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.     

The interaction between stimulus and reinforcer control on remembering.

In a symbolic matching-to-sample task, 6 pigeons obtained food by pecking a red side key when the brighter of two white lights had been presented on the center key and by pecking a green side key when the dimmer of two white lights had been presented on the center key. Across Part 1 and Parts 6 to 10, the delay between sample-stimulus presentation and the availability of the choice keys was varied between 0 s and 25 s. Across Parts 1 to 5, the delay between the emission of a correct choice and the delivery of a reinforcer was varied between 0 s and 30 s. Although increasing both types of delay decreased stimulus discriminability, lengthening the stimulus-choice delay produced a greater decrement in choice accuracy than did lengthening the choice-reinforcer delay. Additionally, the relative reinforcer rate for correct choice was varied across both types of delay. The sensitivity of behavior to the distribution of reinforcers decreased as discriminability decreased under both procedures. These data are consistent with the view, based on the generalized matching law, that sample stimuli and reinforcers interact in their control over remembering.     

Thoughts and feelings and things: A new psychiatric epistemology

Epistemology — the study of knowledge — is a philosophical discipline with close ties to psychiatry. When epistemologists address specific questions about how knowledge is actually realized by human beings, their philosophy must be informed by empirical studies of the sort psychiatrists now take up in a variety of forms. As this paper describes, psychiatrists can likewise improve their understanding of human psychology through a deeper appreciation of philosophical analysis in epistemology.The aim of this article is to introduce a unifying framework within which the experience from different approaches to psychiatry — (1) the conceptual schemas of cognitive psychiatry, (2) the mental structures of psychoanalytic psychiatry, (3) the categorical forms of existential psychiatry, and (4) the neural pathways of biological psychiatry — can all be applied productively to the central question of epistemology. By establishing a broad understanding of the problem of knowledge, this new view of epistemology is developed within the idiom of each psychiatric approach. In addressing themselves to a unitary problem, these diverse psychiatric approaches are themselves revealed, not as competing points of view, but as complementary views of a single subject. The result is a new epistemology that can not only bring the insights of psychiatry to philosophy, but can also contribute to the care of patients when psychiatrists bring this broader view to their clinical work.     

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.     

Sensory superstition on multiple interval schedules.

Pigeons were exposed to multiple schedules in which an irregular repeating sequence of five stimulus components was correlated with the same reinforcement schedule throughout. Stable, idiosyncratic, response-rate differences developed across components. Components were rank-ordered by response rate; an approximately linear relation was found between rank order and the deviation of mean response rate from the overall mean rate. Nonzero slopes of this line were found for multiple fixed-interval and variable-time schedules and for multiple variable-interval schedules both when number of reinforcements was the same in all components and when it varied. The steepest function slopes were found in the variable schedules with relatively long interfood intervals and relatively short component durations. When just one stimulus was correlated with all components of a multiple variable-interval schedule, the slope of the line was close to zero. The results suggest that food-rate differences may be induced initially by different reactions to the stimuli and subsequently maintained by food.     

Choice and multiple reinforcers

Pigeons chose between equivalent two-component mixed and multiple terminal-link schedules of reinforcement in the concurrent-chains procedure. The pigeons preferred the multiple schedule over the mixed when the components of the compound schedules were differentiated in terms of density of reinforcement, but the pigeons were indifferent when the components were differentiated in terms of number of reinforcers per cycle. Taken together, these results indicate that a local variable, the interval to the first reinforcer, but not a molar variable, the number of reinforcers, was sufficient to differentiate the components and thereby evoke preference.     

Changes in a multiple-response repertoire during response-contingent punishment and response restriction: Sequential relationships

A multiple-response baseline of four activities was established using gerbils as subjects. When one of the baseline responses was punished (Experiment 1) or restricted (Experiments 2 and 3), only the most probable of the alternative baseline responses increased. The response most likely to follow the punished or restricted responses during baseline sessions was also suppressed during subsequent punishment or response-restriction treatment.     

Stimulus discriminability in free-operant and discrete-trial detection procedures.

Six pigeons were trained to discriminate different light intensities in four experimental procedures. Experiment 1 compared stimulus discriminability in a yes-no signal-detection task with discriminability measures obtained from two free-operant procedures. Discriminability estimates were significantly lower in the detection procedure. Experiment 2 showed this lowered discriminability to be a function of the delay between stimulus presentation and the availability of the choice-response keys in the standard detection task. In addition, reinforcement sensitivity was lowest when correct choice responses were intermittently, rather than continuously, reinforced.     

An experimental analysis of the effects of d-amphetamine and cocaine on the acquisition and performance of response chains in monkeys.

In one component of a multiple schedule of food presentation, monkeys acquired a different four-response chain each session by responding sequentially on three keys in the presence of four geometric forms (learning). In the other component, the four-response chain was the same each session (performance). Both d-amphetamine and cocaine, at the higher doses, disrupted the behavior in the learning component; the overall response rate decreased, the overall accuracy was impaired (i.e., percent errors increased), and there was less within-session error reduction. The performance component was generally less sensitive than the learning component to the disruptive effects of both drugs on rate and accuracy. After pre-feeding or during an extended session, the response rate decreased in both components, but accuracy was generally unaffected. When the four discriminative stimuli in both components were removed, the behavior was disrupted to a greater extent in the performance component. The disruptive effects of both drugs on behavior in the learning component were attenuated when the drugs were administered during the session after the response chain had been acquired. It was concluded that the greater sensitivity of the learning component to disruptive drug effects is related to the relatively weak stimulus control and/or the lower rate of reinforcement associated with that component.     

Effects of cocaine and d-amphetamine on the repeated acquisition and performance of conditional discriminations.

The acute and chronic effects of cocaine and d-amphetamine on food-reinforced behavior were investigated in pigeons responding on a two-component multiple schedule. In one component, the behavioral task consisted of the same chain of conditional discriminations each session (performance). In the other component, the chain of conditional discriminations was changed from session to session (learning). In comparison to control sessions, both acute cocaine and d-amphetamine increased errors in each component of the multiple schedule. Responding in the learning component, however, was generally disrupted at lower doses than those that affected responding in the performance component. At high doses, both drugs produced pauses in responding in each component in three of the four subjects. Pausing engendered by d-amphetamine was approximately twice as long as that under cocaine. Upon chronic administration, both the pausing and error-increasing effects of each drug diminished. Drug-induced changes in timeout responding, however, did not decrease during chronic administration. Redeterminations of the d-amphetamine dose-effect curves following chronic cocaine administration suggested the existence of cross-tolerance between cocaine and d-amphetamine. Both the acute and chronic data are consistent with the view that conditions of stimulus control may modulate the behavioral effects of drugs.