Intertrial reinforcement as interference with consolidation

Intertrial reward (ITR) and delay of reward: Effects on resistance to extinction

“…The present data are also relevant to two additional hypotheses that have been advanced to account for the effects of ITR (Surridge & Amsel, 1%6;Lobb & Runcie, 1967). These hypotheses are related in ~hat both assume that ITR reduces resistan~ to extinction by interfering with the development of anticipatory frustration.…”

“…These hypotheses are related in ~hat both assume that ITR reduces resistan~ to extinction by interfering with the development of anticipatory frustration. According to this view, ITR given very shortly after an N trial converts the N trial to an R trial (mechanism unspecified, Surridge & Amsel, 1966) or converts N to R by interfering with the consolidation of the frustration reaction (Lobb & Runcie, 1967). The important point for our purposes is that both hypotheses assume that the effectiveness of ITR will decrease as the time between nonreward and ITR increases.…”

Replacement function of intertrial reinforcement

“…Consequently, a discrimination explanation, suggesting little or no ITR interference with N-Iength, would be favored over a frustration explanation (Lobb & Runcie, 1967) since equal PRE was obtained both for Ss receiving ITR folloWing every N-trial (Group 3: N+N+N+) and forSs receiving only a single ITR after each N-Iength sequence (Group I: N N N+).…”

“…1965;Capaldi & Olivier, 1967). (~) the conditioning of frustration on N·trials not immediately followed by ITR (Lobb & Runcie, 1967). or (3) the conditioning of the stimulus aftereffects of N to a terminal response (RT) during ITR placclllents (Capaldi& Wilson,19(8).…”

The effect of long N-ITR intervals upon the PRE

“…Lobb & Runcie (1967) objected to Capaldi's aftereffects hypothesis by noting that the 15-sec interval used in prior ITR studies between N trials and ITR might have interfered with the development of anticipatory frustration, rF-sF' With a longer N-ITR interval, sufficient time would be available for consolidation of rF-sFTo test this hypothesis, Lobb & Runcie (1967) used two N-ITR intervals. While a 15-sec N-ITR group revealed an attenuated PRE in extinction relative to a control group receiving ITR after R trials, a 1-h N-ITR group did not, thereby supporting their hypothesis of the consolidation of conditioned frustration.…”