Avoidance responses to rewarding brain stimulation: Replication and extension.

Gj, Mogenson

doi:10.1037/h0046763

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The acquisition data is contradictory to the results reported by Mogenson & Morrison (1962) and Mogenson (1964). Although there were some differences between the earlier Mogenson studies and the present one, Le., CS-US interval, locus of stimulation, and mode of CS termination on early trials, these differences would be expected to result in 192 between-study acquisition differences rather than in differences between groups within a particular study.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

“…Recent experiments by Mogenson & Morrison (1962) and Mogenson (1964) have shown that r ats receiving positively rewarding electrical stimulation of the brain require more trials to reach a criterion of a cquis iti on in a shuttle box avoidance task than animals r eceiving a neutral peripheral CS. Such an effect may be due to any of a number of factors: (1) The r ewarding brain shock may interfere with the consolidation of the memory trace (Olds & Olds, 1961) .…”

Section: Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Positively reinforcing brain shock as a CS in the acquisition and extinction of a shuttle box avoidance response

Stutz

Asdourian

1965

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It was predicted that animals receiving positively reinforcing electrical stimulation of the brain as a conditioned stimulus for a shuttle box avoidance response would extinguish faster than animals receiving a neutral peripheral stimulus a s a CS. The two groups did not differ in terms of ac quisiti on or extinction. ProblemRecent experiments by Mogenson & Morrison (1962) and Mogenson (1964) have shown that r ats receiving positively rewarding electrical stimulation of the brain require more trials to reach a criterion of a cquis iti on in a shuttle box avoidance task than animals r eceiving a neutral peripheral CS. Such an effect may be due to any of a number of factors: (1) The r ewarding brain shock may interfere with the consolidation of the memory trace (Olds & Olds, 1961) . (2) The positively reinforcing brain shock may caus e conflict. That is, since the stimulus is rewarding, anima ls may hesitate to make a response which terminates the CS. (3) The brain shock may reinforce incompatible responses . (4) The brain shock may attenuate the fear which has been hypothesized by Mowrer (1947) to motivate the avoidance response .Any of these effects would tend to keep animals in the presence of a CS for longer periods of time than would a neutral CS. According to the laws of classical conditioning, keeping an aima l in the presence of a CS without primary reinforcement, Le ., foot shock, should result in faster extinction of the fear and, hence, the avoidance response (Delude & Carlson , 1964). This study was designed to test the prediction that anima ls rece iving positively r einforcing brain shock as a CS during avoidance learning would exti nguish faster than animals receiving a peripheral neutral stimulus. IethodThe Ss were 20 male a lbino rats of the SpragueDawley strain, about 90 days old at the time of surgery. Bi-polar stimulating electrodes were implanted in the septal region and one week allowed for recovery. The animals were housed in individual cages with food and water available at a ll times .All Ss were tested for self-stimula ti on in a modified Skinner box . Depression of a bar delivered a 60 cps brain shock that could be varied from 0 to 200 I' a. A Hunter Interval Timer in the circuit prevented an animal from receiving more than .4 sec . sho ck for any given press . However, if the animal released the bar sooner Psychon . Sci. , 1965 , Vol. 3 than .4 sec ., the shock was immediately terminated . Current was adjusted so as to maintain stable bar pressing rates without producing motor effe cts or convuls ions (between 50-65 II a for all animals).The avoidance apparatus consisted of a shuttle box (28 x 11-1/2 x 17 in) with a floor constructed of 1/8 in brass rods placed about 1/2 in apa r t . Illumination was provided by two 25 watt bulbs mounted on the two sides of the apparatus . The box was divided into two equal sides by a barrier 2 in high. Suspended from the ceili ng was a flexible electrode lead which could be plugged into the animal's electrode. The sho ck circuit was a high-v...

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

Section: Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positively reinforcing brain shock as a CS in the acquisition and extinction of a shuttle box avoidance response

Stutz

Asdourian

1965

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rewarding ESB has been found to be an effective conditioned stimulus and also an effective discriminative stimulus in the classical conditioning situation (Hupka, 1970) and an effective conditioned stimulus for an avoidance response in the shuttle box (Mogenson, 1964;Mogenson & Morrison, 1962;Stutz & Asdourian, 1965), which is an instrumental conditioning situation. Furthermore, rewarding ESB has been found to be an effective discriminative stimulus in the operant conditioning (lever-pressing) situation Stutz, Butcher, & Rossi, 1969).…”

Section: Esb-produced Stimuli As Controlling Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences between behavior reinforced by electrical stimulation of the brain and conventionally reinforced behavior: An associative analysis.

Lenzer

1972

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature dealing with the differences between behavior maintained by rewarding brain stimulation and behavior maintained by conventional rewards is briefly reviewed. The literature is then interpreted in an associative framework, with the emphasis on specifying the stimuli that are controlling the behavior in each situation. The associative analysis shows that rewarding brain stimulation is different from conventional rewards in some fundamental respects, but that, nevertheless, the behavior maintained by rewarding brain stimulation does, in certain situations, resemble behavior maintained by conventional rewards. Brief critiques of some of the earlier theories are offered from the standpoint of the associative model.

show abstract

“…Several studies (Ellen & Powell, 1966;Mogenson, 1964;Mogenson & Morrison, 1962;Nielson, Knight, & Porter, 1962;Stutz & Asdourian, 1965) have shown that subcortical electrical stimulation does not differ markedly from exteroceptive stimulation in its ability to serve as a CS. Nielson et al (1962) investigated the possibility of stimulus generalization between 22 subcortical structures.…”

Section: Stimulus Generalization Within the Limbic System 1 Robert M ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus generalization within the limbic system.

Stutz¹

1968

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Avoidance responses to rewarding brain stimulation: Replication and extension.

Abstract: The present experiment has demonstrated that rats with simultaneously prepared septal-neocortieal ablations maintained states of hyperemotionality if they were not rated for 3 weeks. However, such was not the case for Show more

Cited by 8 publications

References 7 publications

Positively reinforcing brain shock as a CS in the acquisition and extinction of a shuttle box avoidance response

Positively reinforcing brain shock as a CS in the acquisition and extinction of a shuttle box avoidance response

Differences between behavior reinforced by electrical stimulation of the brain and conventionally reinforced behavior: An associative analysis.

Stimulus generalization within the limbic system.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About