Goal vs. alley punishment after escape training: Massed trials and startbox conditions

Meeker, David J.; Babb, Harold; Matthews, Michael D.

doi:10.3758/bf03337092

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The finding that rats shocked on 100% of extinction trials performed similarly to those not shocked at all during extinction was unexpected because all previous studies using goal-shock on 100% of extinction trials reported that such animals rapidly supressed responding compared to nonshocked animals (Babb et al, 1987;Matthews & Babb, 1985;Meeker et al, 1980). The only procedural difference between this study and prev ious ones was the use of Long-Evans rats in thecurrent study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 47%

“…Earlier research, using a spaced trials procedure and goal-shock on 100% of extinction trials, indicated that number of acquisition trials does affect extinction performance, with greater facilitation associated with larger numbers of acquisition trials . Moreover, it has been demonstrated with both spaced and massed trials that percentage of shocked extinction trials affects extinction performance, with higher percentages of goal-shocked trials leading to suppression when a massed trials procedure is used (Meeker, Babb, & Matthews , 1980) and to facilitation when a spaced trialsprocedure is used (Matthews & Babb , 1978). Low percentages of goal-shocked extinction trials lead to facilitation regardless of whether a massed or spaced trials procedure is utilized (Babb et al, 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Self-punitive behavior: Effects of number of massed acquisition trials and percentage of goal-shocked extinction trials

Matthews

Babb

1987

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a massed trials procedure, rats were given 6, 12, or 24 shock escape acquisition trials in a runway, followed by extinction in which they received no further shock anywhere in the alley, or shock in the goalbox on 0%, 10%, or 100% of extinction trials. Results indicate that number of acquisition trials had no effect on run or start speeds during extinction. Percentage of shocked extinction trials did, however, affect extinction performance measures. In comparison

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 47%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-punitive behavior: Effects of number of massed acquisition trials and percentage of goal-shocked extinction trials

Matthews

Babb

1987

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Assuming the US aftereffects constitute a component of the aversive response to shock, rather than an opponent reaction (Solomon & Corbit, 1974), they may add to any aversive tendencies in the goalbox and they may do so to a greater degree the shorter the interval between trials. Considering these various possible influences, an experiment was designed to test the thesis that the goalbox of a straight runway becomes more aversive when shock-escape trials are massed as compared with spaced, with those terms designating procedures used in prior relevant studies (Babb & Hom, 1971;Meeker, Babb, & Matthews, 1980). After 20 massed or spaced shock-escape trials, animals were given 5 successive trials without shock but with one of three test conditions present in the goalbox.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Goal aversiveness after escape training with short and long intertrial intervals

Babb

1992

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different intertrial intervals (lTIs) may influence the aversiveness of the goal area in aversive training with one-way procedures. That possibility was explored. Albino rats were given 20 shock-escape runway trials with short or long ITIs followed by 5 extinction test trials with goalbox measures for latency to eat, climb out, and move onto a wood floor. Different measures produced different outcomes. "Time to eat" did not differentiate groups. Massed-trials animals were quicker to "move over" initially but slowed down over trials. Spaced and massed procedures did not produce initial differences on "climb out," but spaced-trials animals speeded up over trials and massedtrials animals slowed down. Results suggested that differences in ITIs did not generate major differences in levels of aversion in the "safe" area. ITI effects on performance may be due to differential effects on the conditioning process.Aversive training in one-way apparatuses versus single compartment and two-way apparatuses pose different problems with respect to the relative aversiveness of the conditioned stimulus (CS) context, and post-unconditioned stimulus (US) conditions. In a one-way apparatus, such as the straight runway, a typical procedure is to apply the CS and US in the context of the startbox and alley, follow this with a period of time in the "safe" goalbox, and then have the animal spend the intertrial interval (lTI) in a retaining cage dissimilar from the runway apparatus. Except for a short period in the startbox at the beginning of each trial, the US is consistently present with the CS, startbox, and alley, whereas the US is consistently absent during the goalbox and IT! confmement periods. In contrast, a typical procedure in a two-way shuttlebox is to present the CS and shock in one compartment, allow escape to an adjoining compartment for a period of time during which the CS and US are absent, and then reinitiate the CS and US in that same compartment, with subsequent escape back to the initial compartment. In this two-way procedure, not only is the "safe" period of confinement the same as the ITI, but the two compartments are altematingly aversive and safe.Despite the absence of the US in the goalbox and ITI periods in the one-way procedure, an argument can be made that those periods are not actually devoid of aversive influence. If that is true, the presence of aversiveness in the goalbox could complicate interpretations of self-punitive responding (Babb, Kostyla, & Bennett, 1980;Brown, 1969;Dean & Pittman, 1991) but might help to elucidate findings in which small frequencies of goal punishment, with short ITIs, produce facilitated responding and longer frequencies produce suppression (Matthews

show abstract

Goal vs. alley punishment after escape training: Massed trials and startbox conditions

Cited by 2 publications

References 10 publications

Self-punitive behavior: Effects of number of massed acquisition trials and percentage of goal-shocked extinction trials

Self-punitive behavior: Effects of number of massed acquisition trials and percentage of goal-shocked extinction trials

Goal aversiveness after escape training with short and long intertrial intervals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About