1969
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-443
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

SOME DETERMINANTS OF INHIBITORY STIMULUS CONTROL1

Abstract: Interspersed reinforcement and extinction during discrimination learning generate a U-shaped gradient of inhibition about the stimulus correlated with extinction. The present work showed that extinction is not a necessary determinant of inhibitory stimulus control. In Exp. I, a reduction in the rate of reinforcement, through a shift from a multiple variable-interval 1-min variable-interval 1-min schedule to a multiple variable-interval 1-min variable-interval 5-min schedule, resulted in a post-discrimination l… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

8
57
2

Year Published

1971
1971
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
8
57
2
Order By: Relevance
“…He interpreted this result to mean that the stimulus associated with the VI 300-sec schedule had become inhibitory in relation to the VI 6O-sec stimulus. Weisman (1969) reported inhibitory gradients around a multiple schedule stimulus associated with the longer mean interreinforcer interval, supporting Guttman's suggestion. In the present choice procedure, there may be tendencies to both approach the stimulus associated with the smaller mean interreinforcer interval or the longer duration and to avoid the other stimulus because of its inhibitory properties.…”
Section: Choice Responding 291supporting
confidence: 67%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…He interpreted this result to mean that the stimulus associated with the VI 300-sec schedule had become inhibitory in relation to the VI 6O-sec stimulus. Weisman (1969) reported inhibitory gradients around a multiple schedule stimulus associated with the longer mean interreinforcer interval, supporting Guttman's suggestion. In the present choice procedure, there may be tendencies to both approach the stimulus associated with the smaller mean interreinforcer interval or the longer duration and to avoid the other stimulus because of its inhibitory properties.…”
Section: Choice Responding 291supporting
confidence: 67%
“…This would account for the increase in choice slope over schedule slope. Note that Guttman's (1959) proposal of inhibitory effects comes not from an examination of his schedule results, but from the outcome of a transfer procedure, and the same is true for Weisman (1969) and ourselves. The choice procedure may provide a method for the future quantification of the proposed inhibitory effect.…”
Section: Choice Responding 291mentioning
confidence: 95%
“…However, presentations of S-introduce a number of changes in the procedure that are not intrinsic to the S -as a signal for the absence of reinforcement. These factors are discussed briefly below (see also Mueller, 1981) (Terrace, 1968;Weisman, 1969Weisman, , 1970. However, it was rejected on the basis of data showing that behavioral contrast did not occur when rates were lowered by a different method (Halliday & Boakes, 1972 4.…”
Section: Apparatusmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Generalization gradients indicated inhibitory control by the stimulus associated with EXT or VI 5-min for 19 of 20 subjects even though some subjects did not show contrast. These results question the presumed relationship between behavioral contrast and inhibitory stimulus control.It has been suggested (Farthing & Hearst, 1958;Terrace, 1966Terrace, , 1968Terrace, , 1971Weisman, 1969;Yarczower, 1970) that the OCCurrence of behavioral contrast is a necessary antecedent for the development of inhibitory stimulus control. For example, Weisman (1969) reported V-shaped postdiscrimination generalization gradients (a presumed correlate of inhibitory stimulus control) around a stimulus associated with a variable-interval (VI) 5-min schedule of reinforcement for only those subjects exhibiting behavioral contrast during multiple (mult) VI l-min VI 5-min discrimination training.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Weisman (1969) reported V-shaped postdiscrimination generalization gradients (a presumed correlate of inhibitory stimulus control) around a stimulus associated with a variable-interval (VI) 5-min schedule of reinforcement for only those subjects exhibiting behavioral contrast during multiple (mult) VI l-min VI 5-min discrimination training.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%