Warmup in Free‐operant Avoidance as a Function of the Response‐shock = Shock‐shock Interval

Two experiments examined pigeons' postponement of a signaled extinction period, or timeout (TO), from an ongoing schedule of response-dependent food delivery. A concurrent-operant procedure was used in which responses on one (food) key produced food according to a variable-interval schedule and responses on a second (postponement) key delayed the next scheduled TO according to a response-TO (R-TO) interval. A series of response-independent stimulus changes on the food key temporally partitioned the R-TO into three equal segments (S1, S2, and S3). Postponement responses, in addition to postponing TO, also reinstated S1, the stimulus correlated with the greatest temporal distance from TO. In Experiment 1, the R-TO interval was manipulated systematically across blocks of sessions (conditions) at a given ratio of R-TO:TO duration. This R-TO:TO ratio was manipulated across blocks of conditions (phases). Postponement response rates varied inversely with R-TO interval in each phase. Changes in the R-TO:TO ratio did not produce consistent differences except at the 1:10 ratio for some pigeons, where it disrupted postponement responding in some conditions. Most of the postponement responses occurred in the presence of S2 and S3, the stimuli most proximal to TO, whereas most of the food-key responses occurred in S1. In Experiment 2, the R-TO contingencies were systematically manipulated in the presence of the time-correlated stimuli. In one set of conditions, the R-TO contingencies were made either ineffective or less effective in the presence of one or more stimuli. Postponement responses typically shifted to stimuli in the presence of which responses were relatively more effective. Postponement responses decreased markedly when the added stimuli were removed, and then recovered when the stimuli were reinstated. Results from both experiments indicate that the added stimuli in a discriminated TO-avoidance procedure serve predominately discriminative functions, delineating periods during which behavior is maximally effective. The results parallel those obtained in shock-avoidance procedures, providing further evidence that TO functions as an aversive stimulus.

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 53%

Discriminated Timeout Avoidance in Pigeons: The Roles of Added Stimuli

DeFulio

Hackenberg

2007

“…Some studies have found that changing inten-sity alters warm-up (e.g., Leander, 1973); others have found that it does not (e.g., Hoffman et al, 1961;Powell, 1970b). Shock frequency also exerts little control over the size of warmup (e.g., Hineline, 1978a) but it does alter performance later in the session.…”

Section: Aversive Stimuli Avoidancementioning

confidence: 99%

Responding Changes Systematically Within Sessions During Conditioning Procedures

McSweeney

Roll

1993

When the procedure is held constant within an experimental session, responding often changes systematically within that session. Many of these within-session changes in responding cannot be dismissed as learning curves or by-products of satiation. They have been observed in studies of positive reinforcement, avoidance, punishment, extinction, discrimination, delayed matching to sample, concept formation, maze and alley running, and laboratory analogues of foraging, as well as in the unconditioned substrates of conditioned behavior. When aversive stimuli are used, responding usually increases early in the session. When positive reinforcers are used, responding changes in a variety of ways, including increasing, decreasing, and bitonic functions. Both strong and minimal reinforcement procedures produce within-session decreases in positively reinforced behavior. Within-session changes in responding have substantial theoretical and methodological implications for research in conditioning.

“…Except for warm-up for avoidance (e.g., Hineline, 1978aHineline, , 1978b, neither priming nor warm-up has been studied in systematic detail. However, what is known suggests that neither procedure is related to the present functions.…”

Section: Subje-ctmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of Responding Within Sessions

McSweeney

Hinson

1992

Rates of responding changed systematically across sessions for rats pressing levers and keys and for pigeons pressing treadles and pecking keys. A bitonic function in which response rates increased and then decreased across sessions was the most common finding, although an increase in responding also occurred alone. The change in response rate was usually large. The function relating responding to time in session had the following general characteristics: It appeared early in training, and further experience moved and reduced its peak; it was flatter for longer sessions; and it was flatter, more symmetrical, and peaked later for lower than for higher rates of reinforcement. Factors related to reinforcement exerted more control over the location of the peak rate of responding and the steepness of the decline in response rates than did factors related to responding. These within-session changes in response rates have fundamental theoretical and methodological implications.