A bout analysis of operant response disruption

Abstract

Operant behavior appears to be organized in bouts of responses, whose parameters are differentially sensitive to various manipulations. This study investigated potential differential effects of three forms of operant response disruption—extinction (EXT), non-contingent reinforcement (NCR), and prefeeding (PRE)—on response bouts. In Experiment 1, Wistar Kyoto rats (WKY) were trained on a tandem variable-time (VT) 120 s fixed-ratio (FR) 5 schedule of reinforcement; after stability was established, their responding was disrupted for three sessions with one of the three disrupters (EXT, NCR, or PRE). In Experiment 2, Long Evans (LE) rats were trained on a tandem VT 240 s FR 5 to stability, and their responding disrupted with EXT or NCR. In EXT and NCR, response rates declined significantly and progressively over the course of the session, primarily due to a declining bout-initiation rate in EXT, and to fewer responses per bout in NCR. In contrast, a session-wide drop in response rate was observed in PRE, primarily due to a reduction in bout-initiation rate at the start of the session. These findings suggest that each form of disruption differentially impacts dissociable aspects of behavior. Theories of behavioral persistence should account for these functional relations, which appear to be obscured in response rate measures.

Suppressive and enhancing effects of nicotine on food-seeking behavior

“…It is important to note that inferences on motivational and motoric effects are based on the distribution of inter-response times (IRTs). Although these inferences are well validated (Brackney et al, 2011, 2017; Brackney & Sanabria, 2015), they hinge on key assumptions about the distribution of IRTs, which the present data appear to meet (Figure 4). Nonetheless, recent research suggests that IRT distributions are generated from processes more complicated than those assumed here (e.g., Tanno, 2016).…”

About bouts: A heterogeneous tandem schedule of reinforcement reveals dissociable components of operant behavior in Fischer rats.

“…Such organization suggests that behavior fluctuates in and out of schedule-controlled states. This behavioral fluctuation appears to be a function of the schedule type (ratio or interval; Killeen & Hall, 2001; Reed, 2011; Tanno, 2016), reinforcement rate (Brackney, Cheung, Neisewander, & Sanabria, 2011; Conover et al, 2001; Daniels & Sanabria, 2016; Shull, 2011; Shull et al, 2001; Shull, Grimes, & Bennett, 2004), and reinforcer efficacy (Brackney et al, 2011; Brackney, Cheung, & Sanabria, 2017; Daniels & Sanabria, 2016; Shull, 2004).…”

“…Between-bout IRTs appear to be selectively sensitive to changes in reinforcer efficacy and rate of reinforcement (Brackney et al, 2011, 2017; Cheung et al, 2012; Podlesnik, Jimenez-Gomez, Ward, & Shahan, 2006; Shull, 2004; Shull et al, 2001; Shull, Gaynor, & Grimes, 2002; Shull & Grimes, 2003; Shull et al, 2004; but see Conover et al, 2001). In contrast, bout length appears to be sensitive to changes in the response-reinforcer contingencies (Brackney et al, 2011, 2017; Brackney & Sanabria, 2015; Shull et al, 2001; Smith, McLean, Shull, Hughes, & Pitts, 2014; Tanno, 2016). In particular, the length of NB bouts, but not of Geo bouts, appears to be shaped by and centered around response requirements (Brackney & Sanabria, 2015).…”

“…Theoretically, it suggests that motivated behavior consists of alternations between behavioral states, where motivation (e.g., deprivation level) controls which state is entered (e.g., seeking food), and schedule demands and physical capability control the behavior within that state (e.g., collecting food at a particular place). As a result, inferences based on overall response rate may be misleading, because they lump together behavior controlled by different mechanisms; failure to find differences in response rate between two groups or conditions does not mean that the underlying microstructure is similar (Brackney et al, 2011, 2017; Daniels & Sanabria, 2016; Myerson & Miezin, 1980; Reed, 2011; Shull, 2011). Translationally, the dissociability of operant processes informs key strategies to identify treatment effects on motivation and learning, dissociating them from sensorimotor effects (Brackney, Cheung, Herbst, Hill, and Sanabria, 2012; Brackney et al, 2017; Cheung et al, 2012; Higgs, Williams, & Kirkham, 2003; Hill, Herbst, & Sanabria, 2012; Johnson, Bailey, & Newland, 2011; Newland, Hoffman, Heath, & Donlin, 2013).…”

Longer operant lever-press duration requirements induce fewer but longer response bouts in rats

“…2017b; Johnson, Pesek, & Christopher Newland, 2009;Shull, 2004;Shull, Gaynor, & Grimes, 2001) and rate of reinforcement (Brackney et al, 2017;Cheung, Neisewander, & Sanabria, 2012;Reed, 2011Reed, , 2015Reed, Smale, Owens, & Freegard, 2018;Shull et al, 2001;Shull & Grimes, 2003;Shull, Grimes, & Bennett, 2004), and w and L are sensitive to changes in contingency requirements (Brackney et al, 2011;Brackney et al, 2017;Brackney & Sanabria, 2015;Chen & Reed, 2020;Reed, 2011;Reed et al, 2018;Shull et al, 2001;Shull & Grimes, 2003;Shull et al, 2004;Tanno, 2016). Thus, the parameters of the microstructure of operant behavior appear to index two of the three necessary conditions for operant performance (Killeen, 1994;Killeen & Sitomer, 2003;Sanabria, 2019): incentive motivation (b) and response-outcome association learning (w and L).…”