Maintenance Of Keypecking Research Articles

Acquisition and maintenance of autoshaped key pecking as a function of food stimulus and key stimulus similarity.

The results of a number of recent studies suggest that acquisitions of autoshaped key pecking in pigeons is affected by the similarity of the grain-hopper stimulus and response-key stimulus. In Experiment 1 this hypothesis was tested by training independent groups of pigeons to key peck under six different hopper-stimulus and key-stimulus similarity conditions, and three procedures containing either immediate reinforcement, variable delay of reinforcement, or omission of reinforcement for key pecking. Number of trials to acquisition was found to be related to the similarity variable. Maintained responding was affected by the response-reinforcer contingency. This effect was found both within and between subjects. Under two of the contingencies (automaintenance and omission), maintained responding continued to be affected by the similarity of the hopper stimulus and key stimulus. In Experiment 2 pigeons were given omission training with a hopper light on or off. Both acquisition and maintenance of key pecking were facilitated by the presence of the hopper light. The present findings suggest that much of the responding reported in various automatic shaping and training procedures may reflect the effects of key stimulus/food stimulus similarity.

AUTOMAINTENANCE WITHOUT STIMULUS‐CHANGE REINFORCEMENT: TEMPORAL CONTROL OF KEY PECKS1

Yoked pairs of experimentally naive pigeons were exposed to a modified autoshaping procedure in which key pecking by the leader birds postponed both keylight termination and access to grain for the leader and the follower bird. Key pecking developed and was maintained in all birds and continued through two reversals of roles in the yoked procedure. Although temporal control developed more slowly in follower birds, asymptotic temporal distributions of key pecking were similar for all birds in both leader and follower roles; maximum responding occurred soon after keylight onset and decreased to a minimum prior to reinforcement. Response distributions for both leader and follower birds were described by Killeen's (1975) mathematical model of temporal control. Follower birds received response-independent reinforcement, and the development by these birds of temporal distributions which are minimal immediately prior to reinforcement is without precedent in Pavlovian appetitive conditioning. However, maintenance of key pecking by the leader birds, whose responses postponed both stimulus-change and food reinforcement, supports an interpretation of autoshaped and automaintained key pecking as responding elicited by signaled grain presentation.

Maintenance of keypecking in pigeons by a food avoidance but not by a shock avoidance contingency

Response key illuminations were followed by food delivery or shock, and keypecks were programmed to prevent the occurrence of whichever stimulus was scheduled. At high shock intensity, pigeons did not peck: at low shock intensity, pigeons pecked in about half of the trials. When different key colors signaled food and shock trials, pigeons pecked on food trials, thus preventing food delivery, but not on shock trials, thus failing to avoid shock delivery. That pecks occurred despite the fact that they avoided food but did not occur when they avoided shock is taken as evidence that the keypeck is frequently governed by biological predispositions, and not by its consequences.

The role of positive conditioned reinforcement in the maintenance of keypecking which prevents delivery of primary reinforcement

When a pecking key is briefly illuminated prior to the presentation of a grain reinforcer, keypecking is reliably developed and maintained in pigeons, even when pecking extinguishes the keylifeht and prevents reinforcement (negative automaintenance). This experiment assessed the role of response-produced key offset as a possible conditioned positive reinforcer of keypecking. Pigeons responded in a substantial proportion of the trials (50%–66%) on a procedure in which key illumination coterminated with reinforcer availability, and in which keypecks prevented reinforcement but did not extinguish the keylight. Thus, the notion that negative automaintenance keypecking is a function of conditioned positive reinforcement must be rejected.

Training and Maintenance of Keypecking in the Pigeon by Negative Reinforcement

Pigeons were trained to peck a key to escape a pulsing shock of linearly increasing intensity. As the rate of increase was varied from 0.0374 milliamperes per minute to 37.4 milliamperes per minute, the intensity at which most pecking occurred varied from 2.2 to 5.0 milliamperes.