Positive contrast in the rat: a test of the additivity theory

Rats were trained to lever press for food on a multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule, then shifted to a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule. For six subjects (group L), schedule components were signalled by the presence or absence of a flashing light emitted from an alternate, "signal" lever. For four subjects (group T), schedule components were signalled by two distinct auditory tones. Contrary to the predictions of an additivity theory based on the summation of response classes, contacts on the signal lever did not increase after the schedule shift in group L. However, nine of the ten subjects in the study demonstrated positive contrast effects on the operant lever. In a subsequent test for stimulus control, enhancement and suppression by the discriminative stimuli were found in these same nine subjects. An additivity theory based on the summation of excitatory processes, rather than response classes, appears to account for these data.     

Compound stimulus control by discriminative stimuli associated with high and moderate response rates

Four rats received water on a fixed-ratio schedule for lever pressing in the presence of a tone (or light) stimulus and on a variable-interval schedule in the presence of a light (or tone) stimulus. Following stabilization of a high response rate during the fixed-ratio component and a moderate response rate during the variable-interval component, brief periods with the light and tone presented simultaneously but with no responses reinforced were inserted into the regular training schedule. Response rates during the compound stimuli were intermediate between the response rates controlled by the individual fixed-ratio and variable-interval associated stimuli.     

Discrimination training and stimulus compounding: consideration of non-reinforcement and response differentiation consequences of S

In Exp. 1, four rats were trained on a two-component multiple schedule with tone and light each associated with different variable-interval schedules. Extinction in light-out no-tone, common to previous studies reporting additive summation to compounded discriminative stimuli, was omitted from training. In testing, the simultaneous presentation of tone and light controlled a response rate intermediate between that controlled by these stimuli presented singly. In Exp. 2, animals were trained on three-ply multiple schedules. While tone and light were each associated with variable-interval schedules for both groups, light-out no-tone signalled extinction for one and differential-reinforcement-of-behavior-other-than-bar-pressing for the other. This permitted response reduction during light-out no-tone to be viewed independently of non-reinforcement. Responding of both groups showed summation to tone plus light in testing, with the effect clearly larger for extinction-trained subjects. These experiments indicate that: (1) discrimination training afforded by extinction has been integral to additive summation previously reported, (2) response differentiation and non-reinforcement consequences of extinction training contribute to the magnitude of summation, and (3) summation and peak shift might be functionally related phenomena.     

Combining stimuli signalling response-dependent food and shock

Three rats were exposed to a multiple schedule in which separate presentations of light and tone alternated with periods during which light and tone were absent. In Phase 1, light and tone each signalled identical variable-interval schedules of food delivery. In Phase 2, light and tone signalled separate but concurrent variable-interval schedules of food and shock delivery. In both phases, the absence of light and tone was associated with the differential reinforcement of other behavior. Test presentations of light, tone, and a light-plus-tone combination indicated that in both phases, light-plus-tone controlled higher response rates than either light or tone alone. The combination continued to control enhanced responding even when the test stimuli signalled variable-interval schedules of food and fixed-ratio schedules of shock. In these latter sessions, enhanced control by the combination increased shock frequency with no corresponding change in food frequency. Apparently, the level of behavior controlled by the absence of two single stimuli may be more important than the consequences of responding in determining the effects of combined-stimulus presentations.     

Compounding discriminative stimuli controlling free-operant avoidance

The performances of three rats were stabilized on a multiple schedule that maintained responding by a free-operant avoidance schedule during independent presentations of tone and light. The simultaneous absence of these stimuli signalled shock-free periods and controlled response cessation. Subsequently, test sessions were administered consisting of independent presentations of each stimulus and these stimuli compounded (tone-plus-light). During an extinction test, additive summation was observed to the compounded stimuli, i.e., more responses were emitted to the compound than to either tone or light. During a series of 28 maintenance-test sessions in which the shock schedule remained operative, the compounded stimuli produced a generally enhanced response rate and fewer pauses terminating with shock than either single stimulus condition. These results extend the generality of free-operant additive summation to responding maintained by aversive control. In addition, a comparison of the present study with previous experiments reporting additive summation of positively reinforced responding indicates that similar variables—rate and aversive differences between training stimulus conditions—should be considered in accounting for response distributions during stimulus compounding when responding is controlled by either positive or negative contingencies.     

Additive and suppressive response summation with a chain schedule

Rats responded in a two-segment (variable-interval variable-interval) chain schedule. In one experiment, three subjects had either clicker, light, or clicker plus light as terminal-segment stimuli. All three responded at the highest rate when clicker plus light were present, thus showing additive summation. For three other subjects, initial-segment stimuli were either clicker, light, or clicker plus light. Two subjects responded at the lowest rate when clicker plus light were present, thus showing suppressive summation. In a second experiment, three subjects had either clicker, light, or neither clicker nor light as terminal-segment stimuli. None of these subjects showed reliable additive summation. Three other subjects had clicker, light, or neither as the initial-segment stimulus, and all three showed suppressive summation. Additive and suppressive summation both can be demonstrated with chain schedules, but stimulus parameters may be major variables in producing the effect.     

Response discriminative and reinforcement factors in stimulus control of performance on multiple and chained schedules of reinforcement

Discriminative control of the response rates of two groups of rats was equated by training them to cease bar pressing in light-out no-tone ( + ) and to respond during tone and light. Multiple-schedule subjects received food at the same rate for responding during tone or light as for nonresponding in + . For the chained-schedule subjects responding in tone or light only produced + where food was received for nonresponding. In extinction tests multiple-schedule subjects emitted approximately twice the responses to tone-plus-light as to tone or light presented individually (additive summation). The rats trained on the chained schedule, in which the tone and light each controlled substantial response rates but were never paired with food, showed no summation when the tone and light were presented together. The results indicate that discriminative control of response rates and reinforcement differences between schedule components determine stimulus control.     

Analysis of the pavlovian properties of signals for punishment

Rats learned to suppress lever pressing in the presence of a compound stimulus that signalled either response-independent shock (conditioned suppression) or response-dependent shock (punishment). Suppression to one element of this compound was blocked if the other element had previously signalled the same contingency as that holding in the presence of the compound. Two experiments, however, failed to find significant evidence of blocking if the pretrained element had signalled conditioned suppression and the compound signalled a punishment contingency. On the other hand, if one stimulus signalled punishment of one response it was able to block the acquisition of control by the second stimulus when the compound signalled punishment of a different response. Finally, although animals showed no suppression to one element of a compound signalling conditioned suppression if the other had previously signalled punishment, this apparent blocking effect concealed that what they learned was that the added element signalled the cancellation of the instrumental contingency. These results provide little support for the view that stimuli signalling punishment contingencies suppress responding in whole or in part by virtue of their Pavlovian relation to shock.     

Blocking the development of stimulus control when stimuli indicate periods of nonreinforcement

To learn whether prior discrimination training based on one stimulus would block learning about a subsequently added stimulus, rats were first trained to press a bar on a variable-interval schedule of food reinforcement. Occasional stimuli were presented during which no reinforcement was available. Responding became suppressed in the presence of these stimuli. Stimuli could be noise, light, or a compound of noise plus light. A group trained with noise in Phase 1, then trained with the compound in Phase 2, showed less suppression to light in a subsequent test than a group that had the same compound training in Phase 2 but only variable-interval training in Phase 1. This showed that prior training with noise blocked the development of control by light during compound training. Two further groups showed that noise training following compound training did not have the same effect on control by light.     

Summation of conditioned suppression

Four rats were trained to suppress responses in the presence of two separately presented stimuli that signalled shock in a conditioned-suppression paradigm. The two stimuli that signalled shock were then presented simultaneously to evaluate the effect of stimulus compounding on conditioned suppression. Two rats were tested by presenting the compound conditioned stimulus while conditioned suppression was being maintained to the individual conditioned stimuli. The other two rats were tested by giving them random presentations of the compound conditioned stimulus and the single conditioned stimuli during extinction of conditioned suppression. All four rats showed greater suppression to the compound stimulus than to either stimulus presented alone.     

The relative aversiveness of signalled versus unsignalled shock-punishment

Six rats were trained on a two-component multiple schedule with each component consisting of a two-link chain schedule. Differential response suppression in the two initial links, as well as in the two terminal links of the chain schedules, was used as a measure of the relative aversiveness of stimulus events in the two terminal links. When signalled and unsignalled shock-punishment (in addition to equal numbers of food reinforcers) were scheduled in the separate terminal links, subjects responded at lower rates in the initial link preceding unsignalled shock-punishment than in the initial link preceding signalled shock-punishment. Similarly, subjects responded at lower rates in the terminal link containing unsignalled shock-punishment than in the terminal link containing signalled shock-punishment. Reversing the terminal-link positions of signalled and unsignalled shock-punishment led to a reversal of the differential response suppression in the two initial and the two terminal links of the chain schedules. These results indicate that signalled punishment is relatively less aversive than unsignalled punishment and support an “information hypothesis”, which assumes that a condition in which information is provided about the onset of environmental events, even negative events such as shock punishment, is more reinforcing than a condition in which such information is absent.     

Conditioned suppression and conditioned enhancement with the same positive UCS: an effect of CS duration

Previous experiments have shown that positively reinforced operant responding is suppressed during a conditioned stimulus terminated with an electric shock (conditioned suppression). In the present experiment, the conditioned stimulus was terminated with a positive unconditioned stimulus, and it was found that the duration of the conditioned stimulus was a key factor in determining whether response suppression or response enhancement was observed during the stimulus. The lever-pressing responses of rats were maintained by a variable-interval schedule of food reinforcement. While the rats were pressing the lever, a light was occasionally turned on, its offset coincident with a brief period of access to a sucrose solution. In consecutive blocks of sessions, the light duration was 40 sec, 12 sec, or 120 sec. Results showed that the rate of lever pressing was substantially suppressed during the 12-sec stimulus, slightly suppressed during the 40-sec stimulus, and enhanced during the 120-sec stimulus.     

Brief-stimulus presentations on multiform tandem schedules

Three experiments examined the influence of a brief stimulus (a light) on the behavior of food-deprived rats whose lever pressing on tandem schedules comprising components of different schedule types resulted in food presentation. In Experiment 1, either a tandem variable-ratio variable-interval or a tandem variable-interval variable-ratio schedule was used. The variable-interval requirement in the tandem variable-ratio variable-interval schedule was yoked to the time taken to complete the variable-ratio component in the tandem variable-interval variable-ratio schedule, and the length of the variable-interval component in the latter schedule was yoked to the variable-ratio component in the former schedule. If a brief stimulus occurred following completion of the first component, then behavior was differentiated in the two components; subjects responded more quickly in the variable-ratio than in the variable-interval component. If the stimulus was removed, then response rate was determined by the nature of the final component. Similar results were obtained in Experiments 2 and 3 with the use of a three-component tandem variable-ratio variable-interval variable-ratio schedule or tandem variable-interval variable-ratio variable-interval schedule. Thus, a brief stimulus that was not explicitly paired with reinforcement engendered behavior typical of the component schedule preceding its presentation.     

Reinforcement of human observing behavior by a stimulue correlated with extinction or increased effort

Young men pulled a plunger on mixed and multiple schedules in which periods of variable-interval monetary reinforcement alternated irregularly with periods of extinction (Experiment 1), or in which reinforcement was contingent on different degrees of effort in the two alternating components (Experiment 2). In the baseline conditions, the pair of stimuli correlated with the schedule components could be obtained intermittently by pressing either of two observing keys. In the main conditions, pressing one of the keys continued to produce both discriminative stimuli as appropriate. Pressing the other key produced only the stimulus correlated with variable-interval reinforcement or reduced effort; presses on this key were ineffective during periods of extinction or increased effort. In both experiments, key presses producing both stimuli occurred at higher rates than key presses producing only one, demonstrating enhancement of observing behavior by a stimulus correlated with the less favorable of two contingencies. A control experiment showed that stimulus change alone was not an important factor in the maintenance of the behavior. These findings suggest that negative as well as positive stimuli may play a role in the conditioned reinforcement of human behavior.     

Effects on responding of mixed and multiple schedules of signalled and unsignalled response-dependent electric-shock delivery

Responding in two rats was maintained under mixed and multiple variable-interval 35-sec variable-interval 35-sec food delivery schedules. Similar rates and patterns of responding occurred in each component of the two schedules. Mixed and multiple variable-interval 65-sec variable-interval 65-sec schedules of response-dependent shock delivery were super-imposed on the mixed and multiple baseline food schedules, respectively. In one component, a 5-sec stimulus was presented on the average of once every 65 sec. Offset of the stimulus arranged that the next response would produce shock. In the other component, no stimulus was presented during the 5-sec period. The mixed schedule of signalled and unsignalled dependent shock delivery yielded similar degrees of response suppression in each component, but the multiple schedule of shock delivery revealed differential degrees of response suppression. Considerably more suppression occurred in the component not associated with the preshock stimulus, thus implicating the discriminative functions of the correlated stimulus.     

Positive contrast, negative induction, and inhibitory stimulus control in the rat

In Experiment I, 24 rats were trained on a multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule with a doorlight and white noise serving as component cues. Two groups were then shifted to a multiple extinction variable-interval schedule, and a third group was maintained on the multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule. The multiple extinction variable-interval condition produced positive contrast when either the light or noise signalled extinction, and both of these cues acquired inhibitory stimulus control as measured by a combined cue test. In Experiment II, the multiple variable-interval variable-interval condition was shifted to multiple extinction variable-interval for one group, to multiple variable-time variable-interval for a second group, and was unchanged for the third group. The two experimental conditions produced identical patterns of response-rate reduction in the altered component, but the multiple extinction variable-interval condition produced positive contrast, whereas the multiple variable-time variable-interval condition did not. Subsequent combined cue and resistance to reinforcement tests revealed that the cue signalling extinction acquired stronger inhibitory stimulus control than the cue signalling variable time.     

The influence of positive and negative reinforcement on selective attention in the rat

In Experiments 1 and 2 rats were trained under two multiple schedules of reinforcement. In one, bar pressing during a tone-light compound stimulus was reinforced under a variable-interval food reinforcement schedule. In the other multiple schedule, bar pressing avoided grid shock on a free-operant schedule. In both multiple schedules, a discrimination was maintained by an extinction schedule that was operative during the absence of the tone-light compound. In Experiments 1 and 2 the intensity of the tone-light compound was manipulated over three levels. Subsequent extinction tests revealed that light was attended to, almost exclusively of the tone, when food reinforcement had maintained bar pressing. On the other hand, the tone gained considerable attentional control under the shock avoidance schedule. This stimulus-reinforcer interaction was maintained for all three levels of the compound intensity. In Experiment 3 it was investigated whether this interaction was associative by presenting shock during the absence of the tone-light compound when food reinforcement maintained responding, and food during the absence of the compound when shock avoidance maintained responding. Since both food and shock were presented during a single session for both schedules, nonassociative effects of the reinforcing stimuli were equivalent across the schedules. Nevertheless, the stimulus-reinforcer interaction was maintained, indicating that the interaction was an associative effect.     

Behavioral contrast without response-rate reduction

Behavioral contrast was obtained in two experiments, which both employed a standard free-operant successive discrimination (a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule), without the occurrence of reductions of response rate in the extinction component. In Experiment I, one group of four pigeons was trained on a multiple schedule in which one stimulus was associated with a variable-interval schedule and the second stimulus with response-independent reinforcement on a free variable-interval schedule. Though by the end of this training three pigeons were responding very little to the second stimulus, when this stimulus was associated with extinction all subjects showed a contrast effect. In Experiment II, eight pigeons were trained extensively to respond to a single stimulus on a variable-interval schedule, before a second stimulus associated with extinction was introduced. This second stimulus was dissimilar to the initial stimulus and five pigeons never responded in its presence. Nevertheless, all pigeons showed a contrast effect and there was no evidence that the effect was smaller in errorless subjects or smaller than in a subsequent discrimination where all subjects made many errors. Both experiments indicated that response reduction in one component of a multiple schedule is not a necessary condition for the occurrence of contrast.     

Conditioned inhibition from incomplete reductions in the probability of reinforcement

Five experiments, all using appetitive, discrete trial operant conditioning, studied the properties of a stimulus that signalled a reduction in the probability of reward. Discriminations were trained in which reinforcement was available on 100% of trials signalled by a tone, but only on some occasions when the tone was presented simultaneously with a light. The properties of the light were assessed in summation tests with a clicker. The first two experiments established that if the tone-light compound signalled reinforcement on only 25%, 33% or 50% of trials the light acted as a discriminative inhibitor, suppressing responding maintained by the clicker. In these experiments reinforcement had been available on 86.7% of clicker trials during initial training. Experiments 3, 4 and 5 examined further the properties of the light after animals had been trained on a discrimination where reinforcement was available on 50% of trials signalled by the tone-light compound. The light was evaluated in a summation test with a clicker, which had signalled only a 25% or 15% probability of a reinforcement. In this instance, the light did not suppress the responding maintained by the clicker. Instead, the light acted as an excitatory discriminative stimulus to enhance that responding. This dependence of the properties of the light on the reinforcement history of the clicker poses problems for most contemporary models of inhibitory performance.     

Learning due to the response-shock contingency in signalled punishment

Three experiments examined some of the parameters that affect the degree of response-specific learning in signalled punishment. Each of the experiments used a within-subject procedure in which the shocks received in the presence of a stimulus signalling response-independent shocks (CER) were yoked to the number and distribution of shocks received in a stimulus signalling punishment. Experiments 1 and 2 used different values of variable-interval (VI) or fixed-ratio (FR) schedules of shock priming, respectively, during the punishment stimulus, and Experiment 3 varied the delay of punishment. The results of all three experiments supported the conclusion that the degree of additional suppression produced by the response contingency during the punishment stimulus compared to the CER stimulus was a function of the strength of contingency between the response and the shock.