The Effects of Chlorpromazine and Imipramine on Rate and Stimulus Control of Matching to Sample

Abstract

Pigeons were trained to perform simultaneous, two-color matching to sample under a multiple fixed-ratio fixed-interval schedule of food presentation. The sequence terminating with a peck on the matching key (a "match") was treated as a unit, analogous to a single key peck in conventional schedules. Except for intermittent reinforcement of matches, no consequent stimulus distinguished matches from mismatches (sequences terminating with pecks on the nonmatching key). The pattern of matches during nondrug sessions resembled that of simpler operants maintained by similar schedules. Matches increased in rate toward the end of both components; mismatch rates increased more slowly. Imipramine increased the rate of mismatches, disrupted schedule patterning, and lowered accuracy in a dose-dependent fashion. Chlorpromazine lowered the overall rate of matches but affected schedule patterns and accuracy less than imipramine. The types of errors during drug sessions were not systematically related to the types of errors that appeared during nondrug sessions. Stimulus control was evaluated for each of the four possible color configurations and was found to be by the entire configuration of colors, not simply by the color of the sample.

Aging unmasks adverse effects of gestational exposure to methylmercury in rats

“…In some cases, even these extended response units remain intact even as overall response rates are altered by drugs [27]. This seems to be the case in the present study.…”

“…Complex response units, including the nine-response burst here, match-to-sample problems [27] or behavior under a schedule of reinforcement [12,19,20,26], have been brought under schedule control and evaluated using behaviorally active drugs. In some cases, even these extended response units remain intact even as overall response rates are altered by drugs [27].…”

How Research in Behavioral Pharmacology Informs Behavioral Science

“…Instead, because the drugs produced disparate effects, depending on the particular array of stimuli, the results are consistent with the view that the entire stimulus array, including the locations of the various key colors, participated in the stimulus control of side-key pecks. It is interesting to note that recent research on stimulus control in matching-to-sample procedures, almost fifteen years after publication of the Newland and Marr (1985) paper, has led to essentially the same conclusion (e.g., Lionello & Urcuioli, 1998). Figure 3.…”

“…One study whose importance has generally been overlooked, yet which is still timely, is by Newland and Marr (1985). On the surface, their study is deceptively simple.…”

Environmental health and behavior analysis: Contributions and interactions.

“…For example, under a second-order schedule of reinforcement (i.e., a schedule of a schedule), a complex response unit is itself placed under an overall schedule of reinforcement (Marr, 1979). Thus, a match to sample (Newland & Marr, 1985), a subordinate schedule (Marr, 1979), or the production of a response chain (Thompson & Moerschbaecher, 1978 can be reinforced under, for example, overarching FI or fixed-ratio (FR) schedules, and the rate and timing of the appearance of these complex units demonstrate schedule-typical patterns. Thus, second-order schedules can be imposed to study how a complex operant emerges or how its structure falls apart with repeated exposures to neurotoxicants (Newland, 1995(Newland, , 1997.…”