Goldfish were trained in a shuttlebox with light as CS and brief shock as US. Performance was measured in terms of "initial response" to the CS (at least one crossing of the hurdle on any trial) and-where the CS was not terminated by the initial response-in terms of "multiple response" to the CS (more than one crossing on any trial). The level of initial responding was as high in classically conditioned animals (shocked on every trial) as in avoidance animals, whether or not the CS was terminated by response, but lower in control animals yoked with the avoidance animals, and lower also in punished animals (shocked only if they responded). Multiple responding was negligible in avoidance animals, but common in classically conditioned animals and in punished animals. The results can be accounted for in purely Pavlovian terms, no reference to instrumental learning being required.
The performance of pigeons trained with patterned sequences of reward (R) and nonreward (N) for response to a given stimulus (S3) was studied in massed trials, R and N trials with other (readily discriminable) stimuli being interpolated in such a way that the outcome of any S3 trial could not be predicted from the events of the immediately preceding trial. The patterns used were single alternation of R and N trials within each session; R trials in the first half of each session and N trials in the second half; N trials in the first half of each session and R trials in the second half; and successive acquisition and extinction with the R-to-N and N-to-R transitions occurring within sessions, between sessions, or both. Quasi-random partial reinforcement also was scheduled. The results point to patterning based on carryover (rapidly decaying sensory residual or "short-term" memories of prior events) and on trial stimuli (stimuli correlated with number of trials or time elapsed since the start of a session) where carryover and trial stimuli are differentially reinforced. There is evidence as well of control by associatively reinstated representations or memories of recent N for response to S3 (N on earlier trials with S3 in the same session), although not of control by memory of more remote N (N on the final S3 trials of the preceding sessions) or by memory of R, recent or remote.That reward (R) or nonreward (N) for be stimuli, such as the taste of food remainresponse on one trial may be used as a cue ing in the mouth or feedback from a perto response on a succeeding trial is suggested sisting emotional response to N, and they by a variety of phenomena such as slower may be stimulus "traces" (in Hull's sense) responding after R than after N when R or "short-term memories"-continuously deand N trials are regularly alternated (Tyler, caying, residual effects of prior stimulation. Wortz, & Bitterman, 1953), decreasing re-In widely spaced trials, it seems necessary sistance to extinction in the course of re-to assume some sort of associative reinstatepeated acquisition and extinction (Perkins ment, which is to say that the animals re-& Cacioppo, 1950), and the partial reinforce-spond to "representations" of R and N ment effect (Sheffield, 1949). In massed evoked by stimuli previously paired with trials, it seems reasonable to assume that the them (Amsel, 1967;Capaldi, 1971). Reinanimals respond to aftereffects of R and N statement is not, of course, incompatible with that are carried over from trial to trial (Hull, carryover, and it is possible that both may 1952; Sheffield, 1949). The aftereffects may operate in massed trials.The reinstatement assumption raises the quesion of how the associative processes re-This work was supported in part by Grant MH spons jbl e for representations of R and N 23294 from the U.
Classical conditioning of goldfish in the shuttlebox* Goldfish trained in a shuttlebox with light as CS and brief shock as US acquire the shuttling response to light whether or not an avoidance contingency is in effect. That the change in behavior produced by the classical procedure is not due merely to sensitization is demonstrated by a discriminative control. The results suggest the usefulness of the shuttlebox for the study of classical conditioning in goldfish and call into question the instrumental interpretation of the change in behavior produced by the avoidance procedure.
The key pecking of pigeons was autoshaped to three key colors paired with food in discrete trials. Then, the effects of three different color-correlated contingencies were compared: reward (presentation of food contingent on pecking), omission (presentation of food prevented by pecking), and extinction (no food). Two measures of performance were used: initial response (the number of trials with each color on which at least one peck was made) and multiple response (the total number of pecks per trial). In general, the reward color produced more pecking than the omission color, the omission color more than the extinction color, and the extinction color more than on blank trials with an unlighted key, although (relative to reward) omission produced a higher level of initial than of multiple responding. These results point clearly to the importance of stimulus-reinforcer continguity in the control of pecking.
Goldfish studied in a choice situation showed progressive improvement in red-green discrimination reversal under a variety of training conditions, the amount of improvement varying with conditions. Of the several modifications of an earlier training situation which were introduced, exposing the animals to S+ during reinforcement had the greatest facilitating effect on performance. The use of a center key, response to which was required for presentation of the discriminanda, also produced substantial facilitation. On the other hand, feeding the animals at the locus of response was of relatively minor importance, and increasing the duration of unreinforced exposure to S-had no effect. Some questions about the relation between improvement in goldfish and improvement in more advanced animals are considered.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.