Shuttleboxes, Skinner boxes, and Sidman avoidance in rats: Acquisition and terminal performance as a function of response topography

Riess, Dave

doi:10.3758/bf03335878

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rats were given 15 90-min sessions of free-operant shuttle-avoidance training; Sessions 5, 10, and 15 were selected for observational analysis. Rats typically show rapid mastery of free-operant shuttle avoidance (Riess, 1971;Riess & Farrar, 1972), and previous work in our laboratory (Roberts, & Porter, 1976) confirms that this number of training sessions is more than sufficient to ensure asymptotic levels in shock-avoidance measures. This research was supported by a grant from the Grants and Research Committee of Catawba College.…”

supporting

confidence: 63%

The shuttle-avoidance response chains of rats

Roberts

1986

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three female hooded rats received free-operant avoidance training that incorporated a shuttle requirement, The rats' activities during the final portions of Sessions 5, 10, and 15 were systematically analyzed. The rats showed minimal within-and between-subject differences in their shuttle-avoidance response chains: They walked across and beyond the midline, paused, turned, and again walked across and beyond the midline. Comparisons between shuttle-and leverpressavoidance response chains are offered.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 63%

The shuttle-avoidance response chains of rats

Roberts

1986

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The advantages of the unsignalled shuttlebox arrangement include the following: (1) There are no "failures to learn" so frequently encountered in both shuttlebox signalled escape-avoidance (Brush, 1966) and unsignalled bar-press avoidance (Weissman, 1962); (2) No response shaping is required, as is frequently the case in unsignalled bar-press avoidance (Riess, 1970a); (3) Acquisition proceeds much more rapidly than is the case in either of the two traditional arrangements, and this is true of both response rates and shocks avoided; (4) There is no initial period of higher shock rates, as is often the case in both signalled shuttlebox avoidance and unsignalled bar-press avoidance; (5) After acquisition, there is a minimum of "bursting" (Sidman, 1958) and other gross local response rate fluctuations found in lever-press avoidance which detract from within-session stability and add variability to the results; (6) There are no gross topographical problems analogous to the lever holding often found in barpress avoidance; (7) Terminal performance is characterized by a higher percentage of shocks avoided than is customarily found in either traditional type of avoidance; and, lastly, (8) There are no "avoidance decrements" frequently reported for signalled escape-avoidance (Anderson and Nakamura 1964). In addition, unsignalled shuttlebox avoidance provides a highly sensitive baseline for studies where behavior other than avoidance itself is of primary importance and these include shock intensity effects (Johnson and Church, 1965;Martin and Riess, 1969;Riess and Martin, 1969;Scobie, 1969); self-punitive behavior (Riess, 1970b); aversive properties of stimuli other than shock (Riess, 1970 c, d); Pavlovian conditioning (Grossen and Bolles, 1968;Herendeen and Anderson, 1968;Riess, 1969;Riess and Martin, 1969;Riess and Farrar, in press;Scobie, 1969); response topography requirements (Riess, 1971); and observational learning (Riess, in press). It is suggested that most of the problems typically encountered by investigators confining their efforts to the study of signalled shuttlebox escape-avoidance or unsignalled lever-press avoidance can be eliminated by a combination of the free-operant paradigm and the shuttlebox apparatus.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unsignalled Avoidance in a Shuttlebox: A Rapid Acquisition, High‐efficiency Paradigm

Riess¹,

Farrar²

1972

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detailed descriptive data are provided on the free-operant avoidance behavior of rats in a shuttlebox during both acquisition and terminal performance. Initially, eighteen 21-min acquisition sessions were given. Each hurdle-cross postponed the next shock 20 sec (response-shock interval) and shocks were scheduled every 5 sec (shock-shock interval) in the absence of a response. All eight subjects avoided over 70% of the shocks due (12/nmin) in Session 1. Maximum response rates were reached by the third session and declined slowly while shock rates continued to drop slowly through Session 15. Three subjects were run an additional five months with a response-shock interval of 20 sec and their terminal response rates were all under five responses per minute and shock rates were 0.07 per minute. Interresponse time distributions for terminal performance showed that over 95% of all responding by all three subjects occurred in the last half of the response-shock interval.Historically, the study of avoidance behavior evolved into two fairly distinct methodologies or "schools". The first (signalled escapeavoidance) involved an exteroceptive warning stimulus (CS), an escape contingency, some type of discrete trial procedure, and a shuttlebox or similar apparatus requiring a running response.In the second approach (unsignalled avoidance), no exteroceptive stimulus was employed and the trials feature was dropped for the free response situation. In the original report (Sidman, 1953) of this paradigm (unsignalled avoidance), brief, fixed-duration, inescapable shocks were scheduled at regular intervals in the absence of a response (S-S interval) and another shock-free period of time was produced by a response (R-S interval). The apparatus required a lever-press response.In both of these approaches, problems making experimentation difficult are commonplace. These may be unique to one approach, such as the lever-holding difficulties encountered in unsignalled bar-press avoidance (Hurwitz, 1967), or the long-term deterioration in performance ("decrements") often found in signalled shuttlebox escape-avoidance (Anderson and Nakamura, 1964). Other problems "Reprints may be obtained from Dave Riess, Research Hospital, Galesburg, Illinois 61401. frequently encountered are common to both approaches, such as inferior performance at the beginning of a session ("warm up effect"), as well as frequent failures to learn reported for both unsignalled bar-press avoidance (Weissman, 1962) and for signalled escapeavoidance (Brush, 1966).About 10 yr ago, Black and Morse (1961) conducted what was apparently the first study combining the free-operant paradigm with the more traditional shuttlebox apparatus, and their results with dogs were apparently successful in overcoming some of the common avoidance problems found in rats. Scobie (1970) has since combined the shuttlebox apparatus and the free-operant paradigm in successful avoidance conditioning with goldfish. The freeoperant shuttlebox combination has also been employed with rats with increas...

show abstract

“…Sinee leverpressing is not a species-specifie defense reaction, the reported difficulty in acquisition of the leverpress avoidanee response, in contrast to the more easily aequired hurdle-jumping response (Riess, 1971), may be explained through noneompatibility. Bolles and Popp (1964) have reported that rats "that explore, rear, and attempt to climb the walls" (p. 317) learn leverpress avoidance more readily than those that freeze or run.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Consequently, facilitated leverpressing, associated with the high position, would be reduced or eliminated. Riess (1971) has suggested the possibility of running as a dominant tendency in aversive situations. His data, showing more rapid acquisition of hurdle crossing, as compared to leverpressing, certainly supports this notion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%