Abstract

Conditioned stimulus (CS) duration is a determinant of conditioned responding, with increases in duration leading to reductions in response rates. The CS duration effect has been proposed to reflect sensitivity to the reinforcement rate across cumulative exposure to the CS, suggesting that the delay of reinforcement from the onset of the cue is not crucial. Here, we compared the effects of delay and rate of reinforcement on Pavlovian appetitive conditioning in mice. In Experiment 1, the influence of reinforcement delay on the timing of responding was removed by making the duration of cues variable across trials. Mice trained with variable duration cues were sensitive to differences in the rate of reinforcement to a similar extent as mice trained with fixed duration cues. Experiments 2 and 3 tested the independent effects of delay and reinforcement rate. In Experiment 2, food was presented at either the termination of the CS or during the CS. In Experiment 3, food occurred during the CS for all cues. The latter experiment demonstrated an effect of delay, but not reinforcement rate. Experiment 4 ruled out the possibility that the lack of effect of reinforcement rate in Experiment 3 was due to mice failing to learn about the nonreinforced CS exposure after the presentation of food within a trial. These results demonstrate that although the CS duration effect is not simply a consequence of timing of conditioned responses, it is dependent on the delay of reinforcement. The results provide a challenge to current associative and nonassociative, time-accumulation models of learning.

Highlights

  • The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:

  • We previously found that the Conditioned stimulus (CS) duration effect was abolished if the rate of reinforcement was equated across CSs (Austen et al, 2018), suggesting that the cause of the CS duration effect was sensitivity to reinforcement rate

  • In Experiment 3, when CSs differed in reinforcement rate but were matched for delay of reinforcement, there was no significant difference in rate of conditioned responding

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:. Experiment 4 ruled out the possibility that the lack of effect of reinforcement rate in Experiment 3 was due to mice failing to learn about the nonreinforced CS exposure after the presentation of food within a trial These results demonstrate that the CS duration effect is not a consequence of timing of conditioned responses, it is dependent on the delay of reinforcement. Short duration CSs typically elicit higher response rates than long duration CSs (e.g., Gibbon, Baldock, Locurto, Gold, & Terrace, 1977; Harris & Carpenter, 2011; Holland, 2000; Lattal, 1999; but see Davis, Schlesinger, & Sorenson, 1989) An account of this CS duration effect is that it reflects the sensitivity of conditioned responding to the rate of reinforcement across cumulative exposure to a CS (Gallistel & Gibbon, 2000). If conditioned responding is determined by the reinforcement rate over cumulative exposure to the CS regardless of how the exposure is structured relative to the presentation of the US, it would be predicted that delay of reinforcement will have little effect on response rates

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call