共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Following training on a variable-interval food reinforcement schedule, rats were exposed to Pavlovian procedures which produced reliable conditioned suppression and conditioned acceleration of the leverpressing (instrumental) baseline. When free food was simultaneously made available in the test cage, all subjects spent the majority of each session “freeloading,” that is, eating food from a dish rather than leverpressing for it. When superimposed upon the freeloading baseline, the conditioned suppression and conditioned acceleration procedures affected the rate of pellet consumption identically in magnitude and direction to their previous effects on leverpressing. These results suggest a motivational mechanism for conditioned suppression and acceleration, rather than one which depends upon spurious punishment of specific response sequences. 相似文献
2.
Suppression of operant responding during a conditioned stimulus (CS) was studied in two procedures. In both procedures, operant leverpressing was maintained by a variable-interval 1-min food-delivery schedule, and insertion of a second lever served as the CS. In the first procedure, autoshaping, food followed each CS presentation irrespective of a subject’s behavior during the CS. In the second procedure, omission training, contact with the CS canceled the delivery of food scheduled for the end of that CS. In the first experiment, subjects were exposed to omission training followed by autoshaping; these procedures were reversed in the second experiment. In each experiment, the omission contingency resulted in fewer CS contacts and less suppression of operant responding during the CS than did autoshaping. These differences were more notable in subjects receiving the sequence autoshaping→omission training (Experiment 2). Direct observations in Experiment 2 revealed that, for subjects that were contacting the CS frequently when the omission contingency was introduced, reductions in signal contacts were accompanied by redistributions of behavior. The form of these redistributions depended upon behavior allocation at the time the omission contingency was imposed. 相似文献
3.
The degree of compatibility between defensive responding and leverpress topography was investigated. Rats were trained to leverpress on a Sidman avoidance schedule for one 60-min session. Measures of defensive responding (jumping and rearing) were recorded during initial training. Shock intensity (.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mA) and S-S interval (1, 3, and 5 sec) were varied in Experiment 1. S-S interval had no effect on defensive responding or on performance. Rate of jumping was an increasing function of intensity only at lower intensities. Both jumping and rearing were significantly correlated with leverpressing. Shock intensity (1.0 and 2.0 mA) and lever position (3.02 and 16.83 cm) were varied in Experiment 2. Response rate was an increasing function of intensity at the high lever position but not at the low position. Correlations between rearing and leverpressing, and between jumping and leverpressing, were not significant for either lever position. Bolles’ (1970) theory of species-specific defense reactions was invoked to account for initial facilitated performance. 相似文献
4.
Two experiments were conducted to investigate functional similarities between “hunger CRs” of Konorski’s (1967) model of appetitive classical conditioning and sign-tracking behavior in rats. Konorski’s model predicts that hunger CRs will be facilitated (1) when a nonrein-forced stimulus similar to the reinforced CS is introduced, and (2) when some CS presentations are unexpectedly nonreinforced. In Experiment 1, hungry rats acquired a leverpress response to a retractable lever that was paired with response-independent food. Following this training, a second lever was introduced whose presentation was not followed by food. The effect of the presence of this second lever was to facilitate responding to the original lever. In Experiment 2, single-lever autoshaping training was followed by a shift from 100% pairing of the lever with food to only 50% of the lever presentations being followed by food. The introduction of partial reinforcement produced an immediate and durable increase in leverpressing. The findings of both experiments are consistent with predictions from Konorski’s model of classical conditioning if sign-tracking is considered as a “hunger CR.” 相似文献
5.
The experiments reported in the present study tested whether decreasing intertrial intervals (ITIs) intensifies the disruptive
effects of increasing retention intervals (RIs) in a delayed conditional discrimination by decreasing the animal’s trial tracking
accuracy (Cohen & Armstrong, 1996; Cohen & Roberts, 1996). Rats responded on a fixed ratio (FR) 1 or fixed interval (FI) 10-sec
reinforcement schedule at a second light or tone stimulus, S2, when the first light or tone stimulus, S1, had signaled an
FI 10-sec or FR 1 schedule, respectively. RIs between S1 and S2 were increased from 3 to 24 sec and never exceeded ITIs that
were reduced from 24 to 6 sec. For some rats, the trials were separated from each other by extending the lever at S1 and retracting
it at the end of S2 (ITI lever-retracted group). For other, control rats, the lever remained extended throughout the session
(lever-extended group, Experiment 1) or was extended and retracted with the onset and offset of each stimulus (RI/ITI lever-retracted
group, Experiment 2). The rats under all trial conditions learned to delay leverpressing on the FI 10-sec schedule. Latency
to begin leverpressing on the FI 10-sec schedule declined as RIs were increased, but this effect was attenuated in the ITI
lever-retracted groups in both experiments, as would be predicted by thetrial tracking hypothesis. Decreasing ITIs from 24 to 6 sec intensified the disruptive effects of increasing RIs from 3 to 6 sec in the
RI/ITI lever-retracted group (Experiment 2), as would be predicted by the trial tracking hypothesis. 相似文献
6.
In Experiment 1, 12 rats were exposed to an FT 60 schedule of food reinforcement, followed either by extinction or by a massed-food control condition, in the presence of a wood block. In 9 rats, wood-chewing behavior increased systematically during the FT 60 condition and declined again during extinction or massed food, while the other 3 rats showed virtually no chewing behavior at any stage of the experiment. In Experiment 2, frequency and bout duration of wood-chewing under an FT 60 schedule of food reinforcement declined as body weight increased, in 7 rats. We conclude that wood-chewing qualifies as a schedule-induced behavior, and that it resembles schedule-induced drinking in its dependence on body weight. Unlike drinking, however, induced chewing occupied the middle region of the 60-sec interreinforcement interval, declined markedly within the session, and showed considerable within- and between-subject variability. 相似文献
7.
A. G. Baker 《Learning & behavior》1990,18(1):59-70
Three experiments were designed to study the effects of contextual conditioning on the extinction of instrumental leverpressing that had been reinforced on a random-interval schedule. In Experiment 1, noncontingent food retarded extinction, but signaling food delivery, a treatment that should reduce contextual conditioning, reduced the interference. Experiment 2 replicated the results of Experiment 1 and demonstrated that if the food preceded rather than followed the signal, the retardation of extinction was not reduced but was enhanced. In Experiment 3, non-contingent leverpressing was used to directly verify that the three treatments—forward signaling, noncontingent food, and backward signaling—differentially influenced contextual conditioning. Forward signaling produced the least, and backward signaling produced the most, contextual conditioning. This monotonic relationship between contextual conditioning and interference with extinction was used as evidence to support the argument that context-food associations are important in controlling instrumental responding. 相似文献
8.
Four of five pigeons were conditioned to peck a key at a high, stable rate on a VI schedule and then given concurrent access to free food. It was found, in replication of Neuringer’s results, that the pigeons pecked a key for grain in the presence of free grain. When availability of the response key (high-probability response) was made contingent on eating free grain (a lower probability response), there was a progressive increase in free-food eating, confirming Premack’s reinforcement principle. For two additional birds, when availability of the key was made contingent onnot eating the free food (a type of DRO schedule), the frequency of free-food eating declined. Thus, availability of the key. depending on the contingency, reinforced both the eating and noneating of free food. 相似文献
9.
James Allison 《Learning & behavior》1980,8(2):185-192
The conservation model was generalized to the variable-interval schedule by incorporating the concept of unscheduled instrumental responses, those which occur in the time before the next setup is due. Thirsty rats responded in constant-duration sessions on two 7-sec schedules that required one leverpress for 25 and 50 licks at a water tube and on a 14-sec 25-lick schedule. In accordance with the model, total licks decreased linearly as total presses increased, and the schedules facilitated leverpressing and suppressed licking relative to paired baseline levels of responding. While the matching model also gave a satisfactory fit to instrumental responding under the schedules, its two constants, representing asymptotic rate of responding and extraneous reinforcement, had anomalous values which led the model to predict that response rate would decrease as the rate of reinforcement increased, directly opposing its prediction for the constant-consumption experiments of its previous tests. 相似文献
10.
Food-deprived rats were exposed to a schedule in which a brief stimulus was presented approximately once every 60 sec. The first leverpress to occur in the presence of the stimulus always turned it off, and produced a food pellet 50% of the time. When the rats were given concurrent access to water, a running wheel, or both, drinking predominated during intervals initiated by pellet delivery, while running predominated during intervals initiated without food. When allowed to obtain all of their food pellets at the beginning of a session, rats drank less and ran more than when the intermittent schedule was in effect, and most drinking occurred within the first half of the session, while running was distributed throughout the session. Adjunctive drinking and wheel running appear to be functionally different, drinking being schedule-induced and food-bound, running being neither. 相似文献
11.
In Experiment 1, rats were allowed to acquire either schedule-induced drinking or schedule-induced wood-chewing behavior under a fixed-interval (FI) 60-sec schedule of food reinforcement, following which food was omitted from 20% and then 50% of interreinforcement intervals. Omission of food severely disrupted induced drinking but had relatively little effect on induced wood-chewing. Experiment 2 investigated wood-chewing as a function of reinforcement rate, using a range of FI schedules from 5 to 180 sec in duration. Both the amount of chewing per session and the relative time spent chewing were bitonically related to reinforcement rate. In Experiment 3, schedule-induced chewing that had been acquired under a response-dependent schedule was found to persist under a response-independent schedule. Induced wood-chewing resembles other induced behaviors in important respects, but quantitative differences are also apparent. 相似文献
12.
Rats were trained to leverpress for food and subsequently exposed to either arithmetic series or random variable-interval reinforcement schedules. Adjunctive drinking developed in all subjects exposed to arithmetic variable-interval reinforcement, but did not develop in six of the eight animals trained on the random schedule. The results suggest that adjunctive drinking is the result of an interaction between the tendency of rats to drink after eating and the ability of locally low probabilities of reinforcement within schedules to induce conditioned behavioral states. 相似文献
13.
Charles H. M. Beck Thomas J. S. Huh Dave G. Mumby Marian E. Fundytus 《Learning & behavior》1989,17(1):49-62
Food-deprived rats develop polydipsia on an intermittent schedule (fixed time 60 sec) of food pellet delivery, but not on an identical schedule of food powder delivery. This result was demonstrated with separate groups receiving each type of food and was replicated using rats as their own controls. Powdered food not only prevented the development of polydipsia, but it abruptly terminated ongoing polydipsia in rats that were switched from the scheduled delivery of pellets to powder. Ethological analysis of the behavior showed that the rats receiving powder were not engaging excessively in some behavior other than drinking. After discounting several factors, we concluded that the amount of oral activity associated with feeding, which occurred immediately after food delivery, was reciprocally related to the level of drinking. 相似文献
14.
Two experiments are described, which involved the investigation of interactions between the nature of the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the nature of the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) in producing signal-centered behavior. In Experiment 1, rats received response-independent heat reinforcement in a cold environment. For some groups, this heat UCS was signaled by presentations of a standard aluminum retractable lever; for other groups, it was signaled by a retractable lever covered in acrylic fur (furry lever CS). Only the subjects that received the furry lever CS paired with heat exhibited differential CS-contact behavior, when compared with unpaired, aluminum lever, and warm control subjects. In Experiment 2, hungry rats received pairings of either an aluminum or a furry lever with food (UCS). When compared with unpaired controls, only the subjects that received the aluminum lever paired with food showed differential signal-directed behavior; the subjects receiving the furry lever CS did not show differential contact with the CS, but instead exhibited differential food tray entry behavior during CS presentation. In the two studies, the signal-directed behavior exhibited by subjects resembled either thermoregulatory or feeding behaviors characteristic of rats. The results suggest that signal-directed behavior is determined by a complex interaction between the ecological relevance of the CS and the nature of the UCS—an interaction that can best be described in terms of a behavior systems model of conditioned responding. 相似文献
15.
T. J. Roper 《Learning & behavior》1981,9(4):433-440
The term “schedule-induced” implies that the overall frequency of a behavior is greater in the presence of an intermittent schedule of reinforcement than in the absence of such a schedule. Consequently, the occurrence of interreinforcement behavior is not in itself sufficient evidence of schedule induction: a test of induction requires comparison between an intermittent-schedule condition and a nonschedule baseline. The relative merits of different types of nonschedule baseline are examined, and it is concluded that the best test of schedule-induction involves both an extinction and a massed-reinforcer baseline. A working definition of schedule-induction is suggested on this basis. Studies purporting to show schedule induction of activities other than drinking are critically reviewed, and it is concluded that schedule induction may be less general than is usually supposed. It may therefore be more fruitful to seek an explanation of schedule-induced drinking which focuses specifically on the interaction between food and water ingestion in the rat, rather than an explanation involving concepts such as stress, frustration, or arousal. 相似文献
16.
The behavior of 4 rats living in complex environments was monitored 24 h per day during free-feeding baseline and under conditions of periodic access to food. Under the periodic schedules, the minimum interfood interval (IFI) was increased from 16 to 512 sec in an ascending series. Periodic food produced robust overall increases in investigation of the feeder, drinking, general activity, and rearing, but not in wheel-running. The temporal distribution of behavior within the IFI was similar across subjects and supported the hypothesis that some responses were largely time-locked to the period immediately following eating, while other responses expanded to fill the interval. However, these response differences were not adequately captured by present classification schemes. Finally, the distribution of drinking following a food pellet strongly resembled the distribution of drinking following bouts of feeding in baseline. The results suggest that adjunctive behavior stems from three sources: (1) a simple increase in the number of opportunities for expression of normal preprandial and postprandial behavior, (2) an increase in the preprandial behavior directed toward the site of expected food, and (3) an increase in the postprandial distribution of both site-directed and more general exploratory behavior. These findings suggest that adjunctive behavior is not extraneous, but is an orderly distribution of responses ordinarily related to feeding and foraging for food. 相似文献
17.
John H. Hull 《Learning & behavior》1977,5(2):207-212
Experiments 1, 2, and 3 showed that food-deprived rats responding for food pellets made significantly more long-duration leverpresses than water-deprived rats responding for water drops. These experiments further showed that this difference in instrumental response topography is long-lived, and depends neither upon idiosyncrasies of the experimental chamber nor upon severity of deprivation conditions. In Experiment 4, food-deprived rats responding for food pellets made significantly more long-duration leverpresses than did either food- or water-deprived rats responding for sucrose solution. Human judges in Experiment 5 were able to correctly identify instrumental leverpress responses by rats as being for food or water based solely on previous viewings of other rats drinking water or eating food pellets. It appears that instrumental response topographies in rats vary depending principally upon the reinforcer received, and that these instrumental response topographies resemble consummatory response topographies. 相似文献
18.
To examine the generality of the interreward response effects shown by rats under periodic food delivery, we presented .10 ml of water at minimum interwater intervals that ranged from 8 to 512 sec. Use of a 24-h multiresponse environment allowed evaluation of interdrink responses with respect to their excessiveness, patterning, and functional relationship to the interwater interval. In contrast to the extensive activity-inducing effects of periodic food, the only major excitatory effect of periodic water was increased attention to the water source. Although there were a few bitonic and direct relationships between interwater interval and changes in responding, the great majority of functions were inverse or inconsistent. Further, unlike the increase in drinking under periodic food, total eating decreased under periodic water. The major similarity with food reward was the apparent separation of interreward behavior into three general classes of reward-appropriate foraging responses: area-restricted search after reward, more general search (and waiting), and focal search preceding the next reward delivery. 相似文献
19.
Sated rats, previously trained to leverpress for H2O reinforcement on continuous or variable-interval (10-sec or 60-sec) schedules, were given NaCl injections and tested for leverpressing. Under all schedules, responding was an inverted U function of NaCl concentration (0.15M to 3.0M). However, NaCl thirst produced relatively little change in behavior under the VI 60-sec schedule. 相似文献
20.
Eight food-deprived Wistar rats developed stable patterns of lever pressing and licking when exposed to a fixed-time 30-s schedule of food pellet presentation. The rats were trained to lever press by presenting the lever 10 s before the programmed food delivery, with the food pellet being delivered immediately upon a lever press. The operant contingency was then removed and the lever was inserted through the entire interfood interval, being withdrawn with food delivery and reinserted 2 s later. On successive phases of the study, a protective contingency postponed food delivery if responses (lever presses or licks) occurred within the last 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, or 25 s of the interfood interval. Lever pressing was reduced at much shorter response–food delays than those that reduced licking. These results demonstrate that reinforcement contributes to the maintenance of different response patterns on periodic schedules, and that different responses are differentially sensitive to delays. 相似文献