Adjunctive behavior of the rat under periodic food delivery in a 24-hour environment

Lucas, Gary A.; Timberlake, William; Gawley, Donald J.

doi:10.3758/bf03209039

Cited by 35 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the extensive work on adjunctive behavior, there has been relatively little attention paid to interreward responses other than drinking and to rewards other than food (Roper, 1981). The contrast of the present results based on water with those of Lucas et al (1988) based on food, with the same kind of environment used for both studies, should provide insight into both the general and specific determinants of adjunctive and anticipatory behavior.…”

contrasting

confidence: 49%

“…We used an extended range of interwater intervals, from 8 to 512 sec. The results were compared to the previously reported effects of periodic water in shorter sessions and to the effects of periodic food in the same 24-h environment (Lucas et al, 1988). The use of the 24-h environment allowed convergent ways of measuring excessive behavior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…General-activity responses are less reflexive and expand to fill the interreward interval, such as in wheelrunning. Lucas, Timberlake, and Gawley (1988) combined aspects of both schemes with a category of focused anticipatory responses in viewing interfood behavior as the expression of a cycle of foraging. In this view, responding immediately after ingestion constitutes time-bound, area-restricted search and is followed by the transitional responses of drinking and rearing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is also possible to use conditional response probabilities to provide an estimate of local excessiveness that is not biased by changes in the amount of time that is available for responding. Fourth, the variety of possible responses, including eating, drinking, restless activity, wood chewing, rearing, wheelrunning, and nesting, allows an extensive examination of the classification systems proposed by Staddon (1977), Cohen et al (1985), and Lucas et al (1988).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of a 24-h environment with many available responses (Lucas et al, 1988) has several advantages for the study of adjunctive behavior (see also Petersen & Lyon, 1978). First, measurement of free responding provides an undisturbed, complete, and "ecologically fair" baseline for determining the excessiveness of responding under subsequent intermittent reward (see Roper, 1981).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Periodic water, interwater interval, and adjunctive behavior in a 24-hour multiresponse environment

Timberlake

Lucas

1991

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.Thirty years after Falk (1961) called attention to interreward adjunctive behavior in the form of excessive postpellet drinking under periodic food delivery, the characteristics and causation of such behavior remain controversial (Reid & Staddon, 1986;Riley & Wetherington, 1989;Roper, 1981;Wetherington, 1982). Among the points of contention are the following: to what extent adjunctive responses are excessive, whether the relationship between adjunctive responding and reward frequency is direct or bitonic (Reid, Vazquez, & Rico, 1985), the number and nature of classes of adjunctive behavior, and whether adjunctive responding is similar under both food and water rewards (Rachlin & Krasnoff, 1983;Reid et al., 1985;Wetherington & Riley, 1985). This paper examines how these issues apply to a wide variety of interreward responses in a 24-h environment.A major difficulty with the assessment of adjunctive behavior has been the lack of a precise definition of excessiveness. Despite extensive debate, there is continued disagreement over the proper comparison condition (see Falk, 1971;Roper, 1981;Staddon, 1977;Timberlake, 1982). Another difficulty is the nature of the relationship between reward frequency and adjunctive responding. Although a bitonic relationship between reward frequency and total adjunctive responding is well supported (e.g, Falk, 1969Falk, , 1971Falk, ,1977Wetherington, 1982), recent investigators have focused on a direct relationship between reThis research was supported by NIMH Grant MH37892. The authors wish to thankHillary Case for her extensive help with data analysis and Andy Delamater for his comments. Correspondence should be addressed to William Timberlake, Psychology Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405. ward frequency and the interreward rate of responding (i.e., response rate is highest at the shortest interreward intervals-see Killeen, Hanson, & Osborne, 1978;Staddon, 1977...

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 49%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations