Within-Subject Effects of Sucrose Concentration on Conditioned Suppression of Licking

Hancock, Robert A.; Ayres, John J. B.

doi:10.1007/bf03394250

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The finding that resistance to change was not related to rate of reinforcement in simple FR, VR, Fl, and VI schedules questions the application of the behavior-momentum hypothesis in this context. The failure to find data consistent with most research on behavior momentum agrees with other studies that have varied rates of reinforcement across successive conditions or in separate groups of subjects (Ayres, 1968;Ayres & Quinsey, 1970;Clark, 1958;Hancock & Ayres, 1974;Jenkins, 1978;Leslie, 1977;Pavlik & Carlton, 1965). Leslie (1977), for example, trained rats under a VI 1 -min schedule, and varied the concentrations of sucrose reinforcement across two conditions.…”

Section: Simple Versus Multiple Schedulessupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Although the present experiments cannot establish the importance of these factors, other evidence suggests the importance of discriminative stimuli. Hancock and Ayres (1974) had rats lick 8% and 32% sucrose solutions from a dipper on alternate days, with no change in stimulus conditions from day to day. A tone paired with shock suppressed licking equally under both reinforcement conditions.…”

Section: Simple Versus Multiple Schedulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tests of Behavior Momentum in Simple and Multiple Schedules With Rats and Pigeons

Cohen

Riley

Weigle

1993

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experiments examined the relationship between rate of reinforcement and resistance to change in rats' and pigeons' responses under simple and multiple schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, 28 rats responded under either simple fixed-ratio, variable-ratio, fixed-interval, or variable-interval schedules; in Experiment 2, 3 pigeons responded under simple fixed-ratio schedules. Under each schedule, rate of reinforcement varied across four successive conditions. In Experiment 3, 14 rats responded under either a multiple fixed-ratio schedule or a multiple fixed-interval schedule, each with two components that differed in rate of reinforcement. In Experiment 4, 7 pigeons responded under either a multiple fixed-ratio or a multiple fixed-interval schedule, each with three components that also differed in rate of reinforcement. Under each condition of each experiment, resistance to change was studied by measuring schedule-controlled performance under conditions with prefeeding, response-independent food during the schedule or during timeouts that separated components of the multiple schedules, and by measuring behavior under extinction. There were no consistent differences between rats and pigeons. There was no direct relationship between rates of reinforcement and resistance to change when rates of reinforcement varied across successive conditions in the simple schedules. By comparison, in the multiple schedules there was a direct relationship between rates of reinforcement and resistance to change during most tests of resistance to change. The major exception was delivering response-independent food during the schedule; this disrupted responding, but there was no direct relationship between rates of reinforcement and resistance to change in simple- or multiple-schedule contexts. The data suggest that rate of reinforcement determines resistance to change in multiple schedules, but that this relationship does not hold under simple schedules.

show abstract

Section: Simple Versus Multiple Schedulessupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Simple Versus Multiple Schedulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tests of Behavior Momentum in Simple and Multiple Schedules With Rats and Pigeons

Cohen

Riley

Weigle

1993

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With regard to this last interpretation, however, we know of no direct evidence in the conditioned suppression literature to suggest that 14 h of VI training produces a baseline less subject to the suppressive effects of CSs than does 5 h of VI training. Furthermore, those studies that have deliberately attempted to manipulate the "strength" of baselines by varying the value of the incentive used to maintain them have shown either no effects (Ayres, 1968;Ayres & Quinsey, 1970) or effects that were weak at best (Hancock & Ayres, 1974). Thus, of the interpretations we have considered for our on-line vs. off-line differences, the "baseline strength" interpretation is not only the least interesting, but probably also the least likely to be correct.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Concurrent observations of barpress suppression and freezing: Effects of CS modality and on-line vs. off-line training upon posttrial behavior

Ayres

Axelrod

Mercker

et al. 1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a conditioned suppression study with rats, CS modality (light vs. noise) and type of conditioning (on-line vs. off-line training) were manipulated. All rats were then tested on-line with only half the test trials reinforced. Some results and conclusions were as follows: (1) During initial training, suppression following reinforced noise trials was moderately strong at first but weakened over days; for the light, it was weak from the start. It was suggested that this strong influence of CS modality might complicate interpretations of posttrial suppression as a measure of US effectiveness. (2) During testing, posttrial suppression and freezing were greater following nonreinforced trials than following reinforced trials (US-omission effect), and this effect was stronger for noise than for light. Since noise also produced more freezing than light, this result favors the hypothesis that the US-omission effect is due to persistent CS-elicited freezing that is undisrupted by a shock US. (3) Although noise produced more freezing, both noise and light produced similar barpress suppression. This result is consistent with the suggestion that noise and light acquire equal associative strength but elicit different defensive behaviors.In a recent study of conditioned suppression of barpressing in the rat, Ayres and Vigorito (1984) examined their subjects' behavior in a I-min period following each trial. They found that when a white-noise conditioned stimulus (CS) coterminated with a single brief electric-gridshock unconditioned stimulus (US), the rats' barpressing in this l-rnin posttrial period was at first moderately suppressed. With further training, however, this suppression gradually decreased. If a second shock US was then added 1 min after the first, suppression in this same l-min posttrial period (now the period between the two shocks) gradually increased until it approached its original level. If shocks were omitted on some trials but presented on others, posttrial suppression was greater following shock omission than following shock presentation (US-omission effect). Finally, direct observations of the rats' behavior disclosed that the rats froze more following shock omission than following shock presentation. To account for these results, Ayres and Vigorito proposed that two factors were important:First, in the usual conditioned suppression procedure in which trials are widely spaced, the temporal stimuli

show abstract

“…The direct relationship between resistance to change and rate of reinforcement has been demonstrated primarily under procedures in which the different schedules of reinforcement for the performances during baseline occur within the same session-as multiple, chained, or concurrent schedules (e.g., Cohen, 1986;Nevin, 1974Nevin, , 1979Nevin, , 1988Nevin, , 1992Nevin, Mandell, & Yarensky, 1981;Nevin et al, 1990). This relation has not been consistently observed under procedures in which baseline training consists of blocks of sessions, each with a single schedule of reinforcement (e.g., Clark, 1958;Cohen, Furman, Crouse, & Kroner, 1990;Cohen et al, 1993;Hancock & Ayres, 1974). In what here will be called complex schedules, more than one schedule of reinforcement operates within an experimental session, either successively or concurrently, and each schedule is correlated with a different discriminative stimulus.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When examining the effects of different rates of reinforcement on resistance to change in simple schedules, those schedules may be arranged by having a single group of subjects exposed to different rates of reinforcement across successive conditions (e.g., Cohen et al, 1990) or by using independent groups of subjects (e.g., Church & Raymond, 1967;Clark, 1958). Some research with simple schedules of reinforcement has demonstrated a direct relationship between rate of reinforcement and resistance to change (e.g., Blackman, 1968;Church & Raymond, 1967;Millenson & de Villiers, 1972), whereas other research has failed to do so (e.g., Ayres, 1968;Clark, 1958;Cohen et al, 1990Cohen et al, , 1993Hancock & Ayres, 1974;Leslie, 1977).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral Momentum: The Effects of the Temporal Separation of Rates of Reinforcement

Cohen¹

1998

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Part 1 of the experiment, rats responded under a variable-interval (VI) 30-s schedule and a VI 120-s schedule, with each in effect for a block of consecutive sessions. That is, the two VI schedules were presented in successive conditions. In Part 2 the VI schedules alternated each day, and in Part 3 the schedules alternated within the session as a multiple schedule. For half of the rats in Parts 1 and 2, the VI schedule alternated every few minutes within the session with a stimulus that signaled extinction. For each part, once response rates had stabilized, resistance to change was measured by prefeeding and extinction. When the schedules were examined in successive conditions (Part 1), resistance to extinction was greater under the VI 120-s schedule of reinforcement than under the VI 30-s schedule, but no consistent differences in resistance to prefeeding were observed between the two VI schedules. When the VI schedules alternated each day (Part 2), resistance to extinction was greater under the VI 120-s schedule. However, no consistent differences in resistance to prefeeding were observed between the VI schedules without extinction in Group A, but resistance to prefeeding was greater under the VI 30-s schedule for rats with the added extinction component in Group B. When the VI schedules alternated within the session as a multiple schedule (Part 3), resistance to extinction and resistance to prefeeding were greater under the VI 30-s schedule. The data suggest that different rates of reinforcement, and their accompanying discriminative stimuli, must be compared within the same session (or at least on alternate days) to produce data consistent with the behavioral momentum model.

show abstract

Within-Subject Effects of Sucrose Concentration on Conditioned Suppression of Licking

Cited by 6 publications

References 9 publications

Tests of Behavior Momentum in Simple and Multiple Schedules With Rats and Pigeons

Tests of Behavior Momentum in Simple and Multiple Schedules With Rats and Pigeons

Concurrent observations of barpress suppression and freezing: Effects of CS modality and on-line vs. off-line training upon posttrial behavior

Behavioral Momentum: The Effects of the Temporal Separation of Rates of Reinforcement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About