Consummatory response latency and the stimulus-reinforcer relation in autoshaping

Abstract

Autoshaping procedures with pigeons were used to assess the susceptibility of unconditioned response (UR) activity to Pavlovian relations between stimulus and reinforcer events. Foodpeck latency (a measure of UR activity) was investigated as a function of the interval between stimulus (keylight) and reinforcer (grain) presentations, and of the stimulus-reinforcer contingency, that is, the conditional probabilities of reinforcer delivery in the presence and absence of the stimulus. Four experiments indicated that food-peck latency was sensitive to both manipulations. Generally, conditions that led to higher keypeck rates were 8S!iociated with shorter latencies. Thus, UR potentiation was demonstrated. However, when the bird's location prior to grain delivery was fixed by imposing a keypeck-reinforcer contingency, UR potentiation vanished; it then reappeared when the location constraint was removed. Visual observations supported the conclusion that food-peck latency effects were mediated by approach/withdrawal tendencies generated by the stimulus-reinforcer relation. Implications of these results for expectancy theory are discussed.

Effects of Primary Reinforcement on Pigeons' Initial‐link Responding Under a Concurrent‐chains Schedule With Nondifferential Terminal Links

“…Because one can assume that it takes the bird some time to switch from pecking at the center key to pecking at the food in the hopper, the 1-s reinforcer did not actually represent access to food for one full second as scheduled. (For an experiment investigating food-peck latencies with 1-s hopper durations, see Brown, Coleman, & Elefant, 1983.) However, regardless of the amount of food that could be consumed when the 1-s alternative was chosen, the stimulus changes associated with reinforcement presentation were identical for the 1-s and the 6-s alternatives.…”

Effects of Food‐pellet Size on Rate, Latency, and Topography of Autoshaped Key Pecks and Gapes in Pigeons

“…Note that B. Brown et al (1983) reported that UR potentiation did not, in fact, occur with pigeons and autoshaping. But they assessed changes in the UR in terms of latency to approach food, which, in contrast to the gape measure in our study, is not an obvious measure of topography.…”

“…Second, differential peck rates may have reflected the pigeons' tendency to remain close to the right key because of prior reinforcement (cf. B. Brown, Coleman, & Elefant, 1983), thus decreasing performance on the left key.…”

Aping Newtonian physics but ignoring brute facts will not transform Skinnerian psychology into genuine science or useful technology

“…The target article provides a new and, perhaps, more general language for discussing issues that have been treated by various theories of operant-Pavlovian interactions (Davis & Hurwitz 1977;Locurto 1981;Rescorla & Solomon 1967;Williams 1981). These issues include the influence of feedback on the form of the Pavlovian conditioned responses (Konorski & Miller 1937;) and the modulation of operant (Rescorla & Solomon 1967) and unconditioned responses (UR's) (Brown et al 1983;Kimmel 1966) by Pavlovian conditioned stimuli (CS's). The emphasis in this article is on how the Pavlovian component contributes to the adaptiveness of behavior (cf.…”