AUTO‐SHAPING OF THE PIGEON'S KEY‐PECK<sup>1</sup>

Brown, Paul; Jenkins, H. M.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1968.11-1

Cited by 1,539 publications

(812 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

780

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Baum (1993) concluded that pausing was a respondent process controlled mainly by the reinforcement rate. These results may be related to research showing the development of schedule-induced interim behavior on responseindependent schedules of reinforcement (e.g., Brown & Jenkins, 1968;Staddon & Simmelhag, 1971;see Staddon, 1977, for a review).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Timing in Choice Experiments.

Jozefowiez

Cerutti²,

Staddon³

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiment 1, pigeons chose between variable-and fixed-interval schedules. The timer for 1 schedule was reset by a reinforcement on that schedule or on either schedule. In both cases, the pigeons timed reinforcement on each schedule from trial onset. The data further suggest that their behavior reflects 2 independent processes: 1 deciding when a response should be emitted and responsible for the timing of the overall activity, and the other determining what this response should be and responsible for the allocation of behavior between the 2 response keys. Results from Experiment 2, which studied choice between 2 fixed-interval schedules, support those 2 conclusions. These results have implications for the study of operant choice in general.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Timing in Choice Experiments.

Jozefowiez

Cerutti²,

Staddon³

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Crucial to the understanding of sign-tracking, the US is delivered regardless of what the subject does. Repeated CS-US pairings lead to the acquisition of the Pavlovian sign-tracking CR, which is a complex sequence of motor responses directed at the CS (Brown and Jenkins, 1968; for review, see Tomie et al, *Corresponding Author. Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ USA 08903.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral characteristics and neurobiological substrates shared by Pavlovian sign-tracking and drug abuse

Tomie

Grimes

Pohorecky

2008

Brain Research Reviews

153

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drug abuse researchers have noted striking similarities between behaviors elicited by Pavlovian signtracking procedures and prominent symptoms of drug abuse. In Pavlovian sign-tracking procedures, repeated paired presentations of a small object (conditioned stimulus, CS) with a reward (unconditioned stimulus, US) elicits a conditioned response (CR) that typically consists of approaching the CS, contacting the CS, and expressing consummatory responses at the CS. Signtracking CR performance is poorly controlled and exhibits spontaneous recovery and long-term retention, effects that resemble relapse. Sign-tracking resembles psychomotor activation, a syndrome of behavioral responses evoked by addictive drugs, and the effects of sign-tracking on corticosterone levels and activation of dopamine pathways resemble the neurobiological effects of abused drugs. Finally, the neurobiological profile of individuals susceptible to sign-tracking resembles the pathophysiological profile of vulnerability to drug abuse, and vulnerability to sign-tracking predicts vulnerability to impulsive responding and alcohol self-administration. Implications of sign-tracking for models of drug addiction are considered.

show abstract

“…For example, individuals with a propensity to form and respond to Pavlovian stimulus-reward associations have been suggested to be more vulnerable to addictive drugs (Tomie, 1996). It is therefore important to understand the neural mechanisms by which animals learn associations between stimuli and rewards, and the manner in which such associations control behavior.Autoshaping (Brown & Jenkins, 1968) is a measure of Pavlovian stimulus-reward learning in which subjects approach a CS that predicts reward. In a typical autoshaping task designed for use with rats , a visual stimulus (CSϩ) is presented on a computer screen and followed by delivery of food at a different location.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of selective excitotoxic lesions of the nucleus accumbens core, anterior cingulate cortex, and central nucleus of the amygdala on autoshaping performance in rats.

Cardinal¹,

Parkinson²,

Lachenal³

et al. 2002

Behavioral Neuroscience

174

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nucleus accumbens core (AcbC), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and central nucleus of the amygdala (CeA) are required for normal acquisition of tasks based on stimulus-reward associations. However, it is not known whether they are involved purely in the learning process or are required for behavioral expression of a learned response. Rats were trained preoperatively on a Pavlovian autoshaping task in which pairing a visual conditioned stimulus (CSϩ) with food causes subjects to approach the CSϩ while not approaching an unpaired stimulus (CSϪ). Subjects then received lesions of the AcbC, ACC, or CeA before being retested. AcbC lesions severely impaired performance; lesioned subjects approached the CSϩ significantly less often than controls, failing to discriminate between the CSϩ and CSϪ. ACC lesions also impaired performance but did not abolish discrimination entirely. CeA lesions had no effect on performance. Thus, the CeA is required for learning, but not expression, of a conditioned approach response, implying that it makes a specific contribution to the learning of stimulus-reward associations.Environmental stimuli that are associated with rewarding events thereby gain motivational significance through Pavlovian conditioning processes. Appetitive conditioned stimuli (CSs) have many properties, among which is the ability to attract attention and elicit approach (Hearst & Jenkins, 1974;Tomie, Brooks, & Zito, 1989). This conditioned approach response often has the beneficial function of drawing animals (including humans) closer to sources of natural rewards, such as food, but it may also play a detrimental role in attracting humans toward artificial reinforcers such as drugs of abuse, maintaining addiction and inducing relapse (Altman et al., 1996;Tiffany, 1990). For example, individuals with a propensity to form and respond to Pavlovian stimulus-reward associations have been suggested to be more vulnerable to addictive drugs (Tomie, 1996). It is therefore important to understand the neural mechanisms by which animals learn associations between stimuli and rewards, and the manner in which such associations control behavior.Autoshaping (Brown & Jenkins, 1968) is a measure of Pavlovian stimulus-reward learning in which subjects approach a CS that predicts reward. In a typical autoshaping task designed for use with rats , a visual stimulus (CSϩ) is presented on a computer screen and followed by delivery of food at a different location. A second stimulus (CSϪ) is also presented but never followed by food. Though the subject's behavior has no effect on food delivery, normal rats develop a conditioned response in which they selectively approach the food-predictive CS before returning to the food hopper to retrieve the primary reward. The autoshaped conditioned approach response is generally held to be under the control of Pavlovian, not instrumental, contingencies (Browne, 1976;Jenkins & Moore, 1973;Mackintosh, 1974;Williams & Williams, 1969), and this has been confirmed for the rat autoshaping task described .A...

show abstract

AUTO‐SHAPING OF THE PIGEON'S KEY‐PECK¹

Abstract: Reliable acquistion of the pigeon's key‐peck response resulted from repeated unconditional (response‐independent) presentations of food after the response key was illuminated momentarily. Comparison groups showed that acquisition was dependent upon light—food pairings, in that order.

Cited by 1,539 publications

References 14 publications

Timing in Choice Experiments.

Timing in Choice Experiments.

Behavioral characteristics and neurobiological substrates shared by Pavlovian sign-tracking and drug abuse

Effects of selective excitotoxic lesions of the nucleus accumbens core, anterior cingulate cortex, and central nucleus of the amygdala on autoshaping performance in rats.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

AUTO‐SHAPING OF THE PIGEON'S KEY‐PECK1

Cited by 1,539 publications

References 14 publications

Timing in Choice Experiments.

Timing in Choice Experiments.

Behavioral characteristics and neurobiological substrates shared by Pavlovian sign-tracking and drug abuse

Effects of selective excitotoxic lesions of the nucleus accumbens core, anterior cingulate cortex, and central nucleus of the amygdala on autoshaping performance in rats.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

AUTO‐SHAPING OF THE PIGEON'S KEY‐PECK¹