Effects of withheld reinforcement on timing behavior of rats with limbic lesions.

Caplan, Marjorie

doi:10.1037/h0028955

Cited by 26 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also unlikely that reinforcement density or baseline response rates affect the appearance of the enhanced frustration effect in septal-lesioned animals, since brain-damaged and control animals did not differ in behavioral contrast in either Experiment I or Experiment II. A factor that might account for the disparity between the results of Caplan (1970) and those of Mabry and Peeler ( 1972) and the present experiment is the temporal relationship between omission of reinforcement and the response measure. In the Caplan study, measures of response output occurred immediately after nonreinforcement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…It has generally been found that onusslon of reinforcement is followed by accelerated responding or increased perseveration in the septal-Iesioned animal above control levels. Caplan (1970) found, for example, that when scheduled reinforcement was omitted on a DRL schedule all subjects accelerated their response rates, but the increase was greatest for septal-Iesioned animals. Mabry and Peeler (1972) found, however, that animals with septal lesions and control animals did not differ in response to frustrative nonreward in a double-runway task.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…)mber of investigations (e.g., Butters & Rosvold , 1968;Caplan, 1970;Schwartzbaum, Kellicut, Spieth, & Thompson, 1964). It has generally been found that onusslon of reinforcement is followed by accelerated responding or increased perseveration in the septal-Iesioned animal above control levels.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effect of septal lesions on behavioral contrast

1975

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats with septal lesions and control animals were tested on a multiple schedule. When extinction was instituted in one component of the multiple schedule, septal-lesioned and control animals exhibited approximately equal amounts of positive contrast in the unaltered component. The results were discussed in terms of the situation specificity of the enhanced reaction to nonreward associated with septal damage.The response of the septal-Iesioned animal to withdrawal or omission of reinforcement has been the subject of a n!)mber of investigations (e.g., Butters & Rosvold , 1968;Caplan, 1970;Schwartzbaum, Kellicut, Spieth, & Thompson, 1964). It has generally been found that onusslon of reinforcement is followed by accelerated responding or increased perseveration in the septal-Iesioned animal above control levels. Caplan (1970) found, for example, that when scheduled reinforcement was omitted on a DRL schedule all subjects accelerated their response rates, but the increase was greatest for septal-Iesioned animals. Mabry and Peeler (1972) found, however, that animals with septal lesions and control animals did not differ in response to frustrative nonreward in a double-runway task. Both groups increased running speed and starting speed following omission of reinforcement, but there was no difference in the magnitude of alterations in running speed and starting latency for the two groups of animals.The present study attempted to determine whether the operant nature of the task or some other factor is critical to the observation of an exaggerated response to nonreinforcement in the septal-Iesioned rat. In two experiments, responses of septal-Iesioned and control animals were compared during the formation of a successive discrimination in an operant situation. All animals were initially placed on a multiple schedule in which different schedules of reinforcement were in effect for successive components. Each component was associated with a distinctive cue. After response rates stabilized on a multiple VI VI (MULT VI VI), extinction was instituted in one component (MULT VI EXT). Septal-Iesioned and control animals were compared on behavioral contrast-an increase in response rates in the unaltered VI component. EXPERIMENT I MethodAnimals. Ten Long-Evans male rats seIVed as subjects. Their ages ranged from 120 to ISO days at the beginning of the study. During the course of the study they were housed in individual cages.Apparatus. Training occurred in Lehigh Valley operant chambers placed in sound-atknuating cubicles. A white-noise generator minimized the extraneous sounds. Electromechanical programming and recording apparatus was located in an adjacent room. A 7-W houselight powered by 20-V ac served to differentiate multiple schedule component~ SUIgery and histology. Prior to any operant trai,ning, five animals received bilateral lesions of the septal region, three served as operated controls, and two served as unoperated controls. The operated animals were anesthetized with ~ ium pentobarbital (60 mg/kg) and positioned ,i...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of septal lesions on behavioral contrast

1975

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Changing the temporal criterion for the reinforcement of a response also changes the duration by which the availability of reinforcement is delayed after a nonreinforced response. For example, although the latter contingency has been said to be aversive (Caplan, 1970;Hearst, Koresko, and Poppen, 1964) there is no direct evidence to show this. Similarly, while reinforcement probably functions as a discriminative event in determining the duration of the next IRT (e.g., Farmer and Schoenfeld, 1964;Weiss, Laties, Siegel, and Goldstein, 1966), this has not been shown directly because the temporal contingency is the same after reinforcement and after nonreinforced responses.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

TWO‐COMPONENT SCHEDULES OF DIFFERENTIAL‐REINFORCEMENT‐OF‐LOW‐RATE¹

Harzem

Lowe

1975

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two-component schedules of differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate were presented, where the contingencies specified separately two minimum interresponse times, t1 and t2, required for reinforcement, depending on whether the interresponse time was initiated by, in one case, a reinforced response (tQ) or, in the other, a nonreinforced response (t,). A distinctive pattern of responding developed on each of the two contingencies. Duration of an interresponse time approximated t, when the tq contingency was in effect, and t, when the t2 contingency was in effect. This relationship persisted even when t2 was shorter than t1, and responding at a higher rate on the t1 contingency would have greatly increased the rate of reinforcement. Increasing the value of t, resulted in both longer interresponse times on the t, contingency, and a higher probability of a response-burst on those occasions when the contingency switched from t1 to t2. The results indicated that both reinforced and nonreinforced responses functioned as discriminative events in determining the duration of following interresponse times.On a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule, a response is reinforced only if a specified minimum interval of time, t, has elapsed since the previous response. If a response occurs after a shorter interval it is not reinforced, and timing of a new interval starts from that response. One characteristic of DRL behavior is the development of sequences of responses spaced evenly in time, and separated by intervals just exceeding the minimum interresponse time (IRT) required for reinforcement. This characteristic makes the DRL schedule particularly suitable in studies concerned with the temporal control of behavior. (For reviews see Harzem, 1969;Kramer and Rilling, 1970 that terminate IRTs shorter than criterion. Changing the temporal criterion for the reinforcement of a response also changes the duration by which the availability of reinforcement is delayed after a nonreinforced response. For example, although the latter contingency has been said to be aversive (Caplan, 1970;Hearst, Koresko, and Poppen, 1964) there is no direct evidence to show this. Similarly, while reinforcement probably functions as a discriminative event in determining the duration of the next IRT (e.g., Farmer and Schoenfeld, 1964;Weiss, Laties, Siegel, and Goldstein, 1966), this has not been shown directly because the temporal contingency is the same after reinforcement and after nonreinforced responses.The present study designed a two-component DRL schedule in which t, the minimum IRT required for reinforcement, was specified separately for IRTs initiated by reinforced responses (tl), and IRTs initiated by nonreinforced responses (t2). In the experiments reported, t1 was held constant, and the effects of several values of t2 were investigated.

show abstract

“…In order to directly compare the performance of the three groups , efficiency ratios for each group for the last five sessions were computed. This ratio has been defined as the ratio between the number of reinforced responses and the total number of responses (Caplan, 1970). It varies from 0 to 1.0, with 1.0 representing optimal response efficiencies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%