcement was suspended in Phase 3. For groups that received no alternative reinforcement, target‐lever pressing was less persistent following high‐rate than low‐rate Phase‐1 reinforcement. Target behavior was more persistent with low‐rate alternative reinforcement than with high‐rate alternative reinforcement or extinction alone. Finally, no differences in Phase‐3 responding were observed for groups that received either high‐rate or low‐rate alternative reinforcement, and resurgence occurred only following high‐rate alternative reinforcement. These findings are inconsistent with the momentum‐based model of resurgence. We conclude this model mischaracterizes the effects of reinforcer rates on persistence and resurgence of operant behavior.     

Instrumental performance following reinforcer devaluation depends upon incentive learning

Conditioning an aversion to the reinforcer following instrumental training reduces performance in a subsequent extinction test. Three experiments examined whether this reinforcer-devaluation effect depends upon experience with the devalued reinforcer prior to the extinction test. In Experiments 1 and 2 thirsty rats were trained to press a lever for sucrose solution in a single session. All animals then received an injection of lithium chloride (LiCl) either immediately following the session or after a delay of 6 hr. On the next day either the sucrose solution or water was presented non-contingently either in the operant chamber without the lever present or in a separate drinking cage. In a subsequent extinction test only the animals that had received immediate LiCl and re-exposure to non-contingent sucrose pressed less than those in the delayed-LiCl control groups. Experiment 3 demonstrated that this difference depended, at least in part, on post-conditioning exposure to a contingent reinforcer. Lever pressing and chain pulling were reinforced concurrently with either a sucrose or a sodium chloride solution in a single session immediately before the administration of LiCl. All animals then received non-contingent presentations of one of the reinforcers in the absence of both manipulanda. Finally, performance of both actions was assessed in an extinction test. Re-exposure to a reinforcer produced a relative reduction in the performance of its associated action on test. These results are interpreted as evidence that the instrumental reinforcer devaluation effect depends upon a process of incentive learning.     

Stimulus- and response-reinforcer contingencies in autoshaping, operant, classical, and omission training procedures in rats

Separate groups of rats received 500 trials of lever-press training under autoshaping (food delivery followed 10-second lever presentations, or occurred immediately following a response); operant conditioning (responding was necessary for food delivery); and classical conditioning (food followed lever presentations regardless of responding). Each group then received 500 trials on an omission procedure in which food was omitted on trials with a response. Another group received 1000 trials on the omission procedure, and a fifth group, random control, received 1000 uncorrelated presentations of lever and food. The autoshaping, operant, and classical groups reached high response levels by the end of initial training. Acquisition was fastest in the autoshaping group. Responding remained consistently low in the control group. The omission group responded at a level between the control group and the other three groups. During omission training, responding in these three groups declined to the omission-group level. During omission training, the rats continued contacting the lever frequently after lever pressing had declined. Response maintenance under omission training seems not to require topographic similarity between the response and reinforcer-elicited consummatory behaviors.