The effects of satiation and reinforcer develuation on signal-centered behavior in the rat

Two experiments are described which investigate the effects of satiation and reinforcer devaluation on signal-centered behavior in rats. In Experiment 1 lever contacts were established in hungry rats by pairing retractable lever presentations (CS) with response-independent food (UCS). Subsequently, food satiating these subjects significantly reduced the level of CS contact during an extinction test and, in particular, suppressed CS-directed licking and pawing. In Experiment 2 lever contacts which were established by lever-food pairings were suppressed when the food reinforcer was paired with lithium chloride (LiCl) induced illness. In particular, CS-directed licking, sniffing, and orienting were significantly suppressed by these food-LiCl pairings. These results suggest that signal-centered behavior (i) is not simply a manifestation of “conditioned hunger,” (ii) is determined to some extent by the animal's current need state, and (iii) is influenced by the status of specific reinforcer representations.     

Aspects of the reinforcer learned in second-order Pavlovian conditioning

Four experiments used an autoshaping procedure in pigeons to explore learning about the reinforcer in a second-order conditioning paradigm. Experiment 1 conditioned two visual second-order stimuli (S2), using as reinforcers two visual first-order stimuli (S1), each of which had previously been paired with food. Animals for which the S2 stimuli were each consistently paired with one particular S1 developed second-order responding more rapidly than did animals for which the identity of S1 varied from trial to trial. Moreover, following consistent pairings, extinction of an S1 had a depressive effect upon second-order responding which was peculiar to the S2 with which it had been paired. Both results suggest that in this preparation the organism identifies a particular S1 as the reinforcer for each S2. The remaining experiments examined the details of that identification. A compound S1, itself composed of two separable elements, was used to reinforce an S2. Subsequent extinction of either element of S1 led to a depression in the responding to S2, which indicates that both elements were involved in the second-order conditioning. Moreover, the use of several complex discriminations, which produced different behavior to S1 and to its elements, suggested that the organism had associated the S2 with the compound S1 rather than with its separate elements. However, even complete extinction of the response to S1 left some residual behavior to S2, which indicates that a portion of the second-order conditioning is independent of the current state of the reinforcer. These results demonstrate that in some situations the organism associates a conditioned stimulus with a rich representation of the reinforcer.     

Shock preexposure and the reduced effectiveness of shock

In three experiments experience with shock was shown to reduce the effectiveness of shock as a reinforcer or motivator. In Experiment 1 rats were given signaled shock in a box separate from the runway where they were subsequently punished. These rats were less suppressed by shock punishment than rats that had no previous shock experience. In Experiment 2 preshocked rats were less suppressed by punishment and were slower to learn an escape-avoidance response than nonpreshocked rats, whether the preshock was signaled or unsignaled. In Experiment 3 as number of CS-shock pairings increased, fear of the CS decreased as did fear of the context. These results suggest that some central adaptation process produced by experience with shock reduces the effectiveness of shock as a reinforcer whenever shock is used repeatedly. This is independent of other effects, such as context blocking, that can affect responding after shock preexposure.     

Effect of reinforcer devaluation on discriminative control of instrumental behavior

Two experiments examined the effect of reinforcer devaluation on the ability of a discriminative stimulus (Sd) to control instrumental behavior in Sprague-Dawley rats. In Experiment 1 reinforcer devaluation reduced, but did not eliminate, the ability of the Sd to control performance of the original response and to transfer its control to a new response trained with the same reinforcer. The effect of devaluation was more complete in Experiment 2, in which the reinforcer was delivered directly into the oral cavity. However, retraining the response with a different reinforcer partially restored the ability of the Sd to control performance of that response. These results suggest that an Sd may not augment its trained responses when the reinforcer has been completely devalued but may promote responses with which it shares a reinforcer, as long as those responses are associated with some reinforcer that retains its value. The implications of these results for the way that discriminative stimuli control instrumental behavior are discussed.     

Rat choice in rapidly changing concurrent schedules

In two experiments, experimentally naïve rats were trained in concurrent variable‐interval schedules in which the reinforcer ratios changed daily according to a pseudorandom binary sequence. In Experiment 1, relative response rates showed clear sensitivity to current‐session reinforcer ratios, but not to previous sessions' reinforcer ratios. Within sessions, sensitivity to the current session's reinforcement rates increased steadily, and by session end, response ratios approached matching to the current‐session reinforcer ratios. Across sessions, sensitivity to the current session's reinforcer ratio decreased with continued exposure to the pseudorandom binary sequence, contrary to expectations based on previous studies demonstrating learning sets. Using a second group of naïve rats, Experiment 2 replicated the main results from Experiment 1 and showed that although there were increases over sessions in both changeover rate and response rate during the changeover delay, neither could explain the accompanying reductions in sensitivity. We consider the role of reinforcement history, showing that our results can be simulated using two separate representations, one local and one nonlocal, but a more complex approach will be needed to bring together these results and other history effects such as learning sets and spontaneous recovery.     

Some effects of response-correlated increases in reinforcer magnitude on human behavior

After training under short or long fixed-interval schedules, humans responded under a modified fixed-interval schedule in which magnitude of reinforcement (X or 2X) was minimally correlated with response frequency. Response frequencies that equaled or exceeded a minimum response criterion were followed by the larger reinforcer at the end of the interval; otherwise, the smaller reinforcer was delivered. The modified schedule alternated with the baseline schedule across conditions. In a control condition, the reinforcer magnitudes produced by control subjects were yoked to those of experimental subjects. Experimental subjects, but not control subjects, showed increased responding. In addition to the baseline and modified fixed-interval schedules used in Experiment 1, subjects in Experiment 2 also responded under a second modified fixed-interval contingency in which increases in reinforcer magnitude were more highly correlated with response frequency. Experimental subjects, but not control subjects, showed increased responding under both procedures. Direct comparison of these two procedures showed that the high-correlation procedure produced greater increases in responding than did the low-correlation procedure.     

Induction produced by upcoming food-pellet reinforcement: Effects on subsequent operant responding

Research has demonstrated that rats' rates of operant behavior maintained by 1% sucrose reinforcement in the first half of an experimental session are heightened when food-pellet reinforcers, rather than 1% sucrose, will be available in the second half. Experiment 1 showed that rats that had been displaying this positive induction effect acquired a new response more quickly when 1% sucrose was used to reinforce the novel response than did rats that had not been displaying induction. Experiment 2 showed that this enhanced acquisition remained even when the new response was learned in a new environment. Experiment 3 showed that unconditioned rates of making a new response did not differ between subjects that had or had not been displaying induction. Experiment 4 further showed that significantly different rates of responding on a novel task were not observed when that response was reinforced with a new, non-sucrose reinforcer. Together, the present results suggest that induction results in and/or from an increase in the reinforcing value of the 1% sucrose. As such, the present results have both theoretical and practical implications.     

Effects of reinforcer magnitude on responding under differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules of rats and pigeons

Experiment I investigated the effects of reinforcer magnitude on differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule performance in three phases. In Phase 1, two groups of rats (n = 6 and 5) responded under a DRI. 72-s schedule with reinforcer magnitudes of either 30 or 300 microl of water. After acquisition, the water amounts were reversed for each rat. In Phase 2, the effects of the same reinforcer magnitudes on DRL 18-s schedule performance were examined across conditions. In Phase 3, each rat responded unider a DR1. 18-s schedule in which the water amotnts alternated between 30 and 300 microl daily. Throughout each phase of Experiment 1, the larger reinforcer magnitude resulted in higher response rates and lower reinforcement rates. The peak of the interresponse-time distributions was at a lower value tinder the larger reinforcer magnitude. In Experiment 2, 3 pigeons responded under a DRL 20-s schedule in which reinforcer magnitude (1-s or 6-s access to grain) varied iron session to session. Higher response rates and lower reinforcement rates occurred tinder the longer hopper duration. These results demonstrate that larger reinforcer magnitudes engender less efficient DRL schedule performance in both rats and pigeons, and when reinforcer magnitude was held constant between sessions or was varied daily. The present results are consistent with previous research demonstrating a decrease in efficiency as a function of increased reinforcer magnituide tinder procedures that require a period of time without a specified response. These findings also support the claim that DRI. schedule performance is not governed solely by a timing process.     

EFFECTS OF POINT‐LOSS PUNISHERS ON HUMAN SIGNAL‐DETECTION PERFORMANCE

Three experiments using human participants varied the distribution of point‐gain reinforcers or point‐loss punishers in two‐alternative signal‐detection procedures. Experiment 1 varied the distribution of point‐gain reinforcers for correct responses (Group A) and point‐loss punishers for errors (Group B) across conditions. Response bias varied systematically as a function of the relative reinforcer or punisher frequencies. Experiment 2 arranged two conditions — one where an unequal ratio of reinforcement (5:1 or 1:5) was presented without punishment (R‐only), and another where the same reinforcer ratio was presented with an equal distribution of point‐loss punishers (R+P). Response bias was significantly greater in the R‐only condition than the R+P condition, supporting a subtractive model of punishment. Experiment 3 varied the distribution of point‐gain reinforcers for correct responses across four unequal reinforcer ratios (5:1, 2:1, 1:2, 1:5) both without (R‐only) and with (R+P) an equal distribution of point‐loss punishers for errors. Response bias varied systematically with changes in relative reinforcer frequency for both R‐only and R+P conditions, with 5 out of 8 participants showing increases in sensitivity estimates from R‐only to R+P conditions. Overall, the results indicated that punishers have similar but opposite effects to reinforcers in detection procedures and that combined reinforcer and punisher effects might be better modeled by a subtractive punishment model than an additive punishment model, consistent with research using concurrent‐schedule choice procedures.     

Assessments of changes in the effective salience of stimulus elements as a result of stimulus preexposure

Rats received exposure to 3 flavor compounds, AX and BX, presented in alternation, and CX, presented on a separate block of trials. The hypothesis that this treatment would leave B effectively more salient than C was tested in 3 ways. Experiment 1 showed that the unconditioned response evoked by B was stronger than that evoked by C. Experiment 2 showed that B was more effective than C when used as a reinforcer in a sensory preconditioning procedure. Experiment 3 showed that B was learned about more readily than C as a conditioned stimulus in flavor aversion conditioning. Alternating preexposure to 2 similar stimuli may protect their distinctive features from the loss of salience normally produced by nonreinforced exposure to a stimulus.     

Choosing schedules of signaled appetitive events over schedules of unsignaled ones

Two experiments were completed allowing albino rats to choose between signaled and unsignaled reward conditions. These experiments examined the effects on preference of (1) response dependent versus response-independent reward and, (2) food pellets versus chocolate milk as the reward. All subjects preferred the signaled condition over the unsignaled condition, whether exposed to response-dependent, or to response-independent delivery of rewards. Preference was controlled most effectively by presenting both the signal itself and the correlated stimulus identifying the signaled condition. The signal presented alone (Extinction 3) controlled preference more effectively than did the stimulus correlated with the signaled condition (Extinction 2). The second experiment showed that the quality of the reinforcer (pellets and chocolate milk) did not affect preference for signaled reward since all subjects preferred the signaled condition at levels comparable to those observed in Experiment 1, with food pellets. These results, along with others, argue against species differences, response-dependency, and reinforcer quality as variables affecting the direction of preference.     

Inelastic supply: An economic approach to simple interval schedules

Economic theory predicts an inverse relationship between the quantity of a commodity supplied to the marketplace and the equilibrium market price of that commodity. This prediction was tested in three experiments. Pigeons responded on simple variable-interval schedules, and quantity of reinforcement supplied was varied in a different way in each experiment. In Experiment 1, quantity supplied was varied by manipulating reinforcement rate while keeping session length constant. In Experiment 2, quantity supplied was varied by manipulating reinforcement rate while keeping reinforcers per session constant. In Experiment 3, quantity supplied was varied by manipulating reinforcer magnitude while keeping number of reinforcers constant. As predicted by economic theory, the obtained behavioral cost (responses per reinforcer) increased as supply decreased. The results could not be explained by simple artifacts such as satiation and time available to respond. In addition, the function relating response rate to reinforcement rate was bitonic in 7 of 9 animals in Experiments 1 and 2, which supports economic and regulatory theories over more traditional reinforcement theories.     

Rapid acquisition of preference in concurrent chains when alternatives differ on multiple dimensions of reinforcement

Pigeons responded in a concurrent-chains procedure in which terminal-link reinforcer variables were changed unpredictably across sessions. In Experiment 1, the terminal-link schedules were fixed-interval (FI) 8 s and FI 16 s, and the reinforcer magnitudes were 2 s and 4 s. In Experiment 2 the probability of reinforcement (100% or 50%) was varied with immediacy and magnitude. Multiple-regression analyses showed that pigeons' initial-link response allocation was determined by current-session reinforcer variables, similar to previous studies which have varied only immediacy (Grace, Bragason, & McLean, 2003). Sensitivity coefficients were positive and statistically significant for all reinforcer variables in both experiments. Analyses of responding within individual sessions showed that final levels of preference for dominated sessions, in which all reinforcer variables favored the same terminal link, were more extreme than for tradeoff sessions in which at least one reinforcer variable favored each alternative. This result implies that response allocation was determined by multiple reinforcer variables within individual sessions, consistent with the concatenated matching law. However, in Experiment 2, there was a nonlinear (sigmoidal) relationship between response allocation and relative value, which suggests the possibility that reinforcer variables may interact during acquisition, contrary to the matching law.     

The effects of feature type in operant serial feature-positive discriminations

In two experiments, rats were trained on two operant serial feature positive discriminations in which one feature was a flavored solution and the second feature was a visual or auditory cue. As in a previous study ([Goddard and Holland, 1996]), transfer of a feature’s control to the target of the other discrimination was not observed when the flavor feature and the reinforcer were flavored sucrose solutions (Experiment 1). The performance of comparison groups showed that this lack of transfer was not due to confounded differences in the event contingencies resulting from having similar stimuli serve as feature and reinforcer. By contrast, in Experiment 2, transfer was observed between visual and flavor features when the flavor feature was unsweetened and the reinforcer was plain sucrose. These results suggest that the lack of transfer in Experiment 1 and in [Goddard and Holland, 1996] study were related to the biological significance or hedonic properties of the sucrose feature.     

Humans' sensitivity to variation in reinforcer amount: Effects of the method of reinforcer delivery

Two experiments examined human subjects' sensitivity to variation in reinforcer amount under different methods of reinforcer delivery. Subjects chose between schedules varying in terms of amount and/or delay of reinforcement, the reinforcer being points exchangeable for money. In Experiment 1, reinforcer amount was manipulated by varying the monetary value of the points across conditions while the number of seconds of access to a consummatory response remained constant. Choice was strongly sensitive to reinforcer amount and indicative of self-control, as in previous experiments. In Experiment 2, reinforcer amount was manipulated by automatically delivering different numbers of points during the amount period, and the consummatory response was eliminated. Sensitivity to variation in reinforcer amount was significantly lower than in Experiment 1. Furthermore, the subjects in Experiment 2 exhibited significantly less self-control than did the subjects in Experiment 1. Humans' sensitivity to variation in reinforcer amount appears to be affected by factors that enhance the discrimi-nability of the consequences of responding.     

Reward value effects on timing in the peak procedure

Three experiments examined the effect of motivational variables on timing in the peak procedure. In Experiment 1, rats received a 60-s peak procedure that was coupled with long-term, between-phase changes in reinforcer magnitude. Increases in reinforcer magnitude produced a leftward shift in the peak that persisted for 20 sessions of training. In a final phase, the rats received lithium chloride-induced aversion prior to testing and a rightward shift in the peak was observed. Experiment 2 confirmed the rightward shift in the peak under lithium chloride devaluation and induced a comparable shift with satiety devaluation. The degree of rightward shift was neither additive nor multiplicative, suggesting that two processes may have contributed. Experiment 3 examined the effect of extinction on peak responding, revealing a decrease in response rate, but no evidence of any change in the timing of responding. The implications of the results for contemporary timing theories are discussed.     

Call-note discriminations in black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus)

Bioacousticians (M.S. Ficken, S. R. Ficken, & S. R. Witken, 1978) classified black-capped chickadee call notes from the chick-a-dee call complex into 4 note types (A, B, C, and D) identified from sound spectrograms. In Experiment 1, chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) learned operant auditory discriminations both within and between the 4 note types but learned the between note-type discrimination significantly faster. In Experiment 2, when the original, unrewarded between-category exemplars were replaced with novel, rewarded exemplars of these same categories, chickadees showed transfer of inhibitory stimulus control to the novel exemplars. In Experiment 3, when novel exemplars were replaced by the original exemplars, chickadees showed propagation of positive stimulus control back to the original exemplars. This evidence suggests that chickadees and bioacousticians accurately sort conspecific call notes into the same open-ended categories (R. J. Herrnstein, 1990).     

Resurgence Following Higher or Lower Quality Alternative Reinforcement

Resurgence is a temporary increase in a previously suppressed target behavior following a worsening in reinforcement conditions. Previous studies have examined how higher rates or magnitudes of alternative reinforcement affect suppression of the target behavior and subsequent resurgence. However, there has been no investigation of the effects of higher versus lower qualities of alternative reinforcement on resurgence. Using a three-phase resurgence preparation with rats, the present experiments examined the effects of an alternative reinforcer that was of higher (Experiment 1) or lower (Experiment 2) quality than the reinforcer that had previously maintained the target behavior. The results of both experiments showed greater reductions in target behavior with a higher quality alternative reinforcer and larger increases in target responding when a higher quality alternative reinforcer was removed. Along with prior findings with higher rates and magnitudes of alternative reinforcement, these findings suggest that variations in reinforcer dimensions that increase the efficacy of alternative reinforcement also tend to increase resurgence when alternative reinforcement is removed. The results are discussed in terms of the resurgence as choice in context model and in terms of potential clinical implications.     

Increasing and signaling background reinforcement: effect on the foreground response-reinforcer relation.

Herrnstein's (1970) hyperbolic matching equation describes the relationship between response rate and reinforcement rate. It has two estimated parameters, k and Re. According to one interpretation, k measures motor performance and Re measures the efficacy of the reinforcer maintaining responding relative to background sources of reinforcement. Experiment 1 tested this interpretation of the Re parameter by observing the effect of adding and removing an additional source of reinforcement to the context. Using a within-session procedure, estimates of Re were obtained from the response-reinforcer relation over a series of seven variable-interval schedules. A second, concurrently available variable-interval schedule of reinforcement was added and then removed from the context. Results showed that when the alternative was added to the context, the value of Re increased by 107 reinforcers per hour; this approximated the 91 reinforcers per hour obtained from this schedule. Experiment 2 investigated the effects of signaling background reinforcement on k and Re. The signal decreased Re, but did not have a systematic effect on k. In general, the results supported Herrnstein's interpretation that in settings with one experimenter-controlled reinforcement source, Re indexes the strength of the reinforcer maintaining responding relative to uncontrolled background sources of reinforcement.     

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.