The detection of visual intensity differences by pigeons

Pigeons were trained in a conditional discrimination procedure to discriminate between visual stimuli that varied in intensity. The magnitude of the intensity difference ranged from 0.80 to 0.05 logarithmic units. Psychometric functions were calculated from the data and the mean difference threshold for the 11 subjects was approximately 0.12 logarithmic units. A signal-detection analysis of the data suggested that stimuli that were below the calculated threshold were detectible to the subjects.     

Etcetera

Publishers interested in having their materials reviewed here are requested to send two copies to Dr. Daniel Sinick, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 20006. Items reviewed in this column are not available from APGA.     

An extinction-induced increase in an aggressive response with humans

Nine subjects, 14 to 18 yr old, pulled a knob on a schedule of monetary reinforcement. Concurrently, they escaped or avoided periodic presentations of a tone by pressing a button that required 1.5 lb (6.67 N) of force or by punching a padded cushion that required 20 lb (88.96 N) of force. The punching response was designated as an aggressive response because the force of this response together with its topography was comparable to responses of humans that deface objects and produce escape or counter aggression from other humans. It was found that button pressing was the preferred concurrent avoidance response and there were few punches. However, when the monetary reinforcer was discontinued (extinction) punching increased for seven of the nine subjects, but there was no consistent change in the rate of button pressing. When the punching response was replaced by another non-preferred but non-aggressive response, neither this response nor button pressing increased during extinction. Hence, the increase in punching during extinction cannot be attributed solely to the fact that it was a concurrent response or a non-preferred response.     

Etcetera

Publishers interested in having their materials reviewed here are requested to send two copies to Dr. Daniel Sinick, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 20006. Items reviewed in this column are not available from APGA.     

Punishment of shock-induced aggression

Squirrel monkeys were restrained in a chair equipped with a tail-shock apparatus and a pneumatic bite hose located in front of the subject's face. An aggressive response was recorded when the monkey bit the hose. Initial sessions in which no shocks were delivered produced some biting. When biting during these sessions stabilized at a near-zero level, regularly scheduled shocks were delivered to the monkey's tail, causing a consistently higher rate of biting. After several sessions under these conditions, a punishment phase was introduced in which the previous shock conditions were maintained, and every bite was followed immediately by another, more intense shock. Biting under these conditions was suppressed to a near-zero level. When the punishment contingency was removed, biting increased. With one subject, two additional bite-contingent stimuli were examined: (1) a milder shock that, when made contingent upon hose biting, also suppressed that response, and (2) a contingent tone that had no obvious suppressing or facilitating effect. Individual differences among subjects were extreme, but the effect of bite-contingent shock was consistent. Observations of the subjects during the punishment sessions indicated the existence of certain side effects that resulted from the use of punishment to suppress shock-induced aggression.     

Disruption of a temporal discrimination under response-independent shock

The responding of rats was reinforced on one key after a 1-sec auditory stimulus and on a second key after a 5-sec stimulus. With errors punished by a short timeout, all subjects achieved a high level of accuracy. A chain of responses during the stimuli mediated the performance so that when the auditory signals were omitted accuracy decreased only slightly. Response-independent aversive stimulation superimposed upon this procedure both suppressed the total amount of behavior and reduced the accuracy of the discriminative performance, the intensity of the stimulus determining the error rate. The increase in errors under these conditions may have depended in part upon differential suppression of members of the response chain, but such suppression was not necessary, since error rate increased even in its absence. Furthermore, the locus of response disruption within the chain was not consistent from day to day either for any individual animal or across animals.     

Effects of pentobarbital on fixed-ratio reinforcement,

Certain doses of pentobarbital consistently increased the rate of pecking engendered by a fixed-ratio schedule of 30 responses in a group of 13 pigeons, and still higher doses produced decrements in rate of responding. For individual subjects, the dose-effect functions were qualitatively similar, but differed with respect to the doses producing the maximum increase and subsequent decrease in rate. In general, the maximum occurred at lower doses and the decrement was greater at the highest dose in the birds with the highest control rates. It was also possible to distinguish between the effects of pentobarbital and several other drugs on the behavior maintained by FR 30. The results indicate that changes in rate of responding on FR 30 after drug administration are dose-dependent, drug-specific effects.     

A note on chaining and temporal discrimination

Four pigeons were exposed to a two-key DRL procedure. At the start of a trial, key A was illuminated. A response to the lighted key turned it off and simultaneously illuminated key B. Reinforcement was available for responses on key B which followed the initial key A response by more than 2 sec. In the course of exposure to these conditions, all birds acquired superstitious response chains on key A. The distribution of the number of responses on key A preceding a key B response and the distribution of intervals elapsing from the initial key A response to the key B response were of the same form. The suggestion is made that the superstitious responding on key A served to mediate the required delay interval. However, when intervals between successive key A responses were recorded for one subject, they were found to be regularly spaced in time. Thus, the problem remains of how this behavior is itself timed.