Bar-press Response Research Articles

Generalization and discrimination as a function of the S-D-S delta intensity difference.

Three groups of four rats were trained on an auditory-intensity discrimination for 21 days. The S(D)-S(Delta) intensity difference for Group I was 10 db; for Group II, 20 db; and for Group III, 30 db. Following the initial discrimination training, the animals were tested for generalization of the bar-press response to seven novel S(Delta)'s which were presented intermingled with the original S(D) and S(Delta) values. (1.) The amount of simple discrimination training required to obtain fairly stable differences in S(D) and S(Delta) responding is an inverse function of the magnitude of the stimulus difference between S(D) and S(Delta). (2.) Generalization gradients obtained immediately following simple discrimination training exhibit a maximum displaced from S(D) in a direction also away from S(Delta). (3.) Gradients obtained following continued exposure to the multivalued S(Delta) situation show a fairly stable maximum at the S(D) value. (4.) Although the gradients tend to fall off systematically on either side of the continuum as distance from S(D) is increased, they decrease most rapidly on the S(Delta) limb of the gradient.

GENERALIZATION OF AUDITORY INTENSITY AS A FUNCTION OF AMOUNT OF DISCRIMINATION TRAINING1

Rats were trained on a two-valued auditory-intensity discrimination for 5, 2, 1 or 0 days. Then, the bar-press response rate was sampled in the presence of seven added discrimination stimuli (generalization) for seven days. Daily training sessions were 4 hr in length throughout the experiment. Only the five-day group exhibited a marked superiority on the multi-valued discrimination when contrasted with the group having had no prior simple discrimination training.

Visual exploration as reinforcement of conditioned bar-pressing responses of monkeys.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of BehaviorVolume 4, Issue 2 p. 119-123 VISUAL EXPLORATION AS REINFORCEMENT OF CONDITIONED BAR-PRESSING RESPONSES OF MONKEYS Louis E. Moon, Louis E. Moon STERLING-WINTHROP RESEARCH INSTITUTESearch for more papers by this author Louis E. Moon, Louis E. Moon STERLING-WINTHROP RESEARCH INSTITUTESearch for more papers by this author First published: April 1961 https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1961.4-119Citations: 5AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume4, Issue2April 1961Pages 119-123 RelatedInformation

Prolonged Alcohol Consumption in the Rat. 1. Acquisition and Extinction of a Bar-Pressing Response

Prolonged Alcohol Consumption in the Rat. 1. Acquisition and Extinction of a Bar-Pressing Response

Changes in heart rate associated with responses based on positive and negative reinforcement.

Cats were trained to press the appropriate bar for food or to avoid shock, using 2 tones as CSs; heart rate (HR) increased during the food CS and decreased during the shock CS. These HR responses to tone were not found outside of the experimental situation. The effects of reserpine were to reduce the HR response to the food CS, and to diminish the bar-press response to the shock CS. “Either reserpine … interrupts whatever mechanism intervenes between the heart and the skeletal musculature, or … classically conditioned changes in HR do not mediate instrumental avodiance responses.” (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)

Some Asymmetrical Drive Summation Phenomena

There have been a number of studies of the effect of an irrelevant thirst drive upon the performance of hungry rats (Kendler, 1945; Siegel, 1946; Kendler & Law, 1950; Danziger, 1953; Levine, 1956). In each case it was reported that a high irrelevant thirst is detrimental to food-relevant performance. (The thirst is said to be irrelevant because no water was present in the experimental situation.) In the Kendler and Law and the Levine studies, comparable decrements were found in the water-relevant performance of animals under high irrelevant hunger. In all of these studies the high irrelevant drive condition was 22 hr. (except that Danziger used 17 hr.); only Kendler (1945 ) varied the intensity of the irrelevant drive in a systematic way between 0 and 22 hr. Kendler found chat the resistance to extinction of the bar-press response was an inverted U-shaped function of the intensity of the irrelevant thirst drive. As the hours of irrelevant drive increased from zero there was first a facilitation of the performance, and then at a high level of irrelevant drive a decrement in performance was found. Kendler interpreted the facilitory phase as evidence for Hull's drive summation hypothesis and the decrement phase as indicating that for the high irrelevant drive case some adjustment was required in that hypothesis (Hull, 1943, p. 245). Subsequent Es, perhaps because generally they have found decrements in performance, have tended to emphasize the possibility of interference or inhibition factors. The present study reports an investigation of drive summation phenomena under a broader range of irrelevant drive conditions than has been used before. METHOD

Effect of Early Food Deprivation upon Later Consummatory Behavior in Puppies

Early food deprivation in rats has been found to increase adult hoarding (Hunt, 1941; Hunt, et al., 1949; Seitz, 1954), rate of food consumption (MCKelvey & Marx, 1951; Mandler, 1958; Marx, 1952) and aggression (Seitz, 1954). However, some of the results are equivocal and one study (McKelvey & Marx, 1951) failed to find an effect of early deprivation on hoarding and rate of eating. The interpretation of these results has been derived from learning theory (Hunt, 1941; Hunt, et al., 1949; Mandler, 1958; Marx, 1952) and/or psychoanalytic theory (Seitz, 1954). For example, Hunt (1941, p. 357) suggested that adult feeding-frustration acted as a conditioned anticipatory hunger approximating in intensity that experienced during the infantile feeding-frustration. Marx (1952) offered the hypothesis that the habit of rapid eating acquired during infantile deprivation persisted to adulthood and thus afforded a fast-eating rat more opportunity to hoard during the test. Mandler (1958) suggested that the entire deprivation history affects the animal's drive directly rather than its habit strength as measured by a bar-pressing response in her experiment. On the other hand, the psychoanalytic approach used by Seitz (1954) suggested that adult hoarding results from a fixation of storing-up food in infancy. The aim of the present experiment was to demonstrate that early food deprivation affects later consummatory behavior in the dog as well as the rat. Based on the results of Hunt ( 1941) and Marx ( 1952), the hypothesis tested was that puppies deprived of food early in life would consume more food at a faster rate, be more motivated toward food, and less easily inhibited to eat than would puppies on an ad libitum diet. W e also predicted that the deprived puppies would be more reinforced by the human feeder and consequently show more attraction to and less avoidance of a human examiner than nondeprived puppies.

Some effects of sub-cortical stimulation on the bar press response.

The effects of subcortical electrical stimulation on electroencephalographic activity, physiologic reactions, and spontaneous behavior of animals have received considerable attention. In 1949 Moruzzi and Magoun13reported that stimulation of the reticular formation of the brain stem produced a low-voltage fast electroencephalogram, characteristic of the alert state. These effects might be mediated in part by the diffuse projection system of Jasper.8Ingram, Knott, and Chiles7showed that, in the unanesthetized animal, stimulation of the reticular system would evoke behavioral, as well as electrical, alerting. Hess4,5has studied at length the effects of diencephalic stimulation on the spontaneous behavior of the unanesthetized animal and obtained a variety of responses, both autonomic and somatic in nature. Using anesthetized cats, Kaada10elicited both autonomic and somatic responses from stimulation of rhinencephalic structures, but failed to evoke any autonomic reactions from stimulation of the hippocampus. MacLean and Delgado11

A study of the temporal factors in the fear conditioning in the albino rat

Libby (6) studied the temporal factors which worked at the acquisition of Estes-Skinner type conditioning. He found that the depressant effect was maximum in 710 sec. intervals between the onset of the CS (light) and the onset of the US (aversive stimulus). The present study was designed to reexamine the Libby's results by using the procedure of Mowrer (7) and analyzed the factors acted in the fear-conditioning.Subjects : 42 albino rats (25 males and 17 females) were used.Apparatus : Skinner-box which had a grid floor.Procedure : After 3 day bar-pressing training, Ss were divided into five experimental and one control groups. The experimental groups E1, E4, E7, E10, and E20 had CS (blinking light) -US (0.35 mA, A C) pairing with 1, 4, 7, 10and 20 sec. interval each. The length of the US was 3 sec. and both stimuli turned off at the same instant. In the course of the five days of training period, Ss made 60 trials reinforced bar pressing responses, and had the total of 7 fear-conditioning. Control group was given only US without CS. Test trials were made as follows : Test P : After the Ss reached the criterion of the operant level, they were allowed to bar-pressing responses for five min. in dark.Test L : Each Ss continued to bar-press for one min. with CS.Test D : Each Ss continued to bar-press for one min. in dark. Test L & D were alternately repeated five times, one min. each, so the total of the L-D test was ten min.Results : 1) The mean numbers of responses in Test L (Table 1) and the inflexion ratio (I) indicated that the depression is maximum at the 7-sec. CS-US interval. (Fig. 2 & Table 2) 2) In Test L, the recoveries from depression were greater in E1 and E20 than E4, E7, and E10, especially in E10, almost all behavioral patterns were depressed and the responses in Test D were also decreased (Fig. 1).3) The CS effects were not seen in the control group.Conclusion : 1) Depressant effect was the greatest around 7-sec. interval and decreased monotonously in both sides. These results coincided with Libby's in greater parts.2) By this new method the characteristics of foregoing experiments which are important to investigate the nature of fear have been cleared to some degree.

シロネズミのスキナー箱に於ける補強配合の変化効果

Using Skinner box, we examined the behavior of white rats in the learning of barpressing habit by the partial reinforcement procedure at fixed ratios.Sixty-five rats were divided into 13 groups and trained to learn bar-pressing responses under predetermined schedules (Number of reinforcements / Number of responses : 24/24, 48/48, 96/96, 36/48, 48/64, 96/128, 24/48, 48/96, 96/192, 12/48, 24/96, 48/192, and 0/0), and then extinguished. We analyzed the results in regard to three aspects : number of reinforcements and responses, and ratio of reinforcement.And then we examined the methodological problem of criterion of socalled resistance to extinction, which had hitherto been determined arbitrarily.Findings were as follows :1) The acquisition of the habit was, as Jenkins and Stanley report, more difficult by the procedure of partial reinforcement in the early stage of training, but with the progress of training the difficulty decreased, and at last about the same level of performance was attained as by the procedure of continuous reinforcement.2) The after-effects of the differential acquisition training on the socalled resistance to extinction were :a) In regare to the aspect of the same ratio of reinforcements, the more the responses (therefore reinforcements) in acquisition, the more the responses were emitted in the first extinction session. This suggests the functioning of the principle of effect.b) In regard to the aspect of the same number of reinforcements, the more the responses in acquisition, the more the responses were emitted in the first extinction session. This suggests the functioning of the principle of expectancy or substitution.An interesting fact to us was :c) In regard to the aspect of the same number of responses, the less the number of reinforcements, the responses emitted in the first extinction session showed increasing trend rather than decreasing.It is impossible to interpret this fact by the hypothesis of secondary reinforcement, not to speak of the hypothesis of generalization of after-effect of reinforcement and of response unit.Rather it is supposed that the principle of substitution, particularly the principle functioning in the phenomenon named positive reciprocal induction by Pavlov was powerfully at work.On the problem of the criterion of the socalled resistance to extinction, the following were made clear by computing the coefficients of correlation among the number of responses up to the criteria of 3, 5, and 10 minutes of non-response in two extinction sessions after 24 and 48 hrs. of acquisition training.1) The number of responses emitted in the second extinction session (spontaneous recovery after 24 hrs. of the first extinction session) was little affected by the differential conditions of acquisition training.2) The coefficients of rank correlation of the number of responses emitted in the first extinction session was the higher, the longer the time of the criterion of resistance to extinction. According to these results, it will be necessary and adequate to take the criterion of 10 minutes of non-response to make the number of responses in extinction session the index of effects of differential training conditions.

Positive reinforcement of the bar-pressing response by a light stimulus following dark operant pretests with no after effect.

Positive reinforcement of the bar-pressing response by a light stimulus following dark operant pretests with no after effect.

Effort and resistance to extinction of the bar-pressing response.

Effort and resistance to extinction of the bar-pressing response.

A Comparison of the Intake of Glucose and Saccharin Solutions under Conditions of Caloric Need

The present experiment was designed to test the effect of a specific caloric hunger on the intake of glucose and saccharin solutions, both of which are preferred to water by animals on an ad lib diet.1 Glucose, however, furnishes calories while saccharin has no nutritive value. Hausmann has shown that when animals drink sugar solutions they reduce their food intake, keeping total caloric intake constant.2 Since the drinking of saccharin solutions did not affect food intake, Hausmann concluded that the animals are not 'deceived' by the taste of saccharin. There is evidence, however, which indicates that hunger influences the reward value of saccharin for rats. Sheffield and Roby show that hungry animals learn to respond to a stimulus-pattern related to the availability of saccharin while satiated animals do not.3 Since saccharin is supposed to have no effect on hunger, we might assume that saccharin acts as a secondary reinforcement because it has taste qualities which are similar to the sugars. If saccharin is a secondary reinforcement, then introduction of hunger should affect responding for sugar and saccharin similarly. This is not the case, however, as shown by a study of the bar-pressing response with rats.4 Increasing both the specific caloric hunger and general hunger decreased the rate of responding for a saccharin reinforcement, whereas the opposite was true for glucose. The purpose of this experiment is to test whether caloric hunger differentially effects the drinking of glucose and saccharin solutions in a free

刺戟汎化と制止汎化に關する一實驗研究

1. The main problems of the present experiment are to investigate (1) the functions of irrelevant or static stimulus S3 and secondary reinforcing stimulus S4, and (2) the generalization of inhibition to original stimulus S1 through the differential reinforcement by S1 and S2.2. Experiment (1). Conditioned bar-pressing response to food was established to the presentation conditioned light stimulus S1. And then the differential process by S1 (0j. n. d) and S2 (2j. n. d. or 4j. n. d.) was carried out. The condition to the responses to differential light stimulus S2 were as follows. Group A (non-reinforcement but with the sound of food-release mechanism S4), Group B (non-reinforcement and without S4), Group C (non-reinforcement but with the weak electric stimulus and S4), Group D (non-reinforcement but with the weak electric stimulus and without S4)All group were given twenty differential trials by S1 and S2, after 100 reinforcements to conditioned S1……R responses. Light stimuli S1 and S2 were presented ten times each in random alternative order. Then the resistance of conditioned generalized responses to S was measured. But Group A0 was extinguished immediately after the conditioning process, and not given the differential trails.3. Experiment (2) After the 50 reinforcements were given to conditioned response (S1……R), differential process by S1 and S2 was carried out as in the above experiment, and then S1……R was extinguished. Control Group was extinguished without interposition of differential process. In this experiment, the conditions of Group B and D in Experiment (1) were used as the S2 conditions. The influence of the differential process to S1……R was measured by the strength of resistance to extinction.4. Experiment (3) Cionditioned bar-pressing response were reinforced 50 times under the continuous presentation of light stimulus S3. Subjects were divided into two groups: Group A was extinguished by the ordinary extinction procedure, Group B was extinguished under the same conditions of Group A although the stimulus S3 was never presented it extinction process.5. Results and interpretation.a. S1…R connection was superior in the strength of resistance to extinction. And as the distance from S1 to S2 in stimulus continuum increased, the strength of resistance to extinction of S2……R decreased. (Table 2, 3)b. Without S3 and S4 in the situation of extinction, the extinction process occurred more rapidly. (Table 4)c. Under thedifferential process, S1ER gradually decreased and then was recovered to somewaht below the maximum M. The amount of decrements of S1ER was determined by the condition of S2. (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5)The above results show that S3 is neutralized through the differential process, and that S1IR generalized to S1.

Successive Extinctions of a Bar-Pressing Response in Rats

Successive Extinctions of a Bar-Pressing Response in Rats