Resistance to extinction in the rat following regular and irregular schedules of partial reward.

Campbell, Patrick E.; Knouse, Stephen B.; Wroten, James D.

doi:10.1037/h0029477

Cited by 21 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results obtained under immediate extinction were consistent with those of previous studies (e.g., Campbell, Knouse, & Wroten, 1970;Capaldi, 1958;Capaldi & Minkoff, 1967;Habu & Ono, 1969;Tyler, Wortz, & Bitterman, 1953) and were predictable from the sequential variables (Capaldi, 1967). However, the rest of the results, including the PRDE, cannot be explained by these variables.…”

supporting

confidence: 83%

Partial reinforcement delayed extinction effect after regularly alternating reward training

Ishida

1986

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When extinction is delayed very long, the superior resistance to extinction of the random schedule group relative to the alternating schedule group disappears (partial reinforcement delayed extinction effect, PRDE). Two experiments assessed the effects of reinforcement/nonreinforcement on Trial 1 on the PRDE. Following extended partial reinforcement acquisition training in a runway, rats received extinction training after a short (I-day) or long (23-day) retention interval. The schedules used in Experiment 1 were: a single-alternation (SA) schedule beginning each day with a rewarded (r) trial, for Group roSA; an SA schedule beginning with a nonrewarded (n) trial, for Group n-SA; and a random (Rd) schedule, for Group Rd. The schedules and group names used in Experiment 2 were roSA, Rd, and r-Rd. The results were that (1) rats given roSA schedules yielded considerable resistance under delayed extinction, (2) those given Rd and r-Rd schedules showed a decline in resistance to extinction over a long retention interval, (3) those given the n-SA schedule showed relatively low resistance at both retention intervals, although retention deficit was not greater than in the case of the Rd schedule, and thus, (4) the PRDE was found in both experiments, although only weakly in Experiment 1. The results indicated that a regularly alternating reward pattern was a more important determinant than was type of reward on Trial 1 for the PRDE. The PRDE due to differential retention deficits among schedules is discussed on the basis of dual-process associative sequential mechanisms and cognitive rule-encoding mechanisms.Resistance to extinction following various reinforcement schedules has been described appropriately in terms of sequential variables derived from the stimulus-aftereffect hypothesis (Capaldi, 1967). This theory stresses the associative conditioning and generalization of sequentially occurring stimulus aftereffects. Numerous alleyway studies have assessed resistance to extinction on the basis of the performance shown in extinction given immediately after the end of acquisition (immediate extinction). Usually, the interval between the end of acquisition and the start of extinction (A-E interval) was less than 24 h.However, when the beginning of the extinction trials has been delayed (delayed extinction), different aspects have been found. Ishida (1981) trained in a runway three groups of rats on different reinforcement schedules: single alternation (SA), random (Rd) alternation, and continuous reinforcement (CR). Half of the rats received extinction at a short (l-day) retention interval, and the other half received extinction at a long (23-day) retention interval. Under immediate extinction, resistance to extinction was greatest in the Rd group, less in the SA group, and least in the CR group. However, under delayed extinction, this relationship was partly reversed; that is, the SA revealed higher resistance than the Rd, and the CR revealed still less resistance than the two partial reinforcement groups. Subsequent stud...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 83%

Partial reinforcement delayed extinction effect after regularly alternating reward training

Ishida

1986

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Campbell et al (1970) have shown that patterning reduces resistance to extinction. In the present study.…”

Section: Bloom Williams and Metzementioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of varied and partial reward on discrete-trial patterning of rats

Bloom

Williams

Metze

1973

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats were trained in the discrete-trial operant apparatus with single alternation of large reward and small reward or large reward and nonreward. followed by either transfer or extinction. The results showed that both groups acquired appropriate response patterning. that patterning is conditioned. and that the stimuli which control patterning are derived from reward conditions on immediately preceding trials. A modification of the sequential hypothesis of instrumental learning was proposed to account for the results.It is well documented that rats can pattern their responses appropriately to a single alternation pattern of reward and nonreward. i.e., fast responding on rewarded trials and slow responding on nonrewarded trials. The effect has been demonstrated for the runway response (e.g., Bloom & Capaldi, 1961: Capaldi & Stanley, 1963: Bloom & Malone, 1968, for free-response barpressing (Bloom & Smith. 1965). and for discrete-trial barpressing (Wall & Goodrich. 1964; Gonzalez. Bainbridge, & Bitterman. 1966).The purpose of this experiment was to determine if rats can also pattern discrete-trial bar responses with single alternation of large and small reward and. if so. to determine how such patterning is related to that with reward and nonreward. \tETHOD SubjectsThe Ss were 32 naive female albino rat-. approximately 100 days of age. They were purchased from the Holtzman Company. Madison, Wisconsin. ApparatusThe apparatus consisted of two standard single-ICIer retractable-bar operant conditioning cages (Scientific Prototype '-:0. A-IOO) with pellet dispensers. enclosed in blower-ventilated sound-and light-resistant chamber, .Sclentific Prototype '-:o. SPC-30m. Bar insertion and retraction time IIas approximately 2 sec. and the bars were modified so that thcv could not be depressed prior to full in-ertion or after initiation of bar retraction. Latency was automatically timed and printed ou t to the nearest tenth of a second. ProcedurePretraining consisted of 1.+ days oi 2~-h food deprivation and handling and I day of magazine training. consisting of IS "Supported b, Xutional Institute' of vlcntul Health (;ral~t I R03 \111-14174-01. **Requeq, for rcprintx -hould be 'e'nt 10 J \1. Bloom. 913.+ \\"ickford. Houston. Te\J' 77(12.+.-:-\ow at Indiana State l·nilnsit,. -:--:-\0\\ at \h-qern Kcntuck , l·nJ\c'r,It,.continuous reward one-pellet (Noyes 45 mg) barpresses with the bar always present.In the acquisition phase. Group 5-0 received 21 trials each dav for 21 days. Each trial consisted of bar insertion, a barpress or IS sec time without a press. and bar retraction. Barpresses produced a five-pellet reward on odd-numbered trials and nonreward on even-numbered trials. Group 5-1 received identical training. except that on even-numbered trials a barpress produced a one-pellet reward.I ollowing acquisition. each group was divided into three matched subgroups on the basis of responding on each type oi trial on the last acquisition day. Then Groups 5-0-0 and 5-1-1 tfive Ss each) continued on the acquisition schedule: Group...

show abstract

“…This theory, of course, accounts nicely for the observed interaction. Irregular schedules have longer N lengths than alternating schedules, but the irregular schedule has fewer N-R transitions.Campbell, Knouse, and Wroten (1970) suggested that an additional variable was operating to produce the difference in extinction performance between alternating and irregular schedules after extended training. Rats given extended training on alternating schedules typically learn to run rapidly on trials followRequests for reprints should be sent to…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Campbell, Knouse, and Wroten (1970) suggested that an additional variable was operating to produce the difference in extinction performance between alternating and irregular schedules after extended training. Rats given extended training on alternating schedules typically learn to run rapidly on trials followRequests for reprints should be sent to…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Campbell et al (1970) hypothesized that the development of such a pattern discrimination should cause alternating schedules to result in less persistence than irregular schedules even when both schedules had a maximum within-day N length of one. Their data supported the hypothesis and led to the suggestion (Campbell, Crumbaugh, Rhodus, & Knouse, 1971) that any variable that facilitated the development of a pattern discrimination should result in a decrease in extinction performance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rats can learn a probability discrimination based on previous trial outcomes in partial reward schedules

Campbell

Kruger

et al. 1980

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In each of two experiments, rats were trained in a runway with either an alternating or an irregular schedule of partial reward. One-third of the animals within each schedule were trained with a small, medium, or large reward. In Experiment I, the irregular schedule was constructed in such a way that the probability of an R trial following an N trial was .75 and the probability of an N trial following an R trial was also .75. Of course, in an alternating schedule the probabilities are 1.0. The rats learned to run rapidly following N trials and slowly following R trials when trained under either schedule. This effect, however, was greater in the alternating condition and was facilitated by larger rewards. In Experiment 2, the irregular schedule was constructed so that the occurrence of R or N trials was not a reliable predictor of the following trial. Under these conditions, differential running speeds did not develop in the irregular schedule, but the rats in the alternating schedule performed as in Experiment 1. The data are discussed within the context of probability learning and are related to methodological issues of importance to sequential trial experiments.When extinction performances following alternating or irregular schedules of 50% partial reinforcement are compared following relatively brief training, the alternating schedule results in greater persistence (Capaldi & Hart, 1962), but after extended training the opposite result is found (Capaldi, 1958). This interaction between the type of partial reward schedule and the amount of training has been interpreted as reflecting the importance of two intertrial variables (Capaldi, 1967). With brief training, the number of nonreinforced to reinforced transitions (N-R transitions) should be the dominant factor, while after extended training, the' N-Iength factor should become more important. This theory, of course, accounts nicely for the observed interaction. Irregular schedules have longer N lengths than alternating schedules, but the irregular schedule has fewer N-R transitions.Campbell, Knouse, and Wroten (1970) suggested that an additional variable was operating to produce the difference in extinction performance between alternating and irregular schedules after extended training. Rats given extended training on alternating schedules typically learn to run rapidly on trials followRequests for reprints should be sent to

show abstract

Resistance to extinction in the rat following regular and irregular schedules of partial reward.

Cited by 21 publications

References 8 publications

Partial reinforcement delayed extinction effect after regularly alternating reward training

Partial reinforcement delayed extinction effect after regularly alternating reward training

Effects of varied and partial reward on discrete-trial patterning of rats

Rats can learn a probability discrimination based on previous trial outcomes in partial reward schedules

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About