Operant Reinforcement of an Autonomic Response: Two Studies

Abstract

Two successive studies were conducted to determine the possibility of operant reinforcement of nonspecific galvanic skin resistance responses. In the first study, with five experimental and three control subjects who served for 20 to 30 min a day for 10 days, all experimental subjects learned to emit more nonspecific galvanic skin resistance responses than their ad hoc matched controls. In a second study, nine experimental and nine control subjects were matched for first-day levels of reactivity and yoked for operant reinforcement schedules. Significant differences between the two groups were found on the last day of conditioning and during extinction. Six of the nine experimental subjects showed higher cumulative rate curves than their matched and yoked controls. The concomitant measures (basal resistance, heart rate, etc.) all supported this finding. It was suggested that operant reinforcement of autonomic response tends to maintain a certain level of responding in contrast to persistent adaptation in the control group.As early as 1938, operant reinforcement of an autonomically controlled response (vasoconstriction) was attempted. The results were "inconclusive" (Skinner, 1938). Skinner was explicitly concerned with this distinction in the development of his system; he distinguished operants and respondents on the basis of their correlation with an observable, external stimulus and not on the more commonly accepted basis of the autonomic-skeletal division. In forcer so that an increased rate of autonomic responding cannot be attributed to the stimulating effects of the reinforcer, and, (2) controlling for, or eliminating the effect of mediating skeletal responses. If the autonomic response is produced by an intervening skeletal response, the reinforcement may be acting directly on the skeletal response and parasitically reinforcing the autonomic response.Few studies have dealt adequately with these problems. Kimmel and Hill (1960) ProcedureSubjects served for 10 consecutive days. The first two were operant level days; on the third day, the reinforcer was introduced and presented randomly for 10 min. Reinforcement began on the last half of the third day's session and continued through the next four days. The last three days were extinction sessions. All sessions were 20 min long except for the last two, which were extended to 30 min.Control subjects followed the same procedure as experimental subjects except that they received "random", noncontingent reinforcers during the four-and-a-half days of learning. Pilot work showed that an experimental subject was likely to receive 25-30 reinforcers per 20-min session. Time of delivery of the reinforcer was obtained from random number tables. No reinforcer was administered within 15 sec of another to avoid reinforcement of a reinforcer-elicited response. Average number of reinforcers per day for the experimental group was 23; for the control group 27. An upper limit of 90 sec between reinforcers was arbitrarily given to the control group. Thus, the two groups were f...

Operant Electrodermal Conditioning Under Multiple Schedules Oe Reineorcement

“…Knowledge of the exact contingencies of reinforcement is probably not necessary to obtain the effect, however. As an illustration, Gavalas (1967) obtained successful conditioning by reinforcing subjects for producing electrodermal responses while leading them to believe that the reinforcer was contingent on behavior in a card sorting task being performed at the same time.…”

Operant reinforcement of a skeletally mediated autonomic response: Uncoupling of the two responses

“…Implications for two-factor theories of learning These results support Skinner's (1938) view that the susceptibility of a response to operant reinforcement depends upon whether or not it is correlated with an observable, external stimulus. GSR deflections that were not correlated with an observable stimulus (Gavalas, 1967) could be modified by operant reinforcement. In the present study, GSR deflections that were correlated with an observable stimulus (the stimulus components of the respiratory, skeletal response) could not be easily modified by operan t techniq ues.…”

“…Evidence has begun to accumulate showing that it is possible to directly, operantly reinforce autonomic responses (Gavalas, 1967;Miller, Trowill, DiCara, Carmona, & Banuazizi, 1966;Crider, Shapiro, & Tursky, 1967;Van Twyver & Kimmel, 1966;and others). The most critical question in these studies has been that of controlling for the effect of possible covert mediating skeletal responses.…”

“…The most critical question in these studies has been that of controlling for the effect of possible covert mediating skeletal responses. Two techniques have been used to control for mediators; an irrelevant task has been introduced into the experiment to control for subvocal and respiratory mediators (Gavalas, 1967) and curare has been used to eliminate skeletal activity (Miller & DiCara, 1967;Trowill, 1967). In all of these studies, it was possible to demonstrate a modification in frequency of the autonomic response as a consequence of response contingent, operant reinforcement.…”

“…11 (6) each measuring device was explained to them. A tape recorded series of nonsense syllables was spelled aloud and they were asked to pronounce the syllables as they heard them (see Gavalas, 1967). The task acted as a control on subvocal mediators and as a control on level of attention.…”