Generalization Gradients and Combined-Stimulus Control after Equal Training Wit! Two Related Stimuli: II. Effects of “Errorless” Training. III. Effects of Chlorpromazine

Wiltz, Robert A.; Boren, John J.; Moerschbaecher, Joseph M.; Creed, Thomas L.; Schrot, John

doi:10.1007/bf03394265

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some investigators (e.g., Laties, 1972;Laties & Weiss, 1966;Vaillant, 1964) have reported disruptions in stimulus control, but the present results and others report little effect (Berryman et al, 1962;Dearing & Branch, 1981;Leander, 1981b;Wiltz et al, 1974). Rate and stimulus control might be disentangled when more than two keys are used.…”

Section: Matching As a Response Unitcontrasting

confidence: 50%

“…Laties' (1972) fixed-consecutivenumber procedure also used two keys and revealed no effect of chlorpromazine on stimulus control at doses below 27 mg/kg. Wiltz et al (1974) showed that chlorpromazine lowered the rate of responding to an S + but had no effect on responding in the presence of an S -when the S -maintained 66 M. CHRISTOPHER NEWLAND and M. JACKSON MARR no responding during control conditions. Chlorpromazine altered the speed of responding but not the differential allocation of responses, and so appears to have had no effect on stimulus control.…”

Section: Matching As a Response Unitmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Imipramine altered both rate and accuracy during the repeated acquisition of a behavioral chain (Thompson, 1976), but chlorpromazine altered rate alone (Thompson, 1973). Some studies have reported that chlorpromazine disrupts differential control by external stimuli (Laties, 1972;Laties & Weiss, 1966;Thomas, 1966;Vaillant, 1964;Waller, 1961;West, Hernandez, & Appel, 1982), but others report little or no effect of chlorpromazine on stimulus control (Berryman, Jarvik, & Nevin, 1962;Dearing & Branch, 1981;Leander, 1981a;Wiltz, Boren, Moerschbaecher, Creed, & Schrot, 1974). A pair of studies by Thompson demonstrates the importance of the contingencies in these effects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effects of Chlorpromazine and Imipramine on Rate and Stimulus Control of Matching to Sample

Newland¹,

Marr²

1985

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons were trained to perform simultaneous, two-color matching to sample under a multiple fixed-ratio fixed-interval schedule of food presentation. The sequence terminating with a peck on the matching key (a "match") was treated as a unit, analogous to a single key peck in conventional schedules. Except for intermittent reinforcement of matches, no consequent stimulus distinguished matches from mismatches (sequences terminating with pecks on the nonmatching key). The pattern of matches during nondrug sessions resembled that of simpler operants maintained by similar schedules. Matches increased in rate toward the end of both components; mismatch rates increased more slowly. Imipramine increased the rate of mismatches, disrupted schedule patterning, and lowered accuracy in a dose-dependent fashion. Chlorpromazine lowered the overall rate of matches but affected schedule patterns and accuracy less than imipramine. The types of errors during drug sessions were not systematically related to the types of errors that appeared during nondrug sessions. Stimulus control was evaluated for each of the four possible color configurations and was found to be by the entire configuration of colors, not simply by the color of the sample.

show abstract

Section: Matching As a Response Unitcontrasting

confidence: 50%

Section: Matching As a Response Unitmentioning

confidence: 99%