Effects of economy type and nicotine on the essential value of food in rats

The exponential demand equation proposed by Hursh and Silberberg (2008) provides an estimate of the essential value of a good as a function of price. The model predicts that essential value should remain constant across changes in the magnitude of a reinforcer, but may change as a function of motivational operations. In Experiment 1, rats' demand for food across a sequence of fixed-ratio schedules was assessed during open and closed economy conditions and across one- and two-pellet per reinforcer delivery conditions. The exponential equation was fitted to the relation between fixed-ratio size and the logarithm of the absolute number of reinforcers. Estimates of the rate of change in elasticity of food, the proposed measure of essential value, were compared across conditions. Essential value was equivalent across magnitudes during the closed economy, but showed a slight decrease across magnitudes during the open economy. Experiment 2 explored the behavioral mechanisms of nicotine's effects on consumption with the results from Experiment 1 serving as a within-subject frame of reference. The same subjects were administered nicotine via subcutaneously implanted osmotic minipumps at a dose of 3 mg/kg/day and exposed to both the one- and two-pellet conditions under a closed economy. Although nicotine produced large decreases in demand, essential value was not significantly changed. The data from the present experiments provide further evidence for the adequacy of the exponential demand equation as a tool for quantifying the rate of change in elasticity of a good and for assessing behavioral mechanisms of drug action.     

Effects of pre-trial response requirements on self-control choices by rats and pigeons

Parallel experiments with rats and pigeons examined whether the size of a pre-trial ratio requirement would affect choices in a self-control situation. In different conditions, either 1 response or 40 responses were required before each trial. In the first half of each experiment, an adjusting-ratio schedule was used, in which subjects could choose a fixed-ratio schedule leading to a small reinforcer, or an adjusting-ratio schedule leading to a larger reinforcer. The size of the adjusting ratio requirement was increased and decreased over trials based on the subject's responses, in order to estimate an indifference point-a ratio at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. The second half of each experiment used an adjusting-delay procedure-fixed and adjusting delays to the small and large reinforcers were used instead of ratio requirements. In some conditions, particularly with the reinforcer delays, the rats had consistently longer adjusting delays with the larger pre-trial ratios, reflecting a greater tendency to choose the larger, delayed reinforcer when more responding was required to reach the choice point. No consistent effects of the pre-trial ratio were found for the pigeons in any of the conditions. These results may indicate that rats are more sensitive to the long-term reinforcement rates of the two alternatives, or they may result from a shallower temporal discounting rate for rats than for pigeons, a difference that has been observed in previous studies.     

COMPARING PLEASURE AND PAIN: THE FUNDAMENTAL MATHEMATICAL EQUIVALENCE OF REWARD GAIN AND SHOCK REDUCTION UNDER VARIABLE INTERVAL SCHEDULES

The relationship between positive and negative reinforcement and the symmetry of Thorndike's law of effect are unresolved issues in operant psychology. Here we show that, for a given pattern of responding on variable interval (VI) schedules with the same programmed rate of food rewards (positive reinforcement VI) or electric shocks (negative reinforcement VI), there is a fundamental mathematical equivalence between reward gain and shock reduction. We also provide the first normative account of how animals should respond on a negative VI schedule, showing that it is better to space responses evenly than to respond with a variable interresponse time (IRT). Published data from rats, however, indicate that these animals respond irregularly, often with a burst of activity immediately following a shock. While this is irrational in the experimental setting, it may represent an appropriate response to the heterogeneity of stimuli commonly encountered in natural environments. We discuss the broader implications of our analysis for understanding how animals evaluate appetitive and aversive stimuli.