Drug effects on repeated acquisition: comparison of cumulative and non-cumulative dosing

Pigeons acquired a different four-response chain each session by responding sequentially on three keys in the presence of a sequence of four colors. The response chain was maintained by food presentation under a fixed-ratio schedule. Errors produced a brief timeout but did not reset the chain. Each day there were four 15-minute sessions, with a 10-minute inter-session interval. Cumulative dose-effect curves for phencyclidine, pentobarbital, and d-amphetamine were obtained by giving an injection before each of the four sessions; successive injections increased the cumulative dose in equally spaced logarithmic steps. For comparison, non-cumulative doses of each drug (i.e., doses not preceded by other doses on the same day) were also tested. As the cumulative dose of each drug increased, the overall response rate decreased, the percent errors increased, and there was less within-session error reduction (acquisition). With phencyclidine and pentobarbital, the rate-decreasing and error-increasing effects tended to be greater with a non-cumulative dose than with the corresponding cumulative dose. In contrast, with d-amphetamine, the effects were considerably greater with the cumulative doses. The results indicate that although the cumulative-dosing procedure saved a substantial amount of time in determining dose-effect curves, there were quantitative differences in effects between cumulative and non-cumulative doses.     

Tolerance to and residual effects of cocaine in squirrel monkeys depend on reinforcement-schedule parameter.

Lever pressing by 4 squirrel monkeys was maintained under a three-component multiple fixed-ratio schedule of food presentation; components differed with respect to ratio size. For each monkey, acute administration of cocaine (0.03 to 1.3 mg/kg, i.m.) produced dose-dependent decreases in overall response rate in each component. During repeated daily administration of 1.0 mg/kg of cocaine, tolerance developed to the rate-decreasing effects under each of the ratio contingencies, but developed to a greater extent and was evident in earlier parts of sessions for performance under the smaller ratios. Response rates of 2 monkeys increased above nondrug control levels despite the putative reinforcer not being consumed during the session. When saline or a smaller dose of cocaine was substituted for 1.0 mg/kg, response rates often were suppressed below nondrug control-level responding. This suppressive effect was observed in each monkey and was more likely to be observed and/or to be of greater magnitude in large-ratio components for 3 of the 4 monkeys. When saline was administered chronically at the end of the chronic-drug phase, response rates remained suppressed in the large-ratio component for 2 of the monkeys. There was, therefore, a schedule-dependent dissociation between behavioral tolerance and the residual effects: Tolerance was greater when small ratios were arranged, whereas the residual effects were more pronounced when larger ratios were arranged.     

Stimulus control of Pavlovian facilitation

Two experiments were conducted using an autoshaping procedure with pigeons to examine whether dimensional stimulus control by a Pavlovian facilitator parallels the control established following operant discrimination training. Facilitation training consisted of the presentation of a black vertical line on a white background as the B stimulus in a feature-positive discrimination in which the A stimulus (white keylight) was followed by grain presentation only if preceded by B. In this way, B facilitates or sets the occasion for pecking at A. Subsequent testing for generalization along the line-orientation dimension produced decremental gradients when the facilitation paradigm incorporated an explicit feature-negative stimulus (B−). These results parallel the decremental control obtained following operant discrimination training and suggest that Pavlovian facilitators and instrumental discriminative stimuli are functionally equivalent.     

Behavioral economics of drug self-administration. II. A unit-price analysis of cigarette smoking.

In behavioral economics, the ratio of response requirement to reinforcer magnitude is referred to as unit price. Previous research with nonhuman subjects has demonstrated that (a) comparable amounts of food are consumed at the same unit price even though different response requirements and reinforcer magnitudes comprise that unit price and (b) increases in unit price decrease food consumption in a positively decelerating fashion. The present study assessed the generality of these findings to the cigarette smoking of 5 human volunteers. During approximately 18 3-hr sessions, various combinations of response requirement (fixed-ratio 200, 400, and 1,600) and reinforcer magnitude (1, 2, and 4 puffs per bout) were arranged. Consumption (i.e., the number of puffs) generally was comparable at the same unit price independent of the response requirement and reinforcer magnitude comprising that unit price. In addition, increasing unit price generally decreased consumption in a positively decelerating fashion. These results extend the generality of the unit-price analysis to human cigarette smoking. Moreover, these results further support the position that reinforcer magnitude and response requirement are functionally equivalent and interact to determine consumption. The concept of unit price, by integrating and summarizing the effects of those two operations, provides a more parsimonious explanation of the results than do separate evaluations of the effects of response requirement and reinforcer magnitude.     

CONDITIONAL DISCRIMINATION VS. MATCHING TO SAMPLE: AN EXPANSION OF THE TESTING PARADIGM

A subject's performance under a conditional-discrimination procedure defines conditional relations between stimuli: “If A1, then B1; if A2, then B2.” The procedure may also generate matching to sample. If so, the stimuli will be related not only by conditionality, but by equivalence: A1 and B1 will become equivalent members of one stimulus class, A2 and B2 of another. One paradigm for testing whether a conditional-discrimination procedure has generated equivalence relations uses three sets of stimuli, A, B, and C, three stimuli per set. Subjects learn to select Set-B and Set-C comparisons conditionally upon Set-A samples. Having been explicitly taught six sample-comparison relations, A1B1, A1C1, A2B2, A2C2, A3B3, and A3C3, subjects prove immediately capable of matching the B- and C-stimuli; six new relations emerge (B1C1, B2C2, B3C3, C1B1, C2B2, C3B3). The 12 stimulus relations, six taught and six emergent, define the existence of three three-member stimulus classes, A1B1C1, A2B2C2, and A3B3C3. This paradigm was expanded by introducing three more stimuli (Set D), and teaching eight children not only the AB and AC relations but DC relations also—selecting Set-C comparisons conditionally upon Set-D samples. Six of the children proved immediately capable of matching the B- and D-stimuli to each other. By selecting appropriate Set-B comparisons conditionally upon Set-D samples, and Set-D comparisons conditionally upon Set-B samples, they demonstrated the existence of three four-member stimulus classes, A1B1C1D1, A2B2C2D2, and A3B3C3D3. These larger classes were confirmed by the subjects' success with the prerequisite lower-level conditional relations; they were also able to select Set-D comparisons conditionally upon samples from Sets A and C, and to do the BC and CB matching that defined the original three-member classes. Adding the three DC relations therefore generated 12 more, three each in BD, DB, AD, and CD. Enlarging each class by one member brought about a disproportionate increase in the number of emergent relations. Ancillary oral naming tests suggested that the subject's application of the same name to each stimulus was neither necessary nor sufficient to establish classes of equivalent stimuli.     

Interval and ratio reinforcement of a complex sequential operant in pigeons

Pigeons were required to produce exactly four pecks on each of two keys in any order for reinforcement. Correct response sequences were reinforced on either fixed-interval two-minute or fixed-ratio four schedules, with each correct sequence treated as a single response. Each pigeon developed a particular dominant sequence that accounted for more than 80% of all sequences. Sequence stereotypy was relatively unaffected by the temporal properties of the fixed-interval and fixed-ratio schedules. Response time (time from the first response in each sequence to the last) was also relatively unaffected by the temporal properties of the schedules. In contrast, response latency (time from end of one sequence to the beginning of the next) was markedly affected by the schedules. Latencies were long early in the interreinforcement interval and got shorter as the interreinforcement interval progressed. These data suggest that stereotyped response sequences become functional behavioral units, resistant to disruption or alteration by reinforcement variables that ordinarily influence the temporal spacing of individual responses.     

The acquisition of observing.

Pigeons were exposed to stimuli correlated with the presence or absence of a variable-interval 60-second schedule of reinforcement only while they depressed a crossbar or "perch." In the first experiment, the stimuli were different tilts of a line displayed on the key. When the difference in brightness between the line and the background (salience) was maximal, seven of eight birds acquired the discrimination, but when the difference was reduced by 50%, only one succeeded. In the second experiment, wavelength of chamber illumination served as the relevant dimension. Neither experiment showed a large effect attributable to the magnitude of the difference (disparity) between the positive and the negative stimulus. Individual differences in time spent observing were positively correlated with level of discrimination in the presence of the stimuli. All birds produced the positive stimulus for a greater proportion of the available time than they did the negative stimulus. This may be the mechanism that provides selective reinforcement of observing. Finally, the formation of a discrimination was analyzed in terms of changes in the proportion of time spent in contact with the discriminative stimuli.     

SELF-STIMULATION AND LEARNING IN AUTISTIC CHILDREN: PHYSICAL OR FUNCTIONAL INCOMPATIBILITY?1

This study investigated whether an observed inverse relationship between self-stimulation and learning in autistic children is due to a physical inability of the subject to use the same body part for self-stimulation and task responding, or whether self-stimulation “distracts” the subject from task responding. Four actively self-stimulating autistic children were taught two discrimination tasks; one required a response that physically interferred with their self-stimulation; the other did not. Results were: (a) all subjects responded similarly across both tasks; (b) the three subjects with higher mental age scores learned both tasks without external suppression of self-stimulation; and (c) none of the subjects showed an inverse relationship between self-stimulation and learning. The study demonstrated that elimination of self-stimulation is not a necessary prerequisite for the acquisition of a new behavior in all autistic children.     

Elimination of reinforced behavior: intermittent schedules of not-responding

Pigeons' key pecking resulted in food according to either a variable-ratio or a variable-interval schedule. At the same time, food was available for not pecking for a specified time. The required time of not-pecking was segmented into not-responding units, and these units were followed by food according to a fixed-ratio schedule. Both unit duration and the number required were varied. In general, the shorter the time unit or the smaller the ratio, the lower was response rate. When total required not-responding time was constant, but changes in unit duration and the number required altered how the total was achieved, shorter units produced lower rates. Other conditions involved substitution of food delivered independent of responding for the not-responding schedule. With low and moderate total times to food presentation, the not-responding schedule produced lower rates; with the longest times, the response-independent schedule generated less responding. When considered in terms of relative frequency of food presentation available from a source other than pecking, the not-responding schedule reduced rate more effectively than did the response-independent schedule. Comparisons with other research suggested that food presented dependent on not responding compared favorably with punishment as a procedure for reducing response rate. Transient effects differed. Although punishment temporarily depresses rate when first imposed and temporarily enhances it when first removed, food given for not responding quickly generated steady-state rates.     

Control of responding by location of auditory stimuli: adjacency of sound and response.

Four rhesus monkeys were trained to respond on one key when a one-second noise burst was presented through one speaker and to respond on a second key when the noise burst was presented through a second speaker. The acquisition of stimulus control was studied under three conditions, in each of which the relationship between the sound source and the response-key positions varied: an adjacent condition in which the noise burst was presented through the key and a response on this key was reinforced; a reversed-adjacent condition in which the noise burst was presented through one key and responding on the other key was reinforced: and a nonadiacent condition in which responding on the key nearer the sound was reinforced. Under adjacent conditions, stimulus control developed within one or two sessions. Under reversed and nonadjacent conditions, 10 sessions were required for the development of control. The asymptote of correct responding was the same under each condition in all animals.