Some differences among figural aftereffects,apparent motion,and paracontrast*

It has been suggested that figural aftereffects, apparent motion, and paracontrast may be produced by very similar or equivalent processes. The empirical functions relating figural aftereffect to the duration of the inspection figure and the interfigural distance are significantly different from the corresponding apparent motion and paracontrast functions. The functions relating paracontrast to the interstimulus interval are significantly different from the corresponding figural-aftereffect and apparent-motion functions. Thus, it is unlikely that the processes underlying the three phenomena are the same. Researchers who attempt to study feature analyzers in the human visual system should consider using more than one dependent variable, since none of the three phenomena contains all of the available information. Within-Ss designs should be avoided because a strong response bias exists between figural-aftereffect and apparent-motion tasks.     

Magnitude production and magnitude estimation of taste intensity

Magnitude productions of sodium chloride (salty), quinine hydrochloride (bitter), and sucrose (sweet) yielded steeper psychophysical functions than those obtained with magnitude estimation. Hydrochloric acid (sour) produced the opposite effect. The results are discussed with respect to previous findings in taste intensity scaling and to general psychophysical considerations.     

Associative facilitation and interference in the Stroop color-word task

It is difficult to name the color of a stimulus when the stimulus is a word naming a different color. When the word is congruent with the color in which it is written, color naming is much quicker. Similar results are also obtained when color-related words are used instead of color names. These results are taken as evidence for the operation of associative factors that could facilitate or impair performance in the color-word task.     

Aggression as a reinforcer: operant behavior in the mouse-killing rat

Two experiments examined mouse killing as a reinforcer of key pressing by rats that killed mice. In Experiment I, mouse-killing rats performed the key-pressing response when each press was reinforced with presentation of a mouse. Offered a choice between a key that yielded presentation of mice and one that did not, the rats preferred the key that yielded mice. When the contingency was reversed, the rats preferred the other key and continued to kill mice. In Experiment II, mouse-killing rats that did not kill rat pups performed a key-pressing response reinforced with presentation of mice on a variable-interval schedule. In tests for responding reinforced on that schedule with presentation of normal mice, anesthetized mice, dead mice, or rat pups, these rats that killed mice but not rat pups exhibited a decline in response rate when rat pups were the reinforcer. Altering the condition of the mice did not significantly affect performance.     

Some effects of interreinforcement time upon choice

Pigeons' responses were reinforced on two identical and concurrently available chain variable-interval-schedules. Unlike the typical concurrent chains procedure, both links were operative throughout, thus producing three types of concurrency: (1) concurrent initial links; (2) concurrent initial and terminal links; (3) concurrent terminal links. Choice proportions in each of these three states suggested that the pigeons were sensitive to momentary likelihoods of reinforcement: choice proportions for a schedule were higher when the schedule had been operative for some time, resulting in a higher probability of reinforcement. The study also showed that the relative rates of responding did not match the relative rates of reinforcement in any of the three states of concurrency. Instead, the choice proportions in both the concurrent initial and in the concurrent terminal links were intermediate between the scheduled and the obtained relative rates of reinforcement, while the choice proportions for a terminal link concurrent with an initial link consistently overmatched the relative interreinforcement times (and were typically 1.00). These data indicate that an accurate characterization of choice may not be obtained by considering only the relative interreinforcement interval where one interreinforcement interval is segmented into a chain. Instead, the organism's choice for a schedule will be substantially lowered by the chaining operation.     

Inverse relation between choice and local response rate with a schedule of response-produced blackouts

Pigeons were exposed to a two-key concurrent chains schedule in which identical frequencies and distributions of food presentations generated different response rates in the terminal links. An inverse relation between local rate of response in the terminal links and relative frequency of response in the initial links was observed. The high response rate was produced in one terminal link by a second-order schedule in which responding produced brief blackouts of the response key. Responding under the same schedule in the other terminal link did not produce blackouts. Under initial training and after spatial reversal of the terminal-link schedules, two of three pigeons had lower relative frequencies of response in the initial member of the chain with the higher terminal link response rate. The third pigeon showed no change in preference at reversal.     

Two temporal parameters of food postponement

Rats were trained to press a lever under schedules of food postponement. In the absence of lever presses, food was delivered periodically (food-food interval). Responses initiated a second interval (response-food interval) that was reset by each additional response. Performance was first studied at different response-food intervals with the food-food interval fixed at 30 or 60 sec, or 10 min. Response-food intervals were examined in ascending order and then recovery was studied at shorter intervals. Finally, the food-food interval was manipulated with response-food interval fixed at 30 sec. At food-food intervals of 30 and 60 sec, responding first increased and then decreased as the response-food interval increased. At the 10-min food-food interval, responding decreased with increasing response-food interval. In general, very low rates of responding occurred when the response-food interval was 60 sec or more and when it equalled or exceeded the food-food interval. However, responding was maintained in one animal when the food-food interval was decreased from 120 to 15 sec with the response-food interval at 30 sec. Results, in terms of several dependent variables, are compared with data on shock avoidance. Effects of response-independent and response-produced food and shock are discussed.     

Choice behavior and the accessibility of the reinforcer

In Experiment 1, matching of relative response rates to relative rates of reinforcement was obtained in concurrent variable-interval schedules when the absolute values of the two concurrent variable-interval schedules varied from 6 sec and 12 sec to 600 sec and 1200 sec. Increases in the duration of the changeover delay, however, produced decreases in the relative response rates and, consequently, some deviation from matching. In Experiment 2, matching of relative response rates to the relative duration of the reinforcer failed to occur when the equal variable-interval schedules arranging access to the two different reinforcer durations (1.5 and 6 sec) were varied in size from concurrent variable-interval 10-sec schedules to concurrent variable-interval 600-sec schedules.     

Lever attacking by rats during free-operant avoidance

Rats pressed a lever to avoid shock on a free-operant avoidance schedule. Some subjects were also exposed to extinction in which the response-shock contingency was eliminated while the shock-shock contingency remained in effect. A specially constructed lever was used that registered not only presses, but also biting attacks on the lever. Throughout various phases of the study, shocks often elicited lever biting as well as post-shock responding. The results suggested that shock-elicited attacks that are forceful enough to activate the operandum might account for some of the responding that occurs in experiments on free-operant avoidance behavior. In particular, shock-elicited operandum attacking might account for post-shock response bursting during free-operant avoidance and the extreme persistence of responding sometimes noted when shocks are delivered during the extinction of avoidance behavior. To the extent that this is true, these phenomena should not be characterized as operant behavior in interpreting the results of experiments on free operant avoidance.