Timing Behavior in Rats with Water Drinking as a Mediator

Segal, Evalyn F.; Holloway, Stephen M.

doi:10.1126/science.140.3569.888

Cited by 60 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Clark (1962) suggested that water drinking on a VI bar-pressing schedule is maintained adventitiously by the arrival of reinforcements soon after the subject shifts from drinking to bar pressing. A similar position was advanced by Segal & Holloway (1963), who concluded that collateral water drinking on a spacedresponse reinforcement schedule was part of a chain of behavior initiated by food and terminated by the next bar press. However, Segal & Deadwyler (1964b), on the basis of drinking data obtained while rats were under the effects of amphetamine, argued that the drinking is probably nothing more than "prandial" drinking prompted by thirst sensations produced by eating dry food, and is not adventitiously maintained by reinforcement contingencies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

“…Problem Several investigators have reported unusual frequ€mcies and quantities of water drinking by rats maintained on interval reinforcement schedules for food. VI (Clark, 1962;Falk, 1961Falk, , 1964, DRL (Segal & Holloway, 1963; Segal & Deadwyler, 1964b) and freereinforcement (Segal & Deadwyler, 1964a) schedules produce the polydipsia, liquid as well as dry food reinforcers are effective (Falk, 1964), and alcohol solutions (Lester, 1961) as well as water are drunk. The aims of the present experiments were (1) to follow the time course of the development of polydipsia over days, and (2) to observe the interaction of water drinking and bar pressing, where neither was related to the delivery of reinforcements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The development of water drinking on a dry-food free-reinforcement schedule

Segal

1965

Psychon Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats were given a food pellet every 60 sec., not contingent on operant responding. All rats developed over days a pattern of prolonged water drinKIng !allowing delivery of food pellets. One of the rats, whose operantlevel lever pressing was recorded concurrently with licking, developed a complex pattern of drinking and bar pressing which persisted even after a 5-sec. delay of reinforcement for bar presses was introduced. Problem Several investigators have reported unusual frequ€mcies and quantities of water drinking by rats maintained on interval reinforcement schedules for food. VI (Clark, 1962;Falk, 1961Falk, , 1964, DRL (Segal & Holloway, 1963; Segal & Deadwyler, 1964b) and freereinforcement (Segal & Deadwyler, 1964a) schedules produce the polydipsia, liquid as well as dry food reinforcers are effective (Falk, 1964), and alcohol solutions (Lester, 1961) as well as water are drunk. The aims of the present experiments were (1) to follow the time course of the development of polydipsia over days, and (2) to observe the interaction of water drinking and bar pressing, where neither was related to the delivery of reinforcements. Method Experiment 1. Two naive, adult, male, albino rats, A-2 and A-3, were maintained at 80% of ad lib weight, and received daily experimental sessions in a sound-insulated, ventilated, lighted chamber containing a lever in one wall, a food cup in a second wall, and a water-bottle nozzle in a third wall. Sessions consisted of the delivery of 100 45-mg Noyes pellets, one every 60 sec. (an F60 schedule). Licks at the water nozzle were recorded, but neither licks nor bar presses affected the delivery of pellets. The experiment lasted 30 days.E xp e rim e n t 2. Two additional naive, adult, male, albino rats, 0 and C-A, were subjected to an F60schedule, but this time the lever, food cup and waterbottle nozzle were on the same wall of the chamber, with the lever in the middle. Operant-level lever presses, as well as licks. were recorded. After the eleventh session, a 5-sec. delay of reinforcement was imposed, so that a pellet was never delivered sooner than 5 sec. following a bar press. The experiment lasted 16 days. Results and Discussion Ex per i men t 1. The upper portion of Fig. 1 shows the first 10-pellet deliveries from sessions 2, 3, 6, 13 and 14 (no graphic records were taken on session 1). The pattern of drinking was relatively stable from session 14 on. The upper tracing in each day's record shows cumulative water licks between food pellets; diagonal deflections indicate 2-sec. intervals during drinking bursts. The lower traCing shows the delivery of food. Both rats drank more frequently, and for longer durations, as the experiment went on. A2 drank after 16% of the pellets on session 2, 65% on session 6, 86% on session 13, and 95% on session 14. Thereafter the percentages fluctuated between 74% and 96%. A3 drank after 24% of the pellets on day 2, 75% on day 6, 85% on day 13, and 94% on day 14. Thereafter the percentages fluctuated between 55% and 89%. The modal duration of ...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of water drinking on a dry-food free-reinforcement schedule

Segal

1965

Psychon Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The present study suggests that once the mediating behavior is initiated by stimulus change it is no longer under stimulus control, but may be maintained until terminated by reinforcement. That mediating behavior is important in establishing accurate DRL performance has already been shown by Segal & Holloway (1963). Delayed reinforcement is probably effective in establishing DRL performance because it is the chain "bar press-mediating behavior" which is reinforced .…”

Section: Dlseusslonmentioning

confidence: 78%

The effect of delayed reinforcement on DRL conditioning

1965

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstraetFour albino rats were trained to depress a lever on a DRL schedule. Reinforcement was delivered 10 seco after a correct response. A tone immediately followed a correct response. The Ss learned the DRL performance by reducing initially long IRTs rather than increasing initially short IRTs as is usually the case when reinforcement is not delayed. ProblemDelayed reinforcement has been shown to retard the rate of response in a free operant bar pressing situation (Perin, 1943;Dews, 1960; Azzi, et aI, 1964;Skinner 1938). Since DRL schedules require that responding be decreased there was reason to believe that delayed reinforcement might aid Ss in the acquisition of DRL performance. It also seemed likely that a stimulus change after a correct response would help to keep response rate from dropping off too sharply for the performance to be acquired (cf., Ferster, 1953). MethodThe Ss were four male albino rats, 100-110 days old at the beginning of the experimento After each session they were fed a sufficient amount of Purina lab chow to keep them at 80% of their ad lib feeding weight. Water was continuously available in the home cage.Two-hr sessions were scheduled five days a week. During the first session each S was run on a CRF schedule with a 2-sec. delay of reinforcement. A tone (Tone 1, Foringer Stimulus Control Panel, ~o. 1166-4) was on continuously during this delay period. Starting with the second session all Ss we,re placed on a DRL 20-seco schedule in which a correct response produced a 2-sec. tone. A 45 mg food pellet was delivered 10 sec. after the response (Le., 8 sec. after the termination of the tone). The tone was extended to the entire 10-sec. delay interval from session 28 to session 36. R ... suIts Figure 1 shows the modes and interquartile ranges (Q) of each S's performance in the manner described by Hodos (1963)0 Responses emitted during the first 2 sec. of the inter-response time (IRT) were not included in the tabulations since they seem to represent behavior which is not actually under schedule control. Several aspects of the performance are shown clearly in Fig. 1

show abstract

“…(The recording pen reset to baseline following the completion of each 550 licks.) Performances typical of DRL schedules for other operants (Segal & Holloway, 1963) alternated with performances typical 272 of prandial drinking. The control of the experimental reinforcement schedule appears in the periods of lowrate licking, and the control of the thirst stimulus in periods of high-rate licking.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%