Duration and rate of reinforcement as determinants of concurrent responding

The duration and frequency of food presentation were varied in concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. In the first experiment, in which pigeons were exposed to a succession of eight different schedules, neither relative duration nor relative frequency of reinforcement had as great an effect on response distribution as they have when they are manipulated separately. These results supported those previously reported by Todorov (1973) and Schneider (1973). In a second experiment, each of seven pigeons was exposed to only one concurrent schedule in which the frequency and/or duration of reinforcement differed on the two keys. Under these conditions, each pigeon's relative rate of response closely matched the relative total access to food that each schedule provided. This result suggests that previous failures to obtain matching may be due to factors such as an insufficient length of exposure to each schedule or to the pigeons' repeated exposure to different concurrent schedules.     

Temporal properties of responding during stimuli that precede response-independent food

Pigeons' keypecks were reinforced with grain on the average of once per minute by schedules that maintained low response rates and by schedules that maintained high response rates. During these schedules, a fixed-duration conditioned stimulus (CS) ranging from 7.5 to 120 sec in duration across conditions terminated with response-independent food. Response rates during the CS were inversely related to CS duration. The rates and the temporal patterns of responding during the shortest CS were similar whether the ongoing schedule maintained high response rates or low response rates. As CS duration increased, the rate and pattern of responding during the CS converged on the rate and pattern of responding maintained by the baseline schedule. These data indicate that changes in responding during stimuli that signal response-independent reinforcement are not homogeneous throughout the CS; that response measures, such as “suppression ratios”, which presume homogeneity may mislead us; and that conditioned suppression and conditioned enhancement may be better talked about in terms of species-specific approach and avoidance than in terms of emotional states.     

Control of observing by antecedent stimuli

Five pigeons were run on a one-key discrete trials observing procedure. Trial onset was signaled by a white or yellow key light. Pecks in white or yellow intermittently produced S⁺ and S⁻, green and red key lights that signaled whether the trial would end with response-independent grain reinforcement or nonreinforcement. In the Redundant conditions, white and yellow were correlated with trial outcome, making S⁺ and S⁻ redundant. In the Informative condition, white and yellow were uncorrelated with trial outcome, so that S⁺ and S⁻ provided new information. During the Informative condition, all birds responded in the formerly positive, now uncorrelated color at higher rates than they did during the preceding or succeeding Redundant conditions, in which that same color was positively correlated with primary reinforcement. This result confirmed the prediction that an animal will observe at higher rates in the absence of reinforcement-correlated cues than in their presence.     

Structural complexity as a determinant of serial pattern learning

A new methodology extends the study of serial pattern learning to nonhuman organisms by constructing patterns using elements that are both familiar and motivationally meaningful to animals. Two experiments examine the ability of rats to anticipate various quantities of food as measured by running times in a runway when the quantities occur in a serial order. In Experiment 1, a serial monotonic pattern (14-7-3-1-0 food pellets) produced more rapid learning and more accurate anticipation of the various quantities (“tracking”) than a serial nonmonotonic pattern (14-1-3-7-0 food pellets), particularly with respect to the final 0-pellet element. In Experiment 2, the same monotonic pattern generated faster learning and more accurate anticipation of pattern elements than a weakly monotonic pattern (14-5-5-1-0 pellets). Associative explanations including simple excitatory or inhibitory effects, temporal anticipation, reinforcement contrast, and the number and discriminability of pairwise associations are not adequate to account for the data. Rather, the formally defined structural complexity of each pattern adequately predicts its relative difficulty.     

Across-reinforcement blocking effects in a mediational test of the CS's general signaling property

Rats received Pavlovian aversive (shock) conditioning in which white noise was established for independent groups as a CS+, CSo, or CS−. Then, in an easy (light-dark) T-maze discrimination, the CS was presented either immediately following choice (Locus 1) or at the food cup in the goal (Locus 3), contingent upon either a food-reinforced (right) or nonreinforced (wrong) response. When presented at Locus 3, the CS+ facilitated and the CS− retarded learning for CS/right subjects, with these effects being exactly reversed but somewhat less pronounced for CS/wrong subjects. However, when the CS was presented at Locus 1, the CS+ and CS− effects for both response contingencies were attenuated. These findings oppose an interpretation of the CS's function as a general cue or transformed signal for the presence or absence of the new appetitive reinforcer and argue instead for across-reinforcement blocking effects: By signaling in the presence of food reinforcement an outcome (safety or shock) which is consonant with or discrepant from the “good” outcome obtained, the CS− blocks (retards) and the CS+ counterblocks (enhances) the association of food reinforcement and the S^D; conversely, in the presence of nonreinforcement (a “bad” outcome), the CS− counterblocks and the CS+ blocks inhibitory conditioning to the S^Δ. As in Kamin's (1968) original research, such effects are attenuated when the CS is presented early in the compound, distal to the reinforcer.     

Preference for shock signals as a function of the temporal accuracy of the signals

Three groups of rats were exposed to pairs of three different contingencies on two sides of a shuttlebox. One signaled contingency provided 10-min danger and safety cues plus an additional 10-sec cue immediately preceeding shock (P-S), another signaled contingency provided 10-min danger and safety cues but random 10-sec cues with respect to shock (R-S), and an unsignaled contingency provided no safety period, but only a 20-min danger period during which shock could occur (NS). Signaled P-S and R-S contingencies were preferred in a choice test to the unsignaled NS contingency, and P-S was preferred to R-S. Independent tests of the fear-eliciting properties of the cues made in an off-baseline test of suppression of ongoing exploration indicated more freezing (fear) to the 10-sec cue in rats experiencing the P-S contingency. The results were interpreted as indicating a preference for cues providing more precise information about the temporal location of shock even when those cues were fear-eliciting.     

Behavioral contrast produced by a signaled decrease in local rate of reinforcement

Pigeons' key pecking in the presence of one stimulus (S1) was reinforced according to a response-dependent variable-interval schedule. Pecking rate during S1 increased (behavioral contrast) when a second stimulus (S2) [associated with either a response-dependent fixed-interval schedule (Experiment I) or a response-independent reinforcement schedule in which reinforcement availability was signaled by visual (Experiment II) or temporal (Experiment III) stimuli] alternated with S1. These experiments suggest that a discriminable, signaled decrease in local reinforcement rate during S2 is an antecedent of the behavioral contrast response rate increases during S1.     

A comparison of operant licking and lever pressing in the rat

Two groups of rats were trained on a signaled, free-operant, avoidance procedure to lick or to lever press in order to avoid shock while water-deprived or satiated and, in the case of licking, while ingesting deionized water, isotonic saline, or 10% sucrose. The most effective avoidance licking occurred while the rats were water-deprived and ingesting 10% sucrose. Water deprivation level had no effect on lever pressing for shock avoidance. Two other groups of rats were operantly conditioned to lick or to lever press for food pellets while waterdeprived or satiated and, in the case of licking, while ingesting deionized water or 10% sucrose. The most effective licking for food reinforcement occurred while the rats were water-deprived and ingesting 10% sucrose. Water deprivation level had no effect on lever pressing for food reinforcement. The data indicated that effective operant licking must be supported by factors related to water regulation and taste palatability.     

Avoidance extinction in goldfish

Independent groups of goldfish trained to avoid shock in a shuttlebox situation were presented with several extinction procedures in which the relationships between the conditioned stimulus and shock were altered and/or response contingencies removed. Random shock presentations, equivalent to the number of shocks received during avoidance acquisition, resulted in response decrements similar to those obtained when the conditioned stimulus was presented alone. Pairing the conditioned stimulus with shock on every trial, however, served to maintain response levels. When response-contingent punishment was superimposed upon these Pavlovian pairings, performance was facilitated slightly although punishment alone resulted in somewhat faster response reduction than that produced by exposure only to the conditioned stimulus. Extinction of avoidance responding produced by exposure to the conditioned stimulus alone was dependent on the total duration of exposure and independent of both number of stimulus onsets and response prevention. These experiments demonstrated that, in general, the procedures used to reduce avoidance responding in rats were equally effective for goldfish, with one exception: the introduction of a Pavlovian contingency following avoidance acquisition, making the previously avoidable shock unavoidable, maintained response probabilities near previously established levels.     

The generality of learned helplessness in the rat

Two experiments were simultaneously conducted in which two different groups of 40 rats each were exposed to one of two different stressors. In both experiments half the subjects were pretreated with shock, half with underwater exposure. For each pretreatment stressor, half the subjects were allowed to escape, the other half were not. The experiments differed in the test task used. Approximately 24 hr after pretreatment, one-half the subjects from each pretreatment group received 20 water-escape trials in an underwater maze, the other half received 20 shock-escape trials in a two-way shuttle box. The subjects in each of the inescapable pretreatment conditions were slower to escape in the subsequent shock-escape and water-escape tasks when compared with subjects in the corresponding escapable pretreatment condition. The “learned helplessness” effect appeared to be no smaller when aversive stimuli were changed between pretreatment and test than when they remained the same.