A parametric evaluation of the hedonic and motoric effects of drugs: pimozide and amphetamine

This study uses a curve-fitting approach to evaluate the effects of drugs on reinforced responding in rats. The subjects obtained reinforcement according to a series of five different variable-interval schedules (a five-component multiple schedule). For each rat, pimozide, a neuroleptic, decreased response rate, and the decrease was associated with (1) a decrease in the estimated asymptotic response rate and (2) an increase in the rate of reinforcement necessary for half-asymptotic responding. That is, pimozide decreased the proportion of responding maintained by a given rate of reinforcement. In contrast, intermediate doses of amphetamine increased response rate and increased the proportion of responding maintained by a given rate of reinforcement. It was proposed that the response rate asymptote indexes motor capacity, and the rate of reinforcement necessary for half-asymptotic responding indexes reinforcement efficacy; accordingly, pimozide decreased motor capacity and reinforcement strength and amphetamine increased reinforcement strength.     

Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding.

Subjects' responses to nonarbitrary stimulus relations of sameness, oppositeness, or difference were brought under contextual control. In the presence of the SAME context, selecting the same comparison as the sample was reinforced. In the presence of the OPPOSITE context, selecting a comparison as far from the sample as possible on the physical dimension defined by the set of comparisons was reinforced. Given the DIFFERENT context, selecting any comparison other than the sample was reinforced. Subjects were then exposed to arbitrary matching-to-sample training in the presence of these same contextual cues. Some subjects received training using the SAME and OPPOSITE contexts, others received SAME and DIFFERENT, and others received SAME, OPPOSITE, and DIFFERENT. The stimulus networks established allowed testing for a wide variety of derived relations. In two experiments it was shown that derived performances were consistent with relational responding brought to bear by the contextual cues. In contexts relevant to the relation of sameness, stimulus equivalence emerged. Other kinds of relational networks emerged in the other contexts. Arbitrarily applicable relational responding may give rise to a very wide variety of derived stimulus relations. The kinds of performances seen in stimulus equivalence do not appear to be unique.     

Behavior controlled by scheduled injections of cocaine in squirrel and rhesus monkeys.

Rates and patterns of key-press responding maintained under schedules in which responding resulted in intravenous injections of cocaine were studied in squirrel monkeys and rhesus monkeys. Each injection was followed by a 60- or 100-sec timeout period. Schedule-controlled behavior was obtained at appropriate cocaine doses in each species. Under FR 10 or FR 30 schedules, performance was characterized by high rates of responding (usually more than one response per second) in each ratio. Under FI 5-min schedules, performance was characterized by an initial pause, followed by acceleration of responding to a final rate that was maintained until the end of the interval. Under multiple fixed-ratio fixed-interval schedules, rates and patterns of responding appropriate to each schedule component were maintained. Responding seldom occurred during timeout periods under any schedule studied. At doses of cocaine above or below those that maintained characteristic schedule-controlled behavior, rates of responding were relatively low and patterns of responding were irregular. Characteristic fixed-interval responding was maintained over a wider range of cocaine doses than characteristic fixed-ratio responding. Complex patterns of responding controlled by discriminative stimuli under fixed-ratio or fixed-interval schedules can be maintained by cocaine injections in squirrel monkeys and rhesus monkeys.     

Effect of punishment on human variable-interval performance

Three female human subjects pressed a button for monetary reinforcement in a range of variable-interval schedules specifying different frequencies of reinforcement. On alternate days, responding was also punished (by subtracting money) according to a variable-ratio 34 schedule. In the absence of punishment, rate of responding was an increasing negatively accelerated function of reinforcement frequency; the relationship between response rate and reinforcement frequency conformed to Herrnstein's equation. The effect of the punishment schedule was to suppress responding at all frequencies of reinforcement. This was reflected in a change in the values of both constants in Herrnstein's equation: the value of the theoretical maximum response-rate parameter was reduced, while the parameter describing the reinforcement frequency corresponding to the half-maximal response rate was increased.     

Schedule-induced biting under fixed-interval schedules of food or electric-shock presentation

Squirrel monkeys pressed a lever under fixed-interval schedules of food or of electric-shock presentation. Both schedules induced repeated biting on a latex hose. Whether lever pressing was controlled by food or by electric shock, a pattern of decreasing hose biting and increasing lever pressing occurred within fixed-interval cycles. As the fixed-interval duration was increased from 6 to 600 sec, average rates of lever pressing decreased under both schedules. Average rates of hose biting first increased with increasing parameter value, reaching a maximum at values that varied from 60 to 337 sec in different monkeys, and then declined at higher values. d-Amphetamine at appropriate doses increased overall rates of lever pressing maintained by food or by shock, but either did not affect or decreased overall rates of hose biting. When no timeout period occurred between fixed-interval cycles, the monkeys bit most frequently immediately after food or electric shock was presented. When there was a timeout period, hose biting began shortly after the start of the fixed-interval cycles, with little or no hose biting immediately after food or electric shock was presented. Most hose biting appeared to be schedule-induced rather than food- or shock-induced.     

The effects of a variety of instructions on human fixed-interval performance

College students were instructed to press a button for points under a single reinforcement schedule or under a variety of reinforcement schedules. Instructions for a single schedule were either specific or minimal. Instructions on a variety of schedules involved specific instructions on eight different schedules of reinforcement. Subsequent to the varied training, responding under a fixed-interval schedule occurred at a low rate. Both the minimal and specific instruction training led to fixed-interval responding that was similar to the responding exhibited during training. These findings suggest that under certain conditions instructed behavior is sensitive to changes in contingencies.     

Emergent simple discrimination established by indirect relation to differential consequences

Three experiments examined a discrimination training sequence that led to emergent simple discrimination in human subjects. The experiments differed primarily in their subject populations. Normally capable adults served in the first experiment, preschool children in the second, and mentally retarded adults in the third. In all experiments, subjects learned a simple simultaneous discrimination: When visual stimuli A1 and A2 were displayed together, reinforcers followed selections of A1, the S+, but not A2, the S-. The subjects also learned a conditional discrimination taught with an arbitrary visual-visual matching-to-sample procedure. Comparisons were two additional visual stimuli, B1 and B2, and samples were A1 and A2. Reinforcers followed selections of B1 in the presence of A1 and of B2 in the presence of A2. After the simple-discrimination and conditional-discrimination baselines had been acquired, B1 and B2 were displayed alone (without a sample) on probe trials. Subjects had never been taught explicitly how to respond to such displays. Nonetheless, they almost always selected B1, which was involved in a conditional relation with A1, the stimulus that served as S+ on the simple-discrimination trials. This outcome suggested the formation of stimulus classes during conditional-discrimination training. Through class formation, B1 and B2 had apparently acquired stimulus functions similar to those shown by A1 and A2 on simple-discrimination trials, thereby leading to emergent selections of B1 on the probes.     

Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding

Humans were presented with a task that required moving a light through a matrix. Button presses could produce light movements according to a multiple fixed-ratio 18/differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 6-s schedule, with components alternating every 2 min. Moving the light through the maze earned points worth chances on money prizes. In Experiment 1 four conditions were assessed through between-subject comparisons: minimal instructions, instructions to press rapidly, instructions to press slowly, and instructions that sometimes rapid responding would work while at other times a slow rate would work best. Subjects responded in three successive sessions of 32 min each. The results suggested that instructions affected the nature of the contact made with the programmed consequences and thus subsequent performance. In some cases, responding seemed to result from added contingencies introduced by stating rules. In Experiment 2 the relative contribution of these two effects was assessed by presenting and then withdrawing two lights that had been paired with two specific instructions: “Go Fast” or “Go Slow.” There were three conditions. In one condition, only the Go Fast light was on; in a second, only the Go Slow light was on; and in a third, the lights alternated each minute. In each condition, half the subjects had all instruction lights turned off after the first session. The results once again showed an effect of instructions on contact with the programmed consequences. However, responding sometimes continued in a manner consistent with added contingencies for rule-following even when the programmed consequences had been contacted and would have controlled a different type of responding in the absence of instructions. The relevance of added contingencies for rule-following in determining the effects of explicitly programmed consequences is emphasized.     

Instructions, multiple schedules, and extinction: Distinguishing rule-governed from schedule-controlled behavior

Schedule sensitivity has usually been examined either through a multiple schedule or through changes in schedules after steady-state responding has been established. This study compared the effects of these two procedures when various instructions were given. Fifty-five college students responded in two 32-min sessions under a multiple fixed-ratio 18/differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 6-s schedule, followed by one session of extinction. Some subjects received no instructions regarding the appropriate rates of responding, whereas others received instructions to respond slowly, rapidly, or both. Relative to the schedule in operation, the instructions were minimal, partially inaccurate, or accurate. When there was little schedule sensitivity in the multiple schedule, there was little in extinction. When apparently schedule-sensitive responding occurred in the multiple schedule, however, sensitivity in extinction occurred only if differential responding in the multiple schedule could not be due to rules supplied by the experimenter. This evidence shows that rule-governed behavior that occurs in the form of schedule-sensitive behavior may not in fact become schedule-sensitive even though it makes contact with the scheduled reinforcers.     

Behavioral contrast in competitive and noncompetitive environments

Three experiments examined the effects of opportunities for an alternative response (drinking) on positive behavioral contrast of rats' food-reinforced bar pressing. In both Experiments 1 and 2 the baseline multiple variable-interval schedules were rich (variable interval 10-s), and contrast was examined both with and without a water bottle present. In Experiment 1, the rats were not water deprived. When one component of the multiple schedule was changed to extinction, the rate of bar pressing increased in the constant component (positive behavioral contrast). The magnitude of contrast was larger when the bottle was absent than when it was present, as predicted by the matching law. Drinking did not shift from the constant variable-interval component to the extinction component, as might have been expected from competition theory. In Experiment 2, the rats were water deprived. Contrast was larger when the bottle was present than when it was absent, and drinking did shift to the extinction component, as predicted by competition theory. In Experiment 3, water-deprived rats responded on leaner multiple variable-interval schedules (60-s) in the presence of a water bottle. When one component was changed to extinction, contrast did not occur, and drinking did not shift to the extinction component. The present results suggest that there are at least two different sources of behavioral contrast: “competitive” contrast, observed when an alternative response occurs with high probability, and “noncompetitive” contrast, observed when an alternative response occurs with low probability. The results, in conjunction with earlier studies, also suggest that the form of the alternative response and the rate of food reinforcement provided by the multiple schedule combine to determine the amount of contrast.