Adjunctive drinking during variable and random-interval food reinforcement schedules

Millenson, J. R.; Allen, Robert B.; Pinker, Steven

doi:10.3758/bf03209241

Cited by 26 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, the results of the present study replicate those of Lashley and Rosellini (1980) and are consistent with those of Millenson et al (1977) in demonstrating that the development of SIP is prevented or retarded when food is delivered on random schedules. More importantly, the present results show that such a schedule can support polydipsia when pellet availability is signaled by a brief stimulus that is simultaneous with pellet dispenser operation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Therefore, the Pavlovian conditioning hypothesis predicts that SIP should be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain on these schedules. In support of this prediction, Millenson et al (1977) found that six of eight animals did not develop polydipsia when food was delivered on a RI 60-sec schedule. Similarly, Lashley and Rosellini (1980) did not observe the development of polydipsia in four of six animals exposed to an unsignaled, RT l20-sec schedule.…”

supporting

confidence: 64%

“…Recently, Millenson, Allen, and Pinker (1977) and Lashley and Rosellini (1980) have proposed that scheduleinduced behaviors may be modulated by Pavlovian conditioning of motivational states (see also Minor & Coulter, 1982). This view holds that an important determinant of these behaviors is that the inducing schedule establish a conditioned inhibitor (CS -), either through specific presentations of external signals or through temporal conditioning (Pavlov, 1927).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Do random time schedules induce polydipsia in the rat?

Plonsky

Driscoll

Warren

et al. 1984

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present experiments investigated the role of signals for pellet delivery in the development of polydipsia on random time schedules. In Experiment 1, when an explicit signal or auditory stimulation from pellet dispenser operation was available to the rats, polydipsia developed in all ofthe animals. In Experiment 2, animals receiving signaled pellet deliveries developed polydipsia more quickly than those receiving unsignaled pellet deliveries. Furthermore, behavioral observations suggested that animals showing polydipsia in the unsignaled group may have been able to detect the operation of the pellet dispenser despite our attempt to mask such cues. In Experiment 3, the information value of pellet-dispenser cues was degraded by the operation of an empty pellet dispenser during the interpellet interval. Under these conditions, almost all animals did not develop polydipsia and the data suggest that for the few that did, pellet-dispenser cues were probably not responsible. Thus, the present findings suggest two conclusions: (1) In studies reporting polydipsia on random schedules, the animals may have been inadvertently provided with cues for pellet availability, and (2) although Pavlovian conditioning may be an important modulator of adjunctive behavior, other factors must also be considered.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

supporting

confidence: 64%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do random time schedules induce polydipsia in the rat?

Plonsky

Driscoll

Warren

et al. 1984

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…of the water tube, drinking typically occurs in, and is restricted to, this CS -period. Different reinforcement schedules that generate different patterns of food delivery are likely to differ in the probability of occurrence and!or duration of these periods associated with no food (Lashley & Rosellini, 1980;Millenson, Allen, & Pinker, 1977). For example, under a fixed-time (FT) schedule, food is delivered to the animal with a constant interpellet interval, independently of its behavior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A reevaluation of the CS− hypothesis for schedule-induced polydipsia under intermittent schedules of pellet delivery

Shurtleff

Delamater

Riley

1983

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lashley and Rosellini (1980) have recently suggested that schedule-induced polydipsia (SIP) is determined by the occurrence of absolute periods within schedules of periodic food delivery which are associated with a low probability of food delivery, that is, CS-periods. To asseS8 this hypothesis, SIP was examined in the present experiments under three schedules-fixed time, variable time, and random time (RT)-which differed in probability of occurrence and/or duration (Experiment 1), and under a range of RT schedules in which the CS-period was systematically varied by changing the interpellet interval (Experiment 2). In both experiments, the level and temporal distribution of SIP did not seem to be related to the absolute period associated with the absence of food. Instead, SIP was more systematically related to the average length of the interpellet interval and, therefore, to the average period associated with no food. It was suggested that drinking under intermittent schedules of pellet delivery, that is, SIP, is determined by an average CS-period and not by an absolute period associated with the unavailability of food.

show abstract

“…According to this view, schedule-induced drinking is minimal with short IRIs, it increases as the IRI increases, but it declines again with very long IRIs (Falk, 1966b). Similarly, adjunctive drinking is reduced when food delivery is scheduled according to a random-interval schedule, yielding food at a constant probability in time (Millenson, Allen, & Pinker, 1977; but see Plonsky, Driscoll, Warren, & Rosellini, 1984). Interestingly, inserting a minimum postreinforcement interval during which food was not available increase drinking in a random-interval schedule (Shurtleff, Delamater, & Riley, 1983).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%