An assessment of the role of handling cues in "spontaneous recovery" after extinction

Three experiments examined the assertion that presession handling cues that accompany training with reinforcement might account for spontaneous recovery when they reoccur following extinction. In Experiment 1, after extensive training on a variable-interval schedule, key pecking in pigeons was extinguished following either normal or distinctively different handling and transportational cues. Those cues resulted in enhanced spontaneous recovery 24 hr later when normal cues were reinstated. In Experiment 2, however, subjects tested following the normal handling cues showed no more spontaneous recovery than did subjects that spent the entire extinction-test interval in the experimental chambers and thus were tested without handling cues altogether. In Experiment 3, a group whose test for recovery began 10 min after being placed in the chambers yielded as much spontaneous recovery as did a group tested normally. Furthermore, a group for which extinction began at mid-session and for which handling therefore could not be a discriminative cue for extinction showed no more spontaneous recovery than did the other two groups. Handling cues thus contributed to spontaneous recovery only after explicit discrimination training, as provided in Experiment 1.     

Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading

A new class of visuomotor neuron has been recently discovered in the monkey's premotor cortex: mirror neurons. These neurons respond both when a particular action is performed by the recorded monkey and when the same action, performed by another individual, is observed. Mirror neurons appear to form a cortical system matching observation and execution of goal-related motor actions. Experimental evidence suggests that a similar matching system also exists in humans. What might be the functional role of this matching system? One possible function is to enable an organism to detect certain mental states of observed conspecifics. This function might be part of, or a precursor to, a more general mind-reading ability. Two different accounts of mind-reading have been suggested. According to ‘theory theory', mental states are represented as inferred posits of a naive theory. According to ‘simulation theory', other people's mental states are represented by adopting their perspective: by tracking or matching their states with resonant states of one's own. The activity of mirror neurons, and the fact that observers undergo motor facilitation in the same muscular groups as those utilized by target agents, are findings that accord well with simulation theory but would not be predicted by theory theory.     

Key pecking in pigeons produced by pairing keylight with inaccessible grain

In Experiment I, keylight was paired with inaccessible grain delivery (under two conditions of keylight intensity) to determine if autoshaping would occur in the absence of primary reinforcement. In Experiment II, the procedure was repeated with accessible grain, for comparison. In Experiment III, the procedures were repeated with explicitly unpaired presentations of keylight and either inaccessible or accessible grain. The results indicated that key pecking occurred as quickly in the presence of keylight pairings with inaccessible grain as with accessible grain, though (except for one bird) key pecking was not maintained with inaccessible grain. Furthermore, compared to the dim keylight, the bright keylight greatly suppressed key pecking when paired with inaccessible grain, and reduced the rate of key pecking when paired with accessible grain. Little key pecking occurred in groups exposed to explicitly unpaired presentations of keylight (whether bright or dim) and grain (whether accessible or inaccessible). When the birds in Experiment III were retested with explicitly paired presentations of keylight and grain, little key pecking was observed, suggesting suppressive effects of prior explicitly unpaired presentations. It is suggested that the effects of key-brightness manipulation were produced by the association of grain with cues other than the response key, or by distraction produced by partial illumination of the grain hopper.     

Successive discrimination training with equated reinforcement frequencies: failure to obtain behavioral contrast

In two experiments, pigeons were trained on two-component multiple schedules in which responding in one component (S₁) was always maintained by a variable-interval schedule. In Experiment I, low response rates were reinforced in the second (S₂) component for six master subjects. This schedule was adjusted to equate reinforcement frequencies in the two components. These subjects were compared to yoked partners, for which reinforcement in the S₂ component was made available on a variable-interval schedule whose value was determined by the master subjects. A similar procedure was used in Experiment II, where the S₂ schedule for master subjects made reinforcers contingent on the absence of responding. No evidence was found in either experiment for a behavioral contrast effect in the S₁ component attributable to response reduction in the S₂ component. A reliable contrast effect was obtained from a group of pigeons given extinction conditions in the S₂ component, which was compared to a group maintained throughout on a multiple variable-interval schedule. The results suggest that previous indications of behavioral contrast in similar situations were probably caused by uneven reinforcement distributions or reflect uncontrolled fluctuations in response rates.     

Stimulus-food relations and free-operant postponement of timeout from response-independent food presentation

Grain was briefly presented to food-deprived pigeons intermittently and response-independently except during signaled timeouts. During Experiment 1, key pecks postponed the next timeout for a specified interval. Rates of pecking during time in were inversely related to the length of time pecking postponed the next timeout. Response-independent presentation of temporal distributions of timeouts exactly matched to a preceding postponement condition decreased pecking rates during Experiment 2. These results indicate that key pecking of pigeons can be controlled by response-dependent postponement of timeout, but that responses elicited by stimulus-reinforcer relations inherent in timeout-postponement procedures may substantially modify rates and patterns of pecking.     

Acute and chronic effects of cocaine on extinction-induced aggression.

Pigeons worked individually in a chamber containing a response key and a mirror. Pecking on the key was controlled by a multiple schedule in which a brief period of continuous food reinforcement alternated with a 5-minute period of extinction. Under baseline conditions, aggressive behavior (responding on the mirror) occurred at the onset of each extinction period. In Experiment I (acute drug administration), the aggressive behavior was decreased by doses of cocaine that had little or no effect on key pecking. Such food-reinforced responding was disrupted, however, by higher doses of cocaine. An attempt to mimic the disruptive drugs effects by a prefeeding manipulation was unsuccessful. In Experiment II (chronic drug administration), some tolerance developed to the disruptive effects of cocaine on the food-reinforced responding, except at the highest dose tested. There was no clear-cut indication of tolerance to the initial effect of cocaine on the aggressive behavior at any dose.     

The role of discriminative stimuli in concurrent performances

Key pecking in pigeons was examined under concurrent and parallel arrangements of two independent and simultaneously available variable-interval schedules. Pecks on the changeover key alternated the schedule of reinforcement for responses on the main key. Under concurrent schedules, discriminative stimuli were paired with the reinforcement schedule arranged in each component and changeover responses also alternated these stimuli. Under parallel schedules, changeover responses alternated the effective reinforcement schedule, but did not change the discriminative stimulus. On concurrent procedures, changeover response rate was inversely related to the difference in reinforcement rate between the two components, whereas on parallel schedules no consistent relationship was found. With both schedules, absolute response and reinforcement rates were positively related, although for a given set of reinforcement frequencies, rates were often higher on the concurrent schedules. On concurrent schedules, relative response rates and relative times were equal to relative reinforcement rates. On parallel schedules these ratios were positively related, but response and time ratios were much smaller than were obtained with comparable concurrent schedules. This inequality was most pronounced when absolute reinforcement frequencies were lowest.     

Response and time allocation in concurrent second-order schedules

Six pigeons were trained on two-key concurrent variable-interval schedules in which the required response was the completion of a fixed number of key pecks. When the required number of pecks was equal on the two keys, response- and time-allocation ratios under-matched obtained reinforcement rate ratios. A similar result was found when the required number of pecks was unequal, except that performance, measured in response terms, was biased to the shorter required number of pecks and was less sensitive to reinforcement-rate changes. No such differences were found in the data on time spent responding. When the variable-interval schedules were kept constant and the required numbers of pecks were systematically varied, response ratios changed inversely with the ratio of the required number of pecks, but time-allocation ratios varied directly with the same independent variable. Thus, on response measures, pigeons “prefer” the schedule with the smaller peck requirement, but on time measures they “prefer” the schedule with the larger peck requirement. This finding is inconsistent with a commonsense notion of choice, which sees response and time-allocation measures as equivalent.     

On the effects of component durations and component reinforcement rates in multiple schedules

Four experiments, each using the same six pigeons, investigated the effects of varying component durations and component reinforcement rates in multiple variable-interval schedules. Experiment 1 used unequal component durations in which one component was five times the duration of the other, and the shorter component was varied over conditions from 120 seconds to 5 seconds. The schedules were varied over five values for each pair of component durations. Sensitivity to reinforcement rate changes was the same at all component durations. In Experiment 2, both component durations were 5 seconds, and the schedules were again varied using both one and two response keys. Sensitivity to reinforcement was not different from the values found in Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, various manipulations, including body-weight changes, reinforcer duration changes, blackouts, hopper lights correlated with keylights, and overall reinforcement rate changes were carried out. No reliable increase in reinforcement sensitivity resulted from any manipulation. Finally, in Experiment 4, reinforcement rates in the two components were kept constant and unequal, and the component durations were varied. Shorter components produced significantly increased response rates normally in the higher reinforcement rate component, but schedule reversals at short component durations eliminated the response rate increases. The effects of component duration on multiple schedule performance cannot be interpreted as changing sensitivity to reinforcement nor to changing bias.