2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2017.04.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A bout analysis of operant response disruption

Abstract: Operant behavior appears to be organized in bouts of responses, whose parameters are differentially sensitive to various manipulations. This study investigated potential differential effects of three forms of operant response disruption—extinction (EXT), non-contingent reinforcement (NCR), and prefeeding (PRE)—on response bouts. In Experiment 1, Wistar Kyoto rats (WKY) were trained on a tandem variable-time (VT) 120 s fixed-ratio (FR) 5 schedule of reinforcement; after stability was established, their respondi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is important to note that inferences on motivational and motoric effects are based on the distribution of inter-response times (IRTs). Although these inferences are well validated (Brackney et al, 2011, 2017; Brackney & Sanabria, 2015), they hinge on key assumptions about the distribution of IRTs, which the present data appear to meet (Figure 4). Nonetheless, recent research suggests that IRT distributions are generated from processes more complicated than those assumed here (e.g., Tanno, 2016).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 58%
“…It is important to note that inferences on motivational and motoric effects are based on the distribution of inter-response times (IRTs). Although these inferences are well validated (Brackney et al, 2011, 2017; Brackney & Sanabria, 2015), they hinge on key assumptions about the distribution of IRTs, which the present data appear to meet (Figure 4). Nonetheless, recent research suggests that IRT distributions are generated from processes more complicated than those assumed here (e.g., Tanno, 2016).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 58%
“…Such organization suggests that behavior fluctuates in and out of schedule-controlled states. This behavioral fluctuation appears to be a function of the schedule type (ratio or interval; Killeen & Hall, 2001; Reed, 2011; Tanno, 2016), reinforcement rate (Brackney, Cheung, Neisewander, & Sanabria, 2011; Conover et al, 2001; Daniels & Sanabria, 2016; Shull, 2011; Shull et al, 2001; Shull, Grimes, & Bennett, 2004), and reinforcer efficacy (Brackney et al, 2011; Brackney, Cheung, & Sanabria, 2017; Daniels & Sanabria, 2016; Shull, 2004).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Between-bout IRTs appear to be selectively sensitive to changes in reinforcer efficacy and rate of reinforcement (Brackney et al, 2011, 2017; Cheung et al, 2012; Podlesnik, Jimenez-Gomez, Ward, & Shahan, 2006; Shull, 2004; Shull et al, 2001; Shull, Gaynor, & Grimes, 2002; Shull & Grimes, 2003; Shull et al, 2004; but see Conover et al, 2001). In contrast, bout length appears to be sensitive to changes in the response-reinforcer contingencies (Brackney et al, 2011, 2017; Brackney & Sanabria, 2015; Shull et al, 2001; Smith, McLean, Shull, Hughes, & Pitts, 2014; Tanno, 2016). In particular, the length of NB bouts, but not of Geo bouts, appears to be shaped by and centered around response requirements (Brackney & Sanabria, 2015).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…2017b; Johnson, Pesek, & Christopher Newland, 2009;Shull, 2004;Shull, Gaynor, & Grimes, 2001) and rate of reinforcement (Brackney et al, 2017;Cheung, Neisewander, & Sanabria, 2012;Reed, 2011Reed, , 2015Reed, Smale, Owens, & Freegard, 2018;Shull et al, 2001;Shull & Grimes, 2003;Shull, Grimes, & Bennett, 2004), and w and L are sensitive to changes in contingency requirements (Brackney et al, 2011;Brackney et al, 2017;Brackney & Sanabria, 2015;Chen & Reed, 2020;Reed, 2011;Reed et al, 2018;Shull et al, 2001;Shull & Grimes, 2003;Shull et al, 2004;Tanno, 2016). Thus, the parameters of the microstructure of operant behavior appear to index two of the three necessary conditions for operant performance (Killeen, 1994;Killeen & Sitomer, 2003;Sanabria, 2019): incentive motivation (b) and response-outcome association learning (w and L).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%