Developmental aspects of passive and active avoidance learning in rats

Riccio, David C.; Rohrbaugh, Michael J.; Hodges, Louis A.

doi:10.1002/dev.420010208

Cited by 105 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This age difference was consistent with the results from previous developmental passive avoidance studies in which young rats required a greater number of shocks to suppression (Riccio, Rohrbaugh, & Hodges, 1968;Riccio & Schulenburg, 1969). However, this result was not consistent with that found in a previous punishment study (Ernst, 1970) in which there was not a significant difference between adult and young rats with the total-amount-of-shock measure.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

A developmental analysis of the relationship between response strength and punishment

Ernst

Yee

1975

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two levels of training (100 vs. 500 trials) and two ages of rats (young and adult) w~re used in a developmental analysis of the relationship between response strength and the effects of punishment. The apparatus was a Y maze with three discriminably different arms. After 100 or 500 reinforced trials, subjects were shocked each time they responded in one arm. The recovery sessions followed the punishment session. Results from the punishment day indicated that: (a) young rats received a greater amount of shock, and (b) additional training increased the amount of shock received by t?e young but decreased it in the adults. The recovery data showed that: (a) the suppressive effects of punishment were greater for the adults than for the young, and (b) the recovery scores were not influenced by degree of overtraining. The Age by Overtraining interaction suggested that the relationship between response strength and punishment is age dependent. The age differences found with the amount-of-shock and recovery measures provided additional support for the position that younger rats are less competent than adult rats in inhibiting responses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

A developmental analysis of the relationship between response strength and punishment

Ernst

Yee

1975

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, little systematic difference across ages has been found in the acquisition of active avoidance responding (e.g., Kirby, 1963;Riccio, Rohrbaugh, & Hodges, 1968), and similar generalization gradients of active avoidance behavior have been demonstrated in young and adult rats (cf. Brennan & Riccio, 1972b;Rohrbaugh, Brennan, & Riccio, 1971).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Differential response gradients to a Pavlovian safety signal following active avoidance training in young and adult rats

Brennan

1975

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following 300 training trials in two-way shuttle avoidance signaled by a tone (CS+), two groups each of weanling and adult rats were given Pavlovian discrimination training in which the CS+ was followed by inescapable shock, and a more intense tone (C8-) signaled no shock. An additional group at each age level received both tones paired randomly with shock or no shock. Subsequent generalization tests along the frequency dimension indicated that both pups and adults tested at the CS+ intensity showed similar gradients of frequency control. Gradients for the adults tested at the C8-intensity tended to be inverted, with least responding at C8-, a result not found in the young subjects. The results were considered in light of Pavlovian extradimensional influences on the control of avoidance behavior.

show abstract

“…More recently Porter & Thompson (1967) and Riccio, Rorbaugh, & Hodges (1968), using similar but less stringent measures than Thompson et ai, claimed support for the Kirby view. However, these two studies are not incompatible with that of Thompson et al as both sets of results show trends in this direction, and in fact Riccio et al do report one significant result, Lack of significance for the other results could well be accounted for by the comparatively small numbers of Ss and large within-group variances evident in these studies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%