Differences in the Effect of Pavlovian Contingencies Upon Behavioral Momentum Using Auditory Versus Visual Stimuli

Abstract

We examined the role of Pavlovian and operant relations in behavioral momentum by arranging response-contingent alternative reinforcement in one component of a three-component multiple concurrent schedule with rats. This permitted the simultaneous arranging of different responsereinforcer (operant) and stimulus-reinforcer (Pavlovian) contingencies during three baseline conditions. Auditory or visual stimuli were used as discriminative stimuli within the multiple concurrent schedules. Resistance to change of a target response was assessed during a single session of extinction following each baseline condition. The rate of the target response during baseline varied inversely with the rate of response-contingent reinforcement derived from a concurrent source, regardless of whether the discriminative stimuli were auditory or visual. Resistance to change of the target response, however, did depend on the discriminative-stimulus modality. Resistance to change in the presence of visual stimuli was a positive function of the Pavlovian contingencies, whereas resistance to change was unrelated to either the operant or Pavlovian contingencies when the discriminative stimuli were auditory. Stimulus salience may be a factor in determining the differences in resistance to change across sensory modalities.

Perhaps More Consideration of Pavlovian-Operant Interaction May Improve the Clinical Efficacy of Behaviorally Based Drug Treatment Programs

“…The conditioned emotional response paradigm (CER), first used by Estes and Skinner (1941), demonstrated that an aversive CS that was previously paired with a shock US suppressed the rate of food-reinforced operant responding in rats. By contrast, Mauro and Mace (1996) showed that a Pavlovian CS associated with the same appetitive-reinforcing outcome as an operant response increased response rate during operant extinction. Pavlovian stimuli can promote more resistance to extinction, that is, behavioral momentum (see Nevin & Grace, 2000; Podlesnik & Shahan, 2010).…”

Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior Increases Resistance to Extinction: Clinical Demonstration, Animal Modeling, and Clinical Test of One Solution

“…By contrast, the resistance of baseline response rate to change is a function of the total rate of reinforcement present in the context in which reinforced behavior occurs (i.e., context—reinforcer relations). These response—reinforcer and context—reinforcer functional relations have been shown to be robust and general across species and populations including pigeons (Nevin et al, 1990), rats (Mauro & Mace, 1996), goldfish (Igaki & Sakagami, 2004), adults with developmental disabilities (Mace et al, 1990) and college students (Cohen, 1996).…”

Training reinforcement rates, resistance to extinction, and the role of context in reinstatement

“…However, the present experiment was not designed to elucidate the contributions of stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relations to resistance to extinction and reinstatement since our study produced Rich and Lean components with different rates of responsedependent reinforcement. Previous experiments also arranging response-dependent rates of reinforcement during baseline have also shown an effect of training reinforcer rates on resistance to extinction and relapse, similar to the effect shown when reinforcement in increased in the Rich relative to the Lean component by (1) adding response-independent reinforcers to one of two otherwise equal components, or (2) arranging reinforcers contingent upon an alternative response (Rau et al, 1996;Nevin, 1974;Nevin et al, 1983;Nevin et al, 1990;Mauro & Mace, 1996;Podlesnik, Bai, & Elliffe, 2012;Podlesnik & Shahan, 2009). Thus, the present findings and those of similar experiments attest to the range of conditions in which the effect of stimulus-reinforcer relations on resistance to extinction and relapse can be tested.…”

“…Thus, added reinforcers in the presence of one component stimulus had two separable effects: They weakened the response-reinforcer relation during baseline but strengthened the stimulus-reinforcer relation (see Nevin & Grace, 2000;Nevin & Shahan, 2011). Moreover, greater reinforcement rates produce greater resistance to disruption irrespective of whether the additional reinforcement is presented response independently, as in Podlesnik and Shahan (2009), dependent on the same response (e.g., Nevin, 1974;Nevin, Mandell, & Atak, 1983), or contingent upon a concurrently available response (e.g., Mauro & Mace, 1996;Nevin et al, 1990;Podlesnik, Bai, & Elliffe, 2012;Rau, Pickering, & McLean, 1996). These findings are generally robust and have been observed in a variety of animal species, ranging from fish to humans, as well as several response types and reinforcer manipulations (Ahearn, Clark, Gardenier, Chung, & Dube, 2003;Cohen, 1996;Grimes & Shull, 2001;Harper, 1999;Igaki & Sakagami, 2004;Mace et al, 1990;Shahan & Burke, 2004).…”