The “Where Is It?” Reflex: Autoshaping the Orienting Response

Abstract

The goal of this review is to compare two divergent lines of research on signal-centered behavior: the orienting reflex (OR) and autoshaping. A review of conditioning experiments in animals and humans suggests that the novelty hypothesis of the OR is no longer tenable. Only stimuli that represent biological "relevance" elicit ORs. A stimulus may be relevant a priori (i.e., unconditioned) or as a result of conditioning. Exposure to a conditioned stimulus (CS) that predicts a positive reinforcer causes the animal to orient to it throughout conditioning. Within the CS-US interval, the initial CS-directed orienting response is followed by US-directed tendencies. Experimental evidence is shown that the development and maintenance of the conditioned OR occur in a similar fashion both in response-independent (classical) and response-dependent (instrumental) paradigms. It is proposed that the conditioned OR and the signal-directed autoshaped response are identical. Signals predicting aversive events repel the subject from the source of the CS. It is suggested that the function of the CS is not only to signal the probability of US occurrence, but also to serve as a spatial cue to guide the animal in the environment.

Effects of trial duration on overall and momentary rates of maintained autoshaped keypecking: Choice and single-stimulus trials

“…These patterns resulted in response strength that was higher for the cue associated with the more favorable conditions of reinforcement only during the early portion of the trial. In accounting for their data, O'Connell and Rashotte invoked the notion that pigeons' behavior under autoshaping procedures is influenced by competing tendencies to approach the CS and the US (Boakes, 1977;Buzsaki, 1982;Gibbon et al, 1980). Under this analysis, associative strength acquired by the CS may be viewed as governing an unvarying tendency to approach that cue; however, strength of the US-approach tendency grows with elapsed trial time, yielding a net decrease in CS-directed behavior and paradoxically low overall rates of responding.…”

Individual differences in the attribution of incentive salience to reward-related cues: Implications for addiction

“…For example, the form of the CR to a CS that predicts food is very different if the CS is a lever, or a live rat, or a block of wood (Timberlake and Grant, 1975). Thus, the emergent CR is thought to reflect the activation of complex motivational processes that are under the control of a number of factors, including the nature of the US and the CS (Buzsaki, 1982;Davey et al, 1984;Jenkins and Moore, 1973;Moore, 1973;Timberlake and Lucas, 1985).…”

Consummatory response latency and the stimulus-reinforcer relation in autoshaping

“…During signal presentation, persistent approaches to the signal (65% of the trials) were exhibited by these birds, although magazine approaches were seen just prior to grain delivery on some trials. Dominant CS-directed behavior has also been reported in rats when CS and US sites are well separated (Buzsaki, 1982).…”

“…Experiment 4 provided no evidence of UR potentiation exclusive of positional factors. Various distinctions have been made between consummatory and preconsummatory behaviors in appetitive situations (e.g., Bindra, 1974;Buzsaki, 1982;Konorski, 1967), with emphasis on functional differences between these classes. In Bindra's model, for example, only the latter (preparatory) behaviors are subject to incentive influences.…”