Effect of punishment duration and intensity on the extinction of an instrumental response.

Abstract

2 factorial experiments were carried out in which a learned barriercrossing response by rats was punished with shocks of various durations and intensities during extinction. Each response during extinction was punished in Experiment I until a criterion of extinction was attained; only the 1st response during extinction was punished in Experiment II. In general, the degree of depression in response strength produced by punishment was directly related to its intensity and to its duration. Amount of postpunishment recovery of response strength appeared to be directly related to the degree of depression induced by punishment.

A neural network model of adaptively timed reinforcement learning and hippocampal dynamics

“…Another type of data lends support to the hypothesis that the activity D and the Now Print signal N both exist but respond to the US in different ways. These data show that an increase in US duration can significantly increase the strength of emotional conditioning (Ashton, Bitgood, and Moore, 1969;Boe, 1966;Borozci, Storms, and Broen, 1964;Church, Raymond, and Beauchamp, 1967;Keehn, 1963;Strouthes, 1965). How can a brief Now Print signal N whose duration does not increase significantly with US duration coexist with emotional conditioning properties that do increase significantly with US duration?…”

Suppressive and Facilitative Effects of Shock Intensity and Interresponse Times Followed by Shock

“…Second, although the shock schedule may have seemed dense, it was relatively lean when compared with previous research. In fact, in early studies on punishment, it was common to deliver shock on an FR‐1 schedule (Azrin, 1959, 1960; Azrin & Holz, 1961; Boe, 1966; Boroczi et al, 1964; Holz et al, 1963; Karsh, 1962; Seligman & Campbell, 1965). In the present study, usually less than 50% of responses were followed by shock, except when 0.8‐mA shock was used.…”

“…This paradoxical effect has been observed with a variety of subjects (e.g., monkeys, rats, and pigeons), operants (e.g., lever presses and key pecks), and reinforcers (e.g., monkey chow, pellets, and access to grain). Whether shock increases or decreases response rates may depend on several factors including the schedule of shock, the schedule of reinforcement, the manner of introducing shock, shock duration, shock frequency, shock intensity, and the interresponse times (IRTs) followed by shock (Arbuckle & Lattal, 1992; Azrin & Holz, 1966; Baron, 1991; Boe, 1966; Church, 1963; Sizemore & Maxwell, 1985). Of present interest are two of these factors: shock intensity and the IRTs followed by shock.…”

Recovery from punishment related to movement and punishment severity

“…Church, Raymond, & Beauchamp (1967) reported that shock duration and intensity combine to determine the severity of punishment. It was therefore hypothesized that bar-trained rats, when punished at different intensities and durations of shock, would require different numbers of presses to reach a nonresponse criterion.…”

“…It was therefore hypothesized that bar-trained rats, when punished at different intensities and durations of shock, would require different numbers of presses to reach a nonresponse criterion. Boe (1966) found that the amount of recovery from punishment depends on the degree of punishment-induced suppression in response Bull. Psychon.…”