Behavioral functions of stimuli signaling transitions across rich and lean schedules of reinforcement

Abstract

On multiple fixed-ratio schedules, pausing is extended at the start of a component ending in a small reinforcer (a lean component) but only when this component follows a component ending in a large reinforcer (a rich component). In two experiments, we assessed whether a stimulus correlated with a lean component is aversive and how its function is affected by the preceding component. In Experiment 1, pigeons responded on mixed fixed-ratio schedules ending in large or small reinforcers. Observing responses converted the mixed schedule to a multiple one by producing a stimulus correlated with the current component. Overall, the lean stimulus did not suppress observing, suggesting that it was not sufficiently aversive. In Experiment 2, an escape procedure was used, and pigeons could convert a multiple schedule to a mixed one by pecking a key to remove the discriminative stimuli. Pigeons escaped from the lean-schedule stimulus more than they did from the rich one. For two pigeons, this effect was enhanced when a rich component preceded the lean stimulus. The results indicate that a stimulus correlated with the leaner of two reinforcement schedules can acquire aversive functions, but observing and escape procedures may differ in their abilities to detect this effect.

Effects of negative incentive shifts in food reward on rats' consumption of concurrent ethanol solutions

“…Although this was the first study to investigate the effects of negative incentive shifts in food reinforcement on ethanol self-administration, our results are consistent with past findings showing that these transitions generate behavioral disruption in the form of extended pausing (Bejarano et al, 2003;Everly et al, 2014;Galuska & Sawyer, 2017;Galuska et al, 2007;Galuska & Yadon, 2011;Harris et al, 2012;Jessel et al, 2016;Perone & Courtney, 1992;Retzlaff et al, 2017;Wade-Galuska, et al, 2005;Williams et al, 2011). Throughout all conditions in the present study, the negative incentive shift produced the longest pause durations in each rat.…”

“…The favored explanation for this prolonged pausing during large-to-small transitions is that it functions as a form of escape from an aversive aspect of the schedule, such as the period following reinforcer delivery when the next reinforcer is not likely to be impending (Everly, Holton, & Perone, 2014;Perone, 2003). Additionally, they will peck to remove schedule-correlated stimuli (Everly et al, 2014), thus further substantiating that stimuli associated with negative incentive shifts are aversive. Additionally, they will peck to remove schedule-correlated stimuli (Everly et al, 2014), thus further substantiating that stimuli associated with negative incentive shifts are aversive.…”

Advance Notice for Transition-Related Problem Behavior: Practice Guidelines

“…It was demonstrated that the lean "task" was not the cause of this "noncompliance" because transitions from lean-to-lean did not produce long pauses. The rich-to-lean transition was shown to be aversive because animals will emit escape responses that place them in time-out in response to signaled transitions predominantly in the rich-tolean transition compared to transitions from lean to rich conditions or between two rich and two lean conditions (Everly et al 2014;Perone 2003). Individuals with IDD and histories of self-injury also were more likely to self-injure during richto-lean transitions in a laboratory setting (DeLeon et al 2005).…”

Aversive properties of negative incentive shifts in Fischer 344 and Lewis rats

“…Prior research suggests that negative incentive shifts represent a source of aversive stimulation that occasions escape or extended response latencies when no explicit escape option is available [24, 25]. The Fischer 344 strain difference in negative contrast effects supports the emotionality account based on convergent biobehavioral evidence suggesting that Fischer 344 rats' behavior shows greater sensitivity to aversive stimulation compared to Lewis rats [39].…”

“…Dependent measures were the percentage of escape/time spent escaping and response latency to the first key peck, when the explicit escape option was removed. Results shows stimuli associated with a negative incentive shift prompt escape responses providing evidence that the negative incentive shift was aversive [24, 25]. Also, in the absence of an explicit escape response, response latencies may be an index of the aversiveness of the negative incentive shift.…”