Control of the Temporal Location of Polydipsic Licking in the Rat

Abstract

We studied the variables controlling the temporal location of polydipsic licking. Four rats were trained on a mixed fixed-ratio 10 (no tone) chained fixed-ratio 10 (no tone) fixed-ratio 90 (tone) schedule and on a multiple fixed-ratio 10 (tone) fixed ratio 100 (no tone) schedule. On the multiple schedule, drinking followed pellets if a fixed ratio 100 was upcoming for all four subjects and for two of the subjects if a fixed ratio 10 was upcoming. On the mixed schedule, drinking preceded the fixed-ratio 90 component of the chain. Two subjects also drank after pellet delivery on the mixed schedule before both the fixed ration 10 and the chain components. The number of licks was greater following a pellet than following a response. In a second phase with two of these subjects, the total response requirement of the chain was held constant at 100, while the size of the two ratios that constituted the chain was varied inversely. The tone signaled onset of the second link. Drinking followed the tone when it signaled fixed-ratio 90, 95, or 100 but not when it signaled fixed ratio 75, 80, or 85. These results show, on the one hand, that polydipsic licking is controlled by discriminative properties of the pellet rather than by its eliciting or "thirst-producing" characteristics. On the other hand, the fact that drinks were longer following a pellet than following a response suggests a contribution of thirst to polydipsia.

Factors affecting schedule-induced wood-chewing in rats: Percentage and rate of reinforcement, and operant requirement

“…In Experiment 1, we confirmed that omission of food substantially reduces both the probability and the bout duration of drinking, but found that omission had relatively little effect on the probability of induced wood-chewing and no significant effect on its bout duration. The fact that induced drinking is reduced, but not eliminated, by omission of food suggests that both the eliciting and the discriminative properties of food presentation contribute to the maintenance of SIP (see also Alferink, Bartness, &Harder, 1980, andHeyman &Bouzas, 1980, for a similar conclusion). One approach to explaining the differences between induced chewing, drinking, and aggression might therefore be to postulate differences in the relative contribution of eliciting and discriminative factors.…”

Schedule‐induced Drinking: Elicitation, Anticipation, or Behavioral Interaction?

“…What then of results showing that drinking occurs less reliably after nonfood stimuli, even if they have exactly the same predictive significance as food (e.g., Alferink et al, 1980;Allen & Porter, 1977;Rosenblith, 1970)? The answer may lie simply in the poorer (temporal) discriminative control exerted by nonfood stimuli (cf.…”

Stimulus‐ and Pellet‐induced Drinking During a Successive Discrimination

“…The latter outcome probably is responsible for the absence of stimulus-induced drinking in several studies because postpellet licking was established before exposure to S-(e.g., Dougan et al, 1985;Iversen, 1977;Jacquet, 1972;Porter et al, 1975;Rosenblith, 1970). In contrast, in all successful demonstrations of stimulus-induced drinking (Alferink et al, 1980;Corfield-Sumner et al, 1977;Minor & Coulter, 1982) Swas introduced before stable interim responding had developed.…”

“…Even though the brief stimuli lacked consummatory properties, drinking occurred after both events. Stimulus-induced drinking also occurred when a fixed-ratio 10 (FR 10) schedule alternated randomly with a chained FR 10 FR 90 schedule (Alferink, Bartness, & Harder, 1980). In this procedure, completion of 10 responses occasionally produced a stimulus that accompanied a long interval to reinforcement (i.e., the FR 90 link of the chain).…”

“…Robust stimulus-induced drinking has not been obtained under these conditions. In contrast, Swas introduced at the start of training in all successful demonstrations of the phenomenon (Alferink et al, 1980;Corfield-Sumner et al, 1977;Minor & Coulter, 1982). Because of the tendency of rats to alternate bouts of eating and drinking (Kissileff, 1969), food may be more relevant to drinking than are other events (see Millenson, Allen & Pinker, 1977;Minor & Coulter, 1982, for a thorough discussion).…”