An interpretation of autoshaping and related phenomena in terms of stimulus-incentive contingencies alone.

Lajoie, Jacques; Bindra, Dalbir

doi:10.1037/h0082057

Cited by 32 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(59 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The studies described above are in agreement with a number of others that have shown that sign-tracking is not due to "accidental reinforcement" of the response and that is persists even when it leads to loss of reinforcement (see Gamzu and Williams, 1971;Killeen, 2003;Lajoie and Bindra, 1976;Timberlake and Lucas, 1985). Despite these findings, some researchers have questioned the role of Pavlovian (stimulus-stimulus) processes in sign-tracking behavior and have claimed that such behavior may be due to response reinforcement (e.g., see Farwell and Ayres, 1979;Locurto et al, 1976;Locurto, 1981;Myerson et al, 1979;Sanabria et al, 2006;Wessels, 1974).…”

Section: Sign-trackingsupporting

confidence: 78%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Individual differences in the attribution of incentive salience to reward-related cues: Implications for addiction

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryDrugs of abuse acquire different degrees of control over thoughts and actions based not only on the effects of drugs themselves, but also on predispositions of the individual. Those individuals who become addicted are unable to shift their thoughts and actions away from drugs and drug-associated stimuli. Thus in addicts, exposure to places or things (cues) that have been previously associated with drug-taking often instigates renewed drug-taking. We and others have postulated that drugassociated cues acquire the ability to maintain and instigate drug-taking behavior in part because they acquire incentive motivational properties through Pavlovian (stimulus-stimulus) learning. In the case of compulsive behavioral disorders, including addiction, such cues may be attributed with pathological incentive value ("incentive salience"). For this reason, we have recently begun to explore individual differences in the tendency to attribute incentive salience to cues that predict rewards. When discrete cues are associated with the non-contingent delivery of food or drug rewards some animals come to quickly approach and engage the cue even if it is located at a distance from where the reward will be delivered. In these animals the reward-predictive cue itself becomes attractive, eliciting approach towards it, presumably because it is attributed with incentive salience. Animals that develop this type of conditional response are called "sign-trackers". Other animals, "goal-trackers", do not approach the reward-predictive cue, but upon cue presentation they immediately go to the location where food will be delivered (the "goal"). For goal-trackers the reward-predictive cue is not attractive, presumably because it is not attributed with incentive salience. We review here preliminary data suggesting that these individual differences in the tendency to attribute incentive salience to cues predictive of reward may confer vulnerability or resistance to compulsive behavioral disorders, including addiction. It will be important, therefore, to study how environmental, neurobiological and genetic interactions determine the extent to which individuals attribute incentive value to reward-predictive stimuli.

show abstract

Section: Sign-trackingsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Taken together, all of these factors contribute to the incentive motivational state of the animal and thus affect the degree to which the CS acquires incentive motivational properties (Lajoie and Bindra, 1976).…”

Section: Individual Differences In the Attribution Of Incentive Saliementioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in the attribution of incentive salience to reward-related cues: Implications for addiction

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rozeboom, 1958) remain. The answer to Kamin's question is all the more important because recent theoretical work suggests that a single, unified reinforcement principle may accommodate conditioning within both the classical and operant paradigms (Donahoe et al, 1982;Lajoie & Bindra, 1976).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attenuation of blocking by a change in US locus

Stickney

Donahoe

1983

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, rats will acquire a conditioned response (CR) in which they will approach, contact, and bite a lever conditioned stimulus (CS) that signals the delivery of a food unconditioned stimulus (US). Sign-tracking is a key model for studying behavioral and neural mechanisms of normal and excessive motivational attraction to reward-paired stimuli (Lajoie and Bindra 1976;Berridge 2004;Tomie et al 2008;Flagel et al 2010;Robinson and Berridge 2013;Huys et al 2014;Robinson et al 2014). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An omission procedure reorganizes the microstructure of sign-tracking while preserving incentive salience

Chang

Smith

2016

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Appetitive sign-tracking, in which reward-paired cues elicit approach that can result in cue interaction, demonstrates how cues acquire motivational value. For example, rats will approach and subsequently interact with a lever insertion cue that signals food delivery upon its retraction. However, lever deflections are rapidly reduced once rats are trained on an omission schedule in which lever interactions cancel food delivery. Here we evaluated the change in sign-tracking response topography in rats exposed to such an omission procedure. Lever deflections dropped precipitously when they canceled reward. However, rats that were on an omission schedule continued to approach, sniff, and contact the lever without pressing it, and did so at comparable rates to rats that were not under an omission schedule. Thus, sign-tracking was maintained, albeit in a different manner, following omission. Such findings show that the motivational attraction to reward cues can be expressed with remarkable persistence and flexibility.[Supplemental material is available for this article.]Appetitive sign-tracking is a phenomenon in which a rewardpaired cue elicits approach that can result in cue interaction (Brown and Jenkins 1968;Jenkins and Moore 1973;Hearst and Jenkins 1974;Boakes 1977). For example, rats will acquire a conditioned response (CR) in which they will approach, contact, and bite a lever conditioned stimulus (CS) that signals the delivery of a food unconditioned stimulus (US). Sign-tracking is a key model for studying behavioral and neural mechanisms of normal and excessive motivational attraction to reward-paired stimuli (Lajoie and Bindra 1976;Berridge 2004;Tomie et al. 2008;Flagel et al. 2010;Robinson and Berridge 2013;Huys et al. 2014;Robinson et al. 2014).Negative automaintenance, in which a lever press cancels reward, has been used to show that sign-tracking can be markedly sensitive to instrumental contingency changes (Williams and Williams 1969;Stiers and Silberberg 1974;Locurto et al. 1976), suggesting a sensitivity to response-reward associations (Skinner 1992). For example, Locurto et al. (1976) have found that lever contacts after sign-tracking are markedly reduced in rats moved to an omission schedule, with similar rates of lever contacts compared with rats exposed to extinction or random cue/reward delivery. However, typically, sign-tracking does not decline to zero (Atnip 1977;Eldridge and Pear 1987;Schwartz and Williams 1972a;Stiers and Silberberg 1974;Woodard et al. 1974), suggesting some motivational persistence as well. Thus, sign-tracking CRs may be partly sensitive to contingency and partly under control of motivational forces that promote its persistence.Generally, it remains unclear to what quantitative extent the motivational attraction to the CS actually declines along with the declining CR when it cancels reward. Is the incentive value of the CS retained but masked by reduced lever pressing measures, or is it reduced as well?To clarify this issue, we studied the response topography of sign-trac...

show abstract

An interpretation of autoshaping and related phenomena in terms of stimulus-incentive contingencies alone.

Cited by 32 publications

References 42 publications

Individual differences in the attribution of incentive salience to reward-related cues: Implications for addiction

Individual differences in the attribution of incentive salience to reward-related cues: Implications for addiction

Attenuation of blocking by a change in US locus

An omission procedure reorganizes the microstructure of sign-tracking while preserving incentive salience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About