Behavioral contrast and inhibitory stimulus control

Couch, James V.

doi:10.3758/bf03213459

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Earlier experiments with signalled reinforcement used naive subjects; two of the three naive subjects in the present experiment did show contrast, while subjects with prior training showed either no change or a slight decrease in S+ response rate. Since the effects of previous training on contrast have apparently not been examined in detail (but see Bloomfield, 1967;Couch, 1975) and since detailed histories of the nonnaive birds were unavailable, attributing the lack of contrast to previous training is quite speculative. However, in view of the substantial effects of experimental history on aspects of stimulus control such as attention (cf., Thomas, 1970), it may be worthwhile for future research to examine similar effects on contrast.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Line‐orientation Generalization Following Signalled‐reinforcer Training

Griffin

Stewart

1977

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three naive and three nonnaive pigeons key pecked for food on a multiple variable-interval 1-minute variable-interval 1-minute schedule with a black zero-degree vertical line on a white surround associated with one component and a black line shifted 30 degrees to the right (+30 degree) associated with the other component. Subsequently, a signalledreinforcer procedure was introduced in the +30 degree component, i.e., whenever the reinforcer was available for the next response, the key changed to blank white. Following this training, the original unsignalled-reinforcer condition was re-instated. Line orientation generalization tests were given at the end of signalled-reinforcer training and after the second unsignalled-reinforcer condition. The signalled-reinforcer procedure reduced response rate in the +30-degree conmponent in all subjects but facilitated responding during the zerodegree component (behavioral contrast) for two of the naive subjects only. However, average generalization gradients following signalled-reinforcer training indicated peak shift in two subjects and area shift in all five subjects that completed the experiment. There was no apparent relation between contrast and peak shift or degree of area shift. The data were interpreted as supporting the notion that the signalled-reinforcer procedure segments a variable-interval schedule into extinction and fixed ratio 1 segments.Key words: signalled reinforcement, area shift, peak shift, behavioral contrast, key peck, pigeonsSignalled reinforcement refers to a procedure in which a signal occurs whenever the reinforcer will be produced by the subject's next response. This procedure typically reduces response rate if it is imposed on either variable-interval (VI) schedules (Brownstein and Hughes, 1970;Lander, 1971;Thompson and Corr, 1974;Wilkie, 1973) or fixed-interval schedules (Brownstein and Newsom, 1970 signal is correlated with extinction (EXT). For example, if the signalled-reinforcer procedure is imposed on a VI schedule, it segments the schedule into EXT and fixed ratio 1 (FR 1) components. That is, the unsignalled portion of the signalled VI schedule (SIGVI) functions like EXT because the reinforcer does not occur, and the signalled portion functions like FR 1 because the reinforcer always follows the response. Thus, although total reinforcement frequency remains unchanged, the relative frequency in the unsignalled portion of SIGVI is reduced to zero.The preceding account of the suppressive effects of signalled reinforcement also bears upon explanations of positive behavioral contrast. In the paradigmatic procedure for producing such contrast (e.g., Reynolds, 1961), one component (S-) of a multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule (mult VI VI) is changed to EXT, which results in a decrease in response rate in that component. Contrast occurs if a concomitant increase in response rate is observed in the unchanged VI component (S+). Reynolds (1961)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Line‐orientation Generalization Following Signalled‐reinforcer Training

Griffin

Stewart

1977

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Stimulus control and delayed reinforcement

Richards

Marcattilio

1978

Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inhibitory control by one stimulus after an increase in the frequency of reinforcement associated with another stimulus

Richards

1978

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons were trained on a multiple variable-interval 5-min variable-interval 5-min schedule and then shifted to either a multiple variable-interval J-min variable-interval 5-min or a multiple variable-interval 30-sec variable-interval 5-min schedule. A generalization test was subsequently administered along the dimension containing the stimulus associated with the variable-interval 5-min component. The generalization gradients for subjects that received multiple variable-interval I-min variable-interval 5-min training were not consistent in shape. However, an incremental gradient was obtained from each subject that received multiple variable-interval 30-sec variable-interval 5-min training. Thus, a sufficiently large reduction in merely the relative frequency of reinforcement during a stimulus resulted in that stimulus' acquiring inhibitory control over responding. (Weisman, 1969) and with a longer delay of reinforcement than 81 (Richards, 1973(Richards, , 1974 Richards & Hittesdorf, 1976; Richards & Marcattilio, 1978). In these studies, the stimuli associated with the component schedules presumably were selected from orthogonal stimulus dimensions (with orthogonal stimulus dimensions, all stimuli on one dimension are equally distant from all stimuli on the other dimension), and the generalization test was conducted along the dimension containing 82. To the extent that incremental gradients are indicative of inhibitory stimulus control (as suggested by Jenkins, 1965;Rilling, 1977;Terrace, 1972), the aforementioned studies indicate that a stimulus associated with either extinction or a schedule of food reinforcement may exert inhibitory control over responding. Weisman (1969) suggested that a subject's prior reinforcement history is an important factor in determining whether a stimulus associated with a schedule of food reinforcement comes to have Reprints may be obtained from the author, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523. The author is grateful to A.J. Marcattilio for his help in collecting the present data. The apparent absence of negative behavioral contrast is not discussed because a control group was not run to assess the effects of extended training. inhibitory control over responding. Weisman found that only one of four pigeons that were switched from multiple VI (variable-interval) 5-min VI 5-min to a multiple VI l-min VI 5-min schedule showed an incremental gradient around 82, but all four pigeons switched from a multiple VI i-min VI l-min to a multiple VI l-min VI 5-min schedule showed an incremental gradient around 82. That is, whether or not an incremental gradient was obtained depended on the prior history of the subject. Weisman concluded that merely reducing the relative frequency of 82 reinforcement [frequency of 82 reinforcement -;-(frequency of 81 reinforcement + frequency of 82 reinforcement)] to less than 0.5 by increasing the absolute frequency of 81 reinforcement was not sufficient to convert 82 into an inhibitory stimulus. Rather, a reductio...

show abstract

Behavioral contrast and inhibitory stimulus control

Cited by 4 publications

References 12 publications

Line‐orientation Generalization Following Signalled‐reinforcer Training

Line‐orientation Generalization Following Signalled‐reinforcer Training

Stimulus control and delayed reinforcement

Inhibitory control by one stimulus after an increase in the frequency of reinforcement associated with another stimulus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About