Rats prefer signaled reinforcing brain stimulation to unsignaled ESB.

Abstract

Rats previously shown to be self-stimulators were offered a choice between signaled and unsignaled brain stimulation (ESB) presented on a variable interval (VI) 1-min. schedule in a shuttle box. All animals consistently chose the signaled side whether the interstimulus interval was .5 or 15.5 sec. Given a choice between unsignaled ESB on one side of the shuttle box and no stimuli on the other, three of four animals chose the ESB side; the fourth consistently chose the no-stimulus side. On the basis of the present data and prior demonstrations that rats prefer signaled to unsignaled painful shock, it was concluded that the preference for signaled over unsignaled reinforcement applies to both the positive and negative case. <When rats must endure randomly pre-shock electrodes, are not a necessary consented aversive electric shocks, they pre-dition of the preference, fer to have them preceded by warning sig-The aforementioned preference experinals (Lockard, 1963; Perkins, Seymann, ments seem to have no true analogue in Levis, & Spencer, 1966; and others). Hu-the appetitive case. It is well known that mans develop similar preferences in anal-animals will perform observing responses ogous situations (Badia, McBane, Suter, & which produce the discriminative stimuli Lewis, 1966). correlated with the various components of Perkins et al. ( 1966) employed a shut-a complex schedule although there is no tie box to assess the preference for a warn-differential primary reinforcement of the ing signal followed by shock vs. a shock observing responses (Prokasy, 1956-Wyckfollowed by a signal. When the interval off, 1952; and others). That is, 'animals between the signal and the delivery of prefer multiple to mixed schedules of shock through a grid floor or through ear response-contingent food reinforcement clips was 18 sec., rats showed a strong pref-Brown (1968) has recently extended this erence for the distinctive compartment in finding to the case of response-independent which the forward conditioning trials were food presentation. A conventional two-key presented. This outcome suggests that gross pigeon chamber was modified so that the postural responses functioning as effective bird could see only the left key from ceravoidance responses, e.g., by affecting the tain positions in the chamber, and only the area of contact between the rat and the right key from others. During an experi-'This research was supported by Research * nental session each key was illuminated Grants MH-14121-01 and MH-15468-01 from the ior 8 sec -on 80 irregularly spaced occa-National Institute of Mental Health to V. M. Lo-sions. Each illumination of one key was fol-Lordo, by Grant MH-07534-06 from the same lowed bv 4-spp apppQ« tr, f nr *A i,-i •-,' agency to Marcus B. Waller, and by a National ] um i™tL nf 4 ^ ' , Whlle ll-Science Foundation Traineeship held by M. B r " t ? ° the °ther Was independent Cantor. The authors thank Diane Daniel and Paul Ol . tne delivery of food. All six birds Gold, who performed the histology, and thank quickly learned to...

Effects of predictability on the welfare of captive animals

“…Prokasky (1956) suggested that the preference for predictable over unpredictable food delivery might be due to the enabling of preparatory responses, such as salivation, to occur when food delivery could be anticipated. When electric brain stimulation was used as a reinforcer, it was also found that rats preferred signalled over unsignalled reinforcement (Cantor and LoLordo, 1970). The 'preparatory response' hypothesis, already mentioned in relation to animals' apparent preference for signalled over unsignalled shock (Perkins, 1955(Perkins, , 1968Lockard, 1963) is also applicable to appetitive stimuli.…”

The free food (contrafreeloading) phenomenon: A review and analysis

“…Animals and humans permitted to choose between a primary reinforcer preceded by a signal and the same reinforcer unsignaled prefer the signaled reinforcer (Cantor, 1971;Cantor & LoLordo, 1970Furedy & Klajner, 1972;Lewis, Lewin, Muehliesen, & Stoyak, 1974;but see Hershiser & Trapold, 1971). Cantor and LoLordo (1970) administered 0.5-sec trains of electrical stimulation of the brain (ESB) to rats according to a variable-time I-min schedule.…”

“…Cantor and LoLordo (1970) administered 0.5-sec trains of electrical stimulation of the brain (ESB) to rats according to a variable-time I-min schedule. The rats were placed in a shuttlebox and provided a choice between receiving ESB preceded by a signal on one side of the chamber and the simultaneous presentation of ESB and signal on the other.…”

Choosing Schedules of Signaled Appetitive Events Over Schedules of Unsignaled Ones

“…In some cases food pellets were used (Prokasy, 1965), whereas in others liquid reinforcers were used (Hershiser & Trapold, 1971); some have used a commitment procedure (e.g., Lewis et al, 1974), others a noncommitment one (Hershiser & Trapold, 1971).1 The research below assesses 'Two studies have reported a preference for signaled conditions using a noncommitment procedure that conflict with Hershiser and Trapold (1971). These studies used appetitive electrical stimulation of the brain as a reinforcer (Cantor & LoLordo, 1970. However, Cantor (1979) has argued that these conclusions should be questioned since the outcome of these studies may have been affected by an artifact related to the electrode and plug assembly.…”