A NOTE ON TIME OUT FROM AVOIDANCE WITH THE CHIMPANZEE<sup>1</sup>

Findley, Jack D.; Ames, Lawrence L.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1965.8-419

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such reductions, although small, were observed in all seven subjects, and were present under the response-independent condition as well as the response-dependent condition. DISCUSSION The results support the general conclusion reached by previous investigators of timeout (avoid) (Findley and Ames, 1965;Sidman, 1962;Verhave, 1962) that onset of a period of timeout (avoid) has reinforcing properties. The basis for this conclusion in the present study may be seen in performances under the response-dependent condition when onset of timeout was contingent on responding in the presence of the pre-timeout signal.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

RESPONSE‐DEPENDENT AND RESPONSE‐INDEPENDENT TIMEOUT FROM AN AVOIDANCE SCHEDULE¹

Baron

Trenholme

1971

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While rats were responding in a single-lever apparatus to avoid electric shock, a signal was presented and followed by a 5-min timeout period when all shocks were omitted. For the response-dependent miember of each yoked pair, the first response 60 sec after onset of the pre-timeout signal terminated the signal and initiated timeout. The other, yoked animal was exposed to the same sequence except that signal termination and timeout onset were response independent. Under the response-dependent condition, response rates in the presence of the signal increased relative to baseline rates. Rate increases also occurred when timeout was response independent, but were of lesser magnitude and reliability. Subsequent reversal of the yoking arrangelnent produced stable and equivalent rate increases under both conditions. Other findings were that increased rates in the presence of the signal diminished when timeout was omitted but were maintained for a time on an avoidance-extinction baseline. In general, the results supported the conclusion of previous experiments that timeout from avoidance can serve as a positive reinforcer. The finding that response-independent presentation of timeout produced rate increases, particularly after a history with response-dependent timeout, was interpreted in terms of adventitious reinforcement of previously established behavior.Recent interest in timeout has focused on influences of timeout from schedules of positive reinforcement [timeout (reinf)]. A number of experiments have suggested that timeout (reinf) has aversive properties insofar as postponement of timeout (reinf) maintains avoidance behavior (e.g., Baer, 1960;Baron and Kaufman, 1966;Ferster, 1958) and responsecontingent onset of timeout (reinf) suppresses behavior (e.g., Baron and Kaufman, 1969;Kaufman and Baron, 1968;McMillan, 1967).The behavioral effects of timeout from avoidance schedules [timeout (avoid)] are far less well known; only three investigations of timeout (avoid) could be found in the literature. In a series of experiments, Verhave (1962) trained rats on concurrent schedules in which responses on one lever avoided shock and responding on a second lever produced timeout, i.e., an extended period when all shocks were omitted. Under these conditions, the timeout response was acquired and subsequently maintained by ratio and in-

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Similar evidence for the reinforcing properties of timeout was reported by Sidman (1962) in an investigation using monkeys as subjects, and subsequently by Findley and Ames (1965), whose single subject was a chimpanzee.…”

supporting

confidence: 77%

RESPONSE‐DEPENDENT AND RESPONSE‐INDEPENDENT TIMEOUT FROM AN AVOIDANCE SCHEDULE¹

Baron

Trenholme

1971

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recordings are as in Figure 1. Hearst, 1963;Hearst and Sidman, 1961), or shock postponement (e.g., Findley and Ames, 1965;Sidman, 1962;Verhave, 1962). While the theoretical disposition of these results remains unclear at present, the similarity of such findings to those reported here stresses the critical role of the environmental context in which behavior occurs as a means of revealing the multiple behavioral effects of environmental events.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

BEHAVIOR SIMULTANEOUSLY MAINTAINED BY BOTH PRESENTATION AND TERMINATION OF NOXIOUS STIMULI¹

Barrett¹,

Spealman²

1978

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lever pressing by two squirrel monkeys was maintained under a 3-minute variable-interval schedule of response-produced electric-shock presentation. At the same time, responding on a second lever was maintained under a 3-minute fixed-interval schedule of termination of the shock-presentation schedule and shock-correlated stimuli. Under the termination schedule, the first response after a 3-minute period produced a 1-minute timeout, during which no events occurred and responding had no scheduled consequence. Relatively high and constant rates of responding were maintained on the lever where responding produced shock. Lower rates and positively accelerated patterns of responding occurred on the lever where responding terminated the shock schedule. Thus, responding was simultaneously maintained by presentation of an event and by termination of a stimulus associated with that event. Rates and patterns of responding on each lever were reversed when the schedules arranged on each lever were reversed on two occasions. When shock intensity was increased from 0 to 10 mA, responding maintained both by presentation of shock and by termination of the shock schedule increased, but responding maintained by shock presentation increased to a greater extent. Positive and negative reinforcement, usually regarded as separate behavioral processes involving different events, can coexist when behavior is controlled by different contingencies involving the same event.

show abstract

“…If this relation holds, the outcome is called a reinforcer. Many environmental events have been identified as reinforcers under certain conditions, such as food, drugs, water, electric shock and termination of an electric shock (Findley and Ames, 1965; Hodos, 1961; Morse and Kelleher, 1966; Seevers and Schuster, 1967). One application of operant conditioning theory is the drug self-administration procedure, which has been extensively used in the studies of reinforcing effects of drugs and drug addiction in both nonhumans and humans (Comer et al, 2008; Haney and Spealman, 2008).…”

Section: Classical Conditioning and Operant Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

The application of conditioning paradigms in the measurement of pain

Li¹

2013

European Journal of Pharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pain is a private experience that involves both sensory and emotional components. Animal studies of pain can only be inferred by their responses, and therefore the measurement of reflexive responses dominate the pain literature for nearly a century. It has been argued that although reflexive responses are important to unveil the sensory nature of pain in organisms, pain affect is equally important but largely ignored in pain studies primarily due to the lack of validated animal models. One strategy to begin to understand pain affect is to use conditioning principles to indirectly reveal the affective condition of pain. This review critically analyzed several procedures that are thought to measure affective learning of pain. The procedures regarding the current knowledge, the applications, and their advantages and disadvantages in pain research are discussed. It is proposed that these procedures should be combined with traditional reflex-based pain measurements in future studies of pain, which could greatly benefit both the understanding of neural underpinnings of pain and preclinical assessment of novel analgesics.

show abstract

A NOTE ON TIME OUT FROM AVOIDANCE WITH THE CHIMPANZEE¹

Cited by 15 publications

References 9 publications

RESPONSE‐DEPENDENT AND RESPONSE‐INDEPENDENT TIMEOUT FROM AN AVOIDANCE SCHEDULE¹

RESPONSE‐DEPENDENT AND RESPONSE‐INDEPENDENT TIMEOUT FROM AN AVOIDANCE SCHEDULE¹

BEHAVIOR SIMULTANEOUSLY MAINTAINED BY BOTH PRESENTATION AND TERMINATION OF NOXIOUS STIMULI¹

The application of conditioning paradigms in the measurement of pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A NOTE ON TIME OUT FROM AVOIDANCE WITH THE CHIMPANZEE1

Cited by 15 publications

References 9 publications

RESPONSE‐DEPENDENT AND RESPONSE‐INDEPENDENT TIMEOUT FROM AN AVOIDANCE SCHEDULE1

RESPONSE‐DEPENDENT AND RESPONSE‐INDEPENDENT TIMEOUT FROM AN AVOIDANCE SCHEDULE1

BEHAVIOR SIMULTANEOUSLY MAINTAINED BY BOTH PRESENTATION AND TERMINATION OF NOXIOUS STIMULI1

The application of conditioning paradigms in the measurement of pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A NOTE ON TIME OUT FROM AVOIDANCE WITH THE CHIMPANZEE¹

RESPONSE‐DEPENDENT AND RESPONSE‐INDEPENDENT TIMEOUT FROM AN AVOIDANCE SCHEDULE¹

RESPONSE‐DEPENDENT AND RESPONSE‐INDEPENDENT TIMEOUT FROM AN AVOIDANCE SCHEDULE¹

BEHAVIOR SIMULTANEOUSLY MAINTAINED BY BOTH PRESENTATION AND TERMINATION OF NOXIOUS STIMULI¹