Response variability in the white rat during conditioning, extinction, and reconditioning.

Antonitis, Joseph J.

doi:10.1037/h0060407

Cited by 249 publications

(255 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

202

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A greater range of sequences was emitted in the second extinction trial as compared to the first, and a greater number of nontrained sequences was emitted. This pattern of result also is consistent with that noted for simple responses described by Antonitis (1951). The data also might be compared with those presented by Reid (1994), and again offer some support for the conclusions.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Resurgence of Response Sequences During Extinction in Rats Shows a Primacy Effect

Reed

Morgan

2006

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats were trained to emit a series of three-response sequences to a criterion (i.e., more than 80% of all emitted sequences correct over five successive sessions). Each rat was trained on a series of different, three-response sequences. After the final three-response sequence was acquired, two extinction tests were administered, and the three-response sequences that re-emerged during these extinction tests were noted. Resurgence effects during extinction were observed; that is, the previously trained sequences were emitted. These resurgence effects followed an orderly pattern, which involved a primacy effect. The rats initially emitted the immediately previously trained response, but then started to emit the response sequence they first were trained to emit. Thus, resurgence behavior during extinction can be an orderly function of previous training history. These results replicate those previously obtained with human subjects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Resurgence of Response Sequences During Extinction in Rats Shows a Primacy Effect

Reed

Morgan

2006

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Support for it comes from rat nose pokes (Antonitis, 1951), sequences of responses made by rats (Balsam et al, 1998;Cherot, Jones, & Neuringer, 1996), and the location of pigeon key pecks (Eckerman & Lanson, 1969;Ferraro & Branch, 1968;Millenson, Hurwitz, & Nixon, 1961).…”

Section: Control Of Variationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To test the idea that variation is under associative control, we used an experimental design similar to the within-subject designs popularized by Rescorla (e.g., Nairne & Rescorla, 1981). While most previous work on variation has used unusual responses (e.g., Neuringer, 2002) or unusual equipment (e.g., Antonitis, 1951;Herrnstein, 1961), this work used the rat's bar press measured with ordinary equipment. Gharib et al (2001).…”

Section: Control Of Variation By Reward Probability 29 March 2004 Vermentioning

confidence: 99%

Control of Variation by Reward Probability.

Gharib¹,

Gade²,

Roberts³

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two bar-press experiments with rats tested the rule that reducing expectation of reward increases the variation from which reward selects. Experiment 1 used a discrete-trial random-interval schedule, with trials signalled by light or sound. One signal always ended with reward; the other ended with reward less often. The two signals were randomly mixed. Bar-press duration (how long the bar is held down) varied more during the signal with the lower probability of reward. Experiment 2 closely resembled Experiment 1 but used a random-ratio schedule rather than a random-interval schedule.Again, bar-press duration varied more during the signal with the lower probability of reward. The results support the rule-the first well-controlled comparisons to do so. Control of Variation by Reward Probability 29 March 2004 version 3 Control of Variation by Reward ProbabilityInstrumental learning requires both variation and selection --variation of action, selection by reward of what works (Staddon & Simmelhag, 1971;Hull, Langman, & Glenn, 2001) --but few experiments have studied variation (Chance, 1999;Domjan, 1998;Lieberman, 1990;Pearce, 1997;Staddon & Cerutti, 2003). Yet it is plausible that variation depends on recent events, just as response rate does. If an animal's actions vary too little, it will not find better ways of doing things; if they vary too much, rewarded actions will not be repeated. So at any time there is an optimal amount of variation, which changes as the costs and benefits of variation change. Animals that do instrumental learning would profit from a mechanism that regulates variation so that the actual amount is close to the optimal amount. If such a mechanism exists, we know little about it.Experiments about variation have been rare partly because variation has been hard to measure. Antonitis (1951), for example, took "6,600 photographs of nosethrusting responses" (p. 275) to study variation in nose position. Herrnstein (1961) used a special apparatus with ten switches to measure the location of key pecks.Although most studies of variation have measured spatial variation (e.g., Balsam, Deich, Ohyama, & Stokes, 1998;Eckerman & Lanson, 1969;Ferraro & Branch, 1968;Neuringer, 2002), temporal variation may be much easier to measure. A few studies (Lacter & Corey, 1982;Margulies, 1961;Millenson, Hurwitz, & Nixon, 1961) have measured the variation of bar -press duration (how long the bar is held down). Rats can be trained to make bar presses of specified durations (e.g., Notterman & Mintz, 1965; Control of Variation by Reward Probability 29 March 2004 version 4Platt, Kuch, & Bitgood, 1973), so the variation measured by bar-press duration includes the variation from which reward selects.Our use of bar-press duration to study variation began with a puzzle involving rats trained with the peak procedure (Gharib, Derby, & Roberts, 2001). On most trials, food was given for the first bar press more than 40 sec after the start of the trial, at which point the trial ended. On some trials, however, no food was gi...

show abstract

“…We review the evidence for each. Antonitis (1951) performed one of the earliest studies to show increased variability. Rats were reinforced for poking their noses anywhere along a 50-cm opening.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability and variability in extinction.

Neuringer¹,

Kornell²,

Olufs³

2001

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

105

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some studies have found that extinction leaves response structures unaltered; others have found that response variability is increased. Responding by Long-Evans rats was extinguished after 3 schedules. In one, reinforcement depended on repetitions of a particular response sequence across 3 operanda. In another, sequences were reinforced only if they varied. In the third, reinforcement was yoked: not contingent upon repetitions or variations. In all cases, rare sequences increased during extinctionvariability increased-but the ordering of sequence probabilities was generally unchanged, the most common sequences during reinforcement continuing to be most frequent in extinction. The rats' combination of generally doing what worked before but occasionally doing something very different may maximize the possibility of reinforcement from a previously bountiful source while providing necessary variations for new learning.

show abstract

Response variability in the white rat during conditioning, extinction, and reconditioning.

Abstract: The dependence of the rat's choice of pathways upon the length of the daily trial series. /. comp.

Cited by 249 publications

References 11 publications

Resurgence of Response Sequences During Extinction in Rats Shows a Primacy Effect

Resurgence of Response Sequences During Extinction in Rats Shows a Primacy Effect

Control of Variation by Reward Probability.

Stability and variability in extinction.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About