The Generality of Selective Observing

Abstract

Four rats obtained food pellets by poking a key and 5-s presentations of the discriminative stimuli by pressing a lever. Every 1 or 2 min, the prevailing schedule of reinforcement for key poking alternated between rich (either variable-interval [VI] 30 s or VI 60 s) and lean (either VI 240 s, VI 480 s, or extinction) components. While the key was dark (mixed-schedule stimulus), no exteroceptive stimulus indicated the prevailing schedule. A lever press (i.e., an observing response), however, illuminated the key for 5 s with either a steady light (Sϩ), signaling the rich reinforcement schedule, or a blinking light (SϪ), signaling the lean reinforcement schedule. One goal was to determine whether rats would engage in selective observing (i.e., a pattern of responding that maintains contact with Sϩ and decreases contact with SϪ). Such a pattern was found, in that a 5-s presentation of Sϩ was followed relatively quickly by another observing response (which likely produced another 5-s period of Sϩ), whereas exposure to SϪ resulted in extended breaks from observing. Additional conditions demonstrated that the rate of observing remained high when lever presses were effective only when the rich reinforcement schedule was in effect (Sϩ only condition), but decreased to a low level when lever presses were effective only during the lean reinforcement component (SϪ only condition) or when lever presses had no effect (in removing the mixed stimulus or presenting the multiple-schedule stimuli). These findings are consistent with relativistic conceptualizations of conditioned reinforcement and extend the generality of selective observing to procedures in which the experimenter controls the duration of stimulus presentations, the schedule components both offer intermittent food reinforcement, and rats serve as subjects.Key words: observing behavior, selective observing, conditioned reinforcement, key poke, ratsObserving responses bring sensory receptors into contact with stimuli that signal the availability of primary reinforcement, but do not alter that availability (Wycoff, 1952(Wycoff, , 1969. It appears, then, that such responding is maintained by production of the discriminative stimuli rather than by production of primary reinforcement. As such, observing behavior has been important in the study of stimulus control (Dinsmoor, 1985(Dinsmoor, , 1995Wycoff, 1952Wycoff, , 1969 and conditioned reinforcement (Dinsmoor, 1983;Fantino, 1977Fantino, , 2001Hendry, 1969).A typical method for studying observing behavior consists first of training on a multiple schedule. For example, a pigeon can obtain food by key pecking in the presence of This research was conducted at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (IBN-9511934 and IBN-0125093) to UNCG.Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Scott T. Gaynor, Western Michigan University, Department of Psychology, 3530 Wood Hall, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008-5439 (e-mail: scott.gaynor@wmich.edu) or Richard L...

Observing Responses and Serial Stimuli: Searching for the Reinforcing Properties of the S−

“…Specifically, the temporal distance between the S2 and the reinforcement component depends on the temporal distribution of observing responses. In Gaynor and Shull's (2002) study, an observing procedure involving the typical mixed schedule of reinforcement was used and observing responses produced the S+ or the S2 for 5 s. Gaynor and Shull found that the interstimulus interval was considerably longer during the EXT component than during the reinforce-ment component. However, this finding is not universal.…”

Observing Behavior: Effects of Rate and Magnitude of Primary Reinforcement

“…Most of the increases in total percentage of time spent in the schedule-correlated stimuli resulted from increases in time spent in the presence of Sϩ. Figure 2 shows the median latency between the offset of either Sϩ or SϪ and the next observing response (i.e., follow-up latencies; Gaynor & Shull, 2002). For each rat, followup latencies for observing responses preceded by the termination of Sϩ were considerably longer than those preceded by the termination of SϪ, especially at lower RR requirements.…”

Stimuli produced by observing responses make rats' ethanol self-administration more resistant to price increases

“…they show selective observing of S+; see Dinsmoor 1985 for review). Similarly, Gaynor and Shull (2002) recently showed that under conditions in which competition between observing and responding for the primary reinforcer were minimized, rats showed a selective bias for observing a foodassociated S+. Dinsmoor (1983) has argued convincingly that unmeasured selective observing (i.e.…”

“…Both axes are logarithmic. Error bars represent €1 SEM methods of Gaynor and Shull (2002) to examine selective observing of a drug stimulus.…”