A TECHNIQUE FOR MEASURING THE LATENCY OF A DISCRIMINATIVE OPERANT<sup>1</sup>

Stebbins, William C.; Lanson, Robert N.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1961.4-149

Cited by 38 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Taken together, the experimental data obtained in this study unambiguously demonstrate the capability of lobsters to perform discriminative tasks on different light intensities ranging 20 -60 lx. In addition, the shortening of the action latency upon light stimulation (Figs.7-9) also support our conclusion on the analogy of psychological investigations into discriminative operant tasks using mammals reporting considerable shortening of latencies for the reinforced action [78][79][80][81].…”

Section: Discrimination Learning In the Lobstersupporting

confidence: 86%

Discrimination learning with light stimuli in restrained American lobster

Tomina

Takahata

2012

Behavioural Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Operant discrimination learning has been extensively utilized in the study on the perceptual ability of animals and their higher-order brain functions. We tested in this study whether American lobster Homarus americanus, which was previously found to possess ability of operant learning with claw gripping, could be trained to discriminate light stimuli of different intensities. For the current purpose, we newly developed a PC-controlled operant chamber that allowed the animal under a body-fixed condition to perform operant reward learning with claw gripping. Lobsters were first reinforced when they gripped the sensor bar upon presentation of a light cue. Then they were trained to grip the bar only when the light stimulus of a specific intensity was presented to obtain food reward while the stimuli of three different intensities including the reinforced one were presented in a random order. Finally, they were re-trained to grip the bar only when the light stimulus of another intensity that was not rewarded in the preceding training to obtain food while other intensities including the one that was rewarded previously were not rewarded any more. In these training procedures, the operant behavior occurred more frequently in response to the rewarded cue than to the non-rewarded one. The action latency for the reinforced stimuli showed a significant decrease in the course of training.These data demonstrate that lobsters can be trained with the light cues of different intensity as discriminative stimuli under a restrained condition that would allow application of electrophysiological techniques to the behaving subjects.-3-

show abstract

Section: Discrimination Learning In the Lobstersupporting

confidence: 86%

Discrimination learning with light stimuli in restrained American lobster

Tomina

Takahata

2012

Behavioural Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Earlier papers have described a technique for measuring response latency (Stebbins and Lanson, 1961) and the effects of reinforcement schedule (Stebbins and Lanson, 1962) and amount of reinforcement (Stebbins, 1962) on the response latency of the rat. Subjects learned to depress a key in response to one stimulus and to release the key after a second stimulus.…”

Section: University Of Washington School Of Medicinementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Key release in response to a white circle on the red background was never reinforced. Latencies for the key release response to the reinforced stimulus (cross) were considerably shorter and less variable than those to the unreinforced stimulus (circle).Earlier papers have described a technique for measuring response latency (Stebbins and Lanson, 1961) and the effects of reinforcement schedule (Stebbins and Lanson, 1962) and amount of reinforcement (Stebbins, 1962) on the response latency of the rat. Subjects learned to depress a key in response to one stimulus and to release the key after a second stimulus.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

NOTE ON CHANGES IN RESPONSE LATENCY FOLLOWING DISCRIMINATION TRAINING IN THE MONKEY¹

Stebbins

Reynolds

1964

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two monkeys were trained to press and hold down a telegraph key in the presence of a red light. Subsequent release of the key in response to a white cross superimposed on the red background was followed by reinforcement. Key release in response to a white circle on the red background was never reinforced. Latencies for the key release response to the reinforced stimulus (cross) were considerably shorter and less variable than those to the unreinforced stimulus (circle).Earlier papers have described a technique for measuring response latency (Stebbins and Lanson, 1961) and the effects of reinforcement schedule (Stebbins and Lanson, 1962) and amount of reinforcement (Stebbins, 1962) on the response latency of the rat. Subjects learned to depress a key in response to one stimulus and to release the key after a second stimulus. In all these studies the dependent variable was the latency of key release to the second stimulus. In the present study, the technique was used with two monkeys and response latencies were examined after the acquisition of a visual discrimination. The contingencies are those of the classical simple reaction time experiment with humans, with the exception that short latencies are not selectively reinforced. METHOD SubjectsTwo experimentally naive, adult, male monkeys (Nemestrina Macaque) were restrained throughout the experiment in a slight modification of the chair described by Young (1957). Subjects obtained about 150 0.7 g

show abstract

“…Latency is frequently discarded as a useful dependent 105 197 1, 16, 105-11 1 NUMBER I (J ULY) variable (e.g., Skinner, 1950) simply because the situation in which it is measured fails to eliminate these problems and therefore fails to yield orderly data. Stebbins and Lanson (1961), however, suggested a procedure for measuring latencies that presents neither of these problems. Their procedure requires that the animal hold down a bar to produce a stimulus and then release it for the reinforcer and proceed to the next trial.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

AUDITORY GENERALIZATION GRADIENTS FOR RESPONSE LATENCY IN THE MONKEY¹

Moody¹,

Stebbins²,

Iglauer³

1971

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two monkeys were trained to press and hold a response key in the presence of a light and to release it at the onset of a pure tone. Initially, all responses with latencies shorter than 1 sec were reinforced without regard to the frequency of the pure tone, and the intensity of the pure tone that resulted in equal latencies at each frequency was determined. The second stage of the experiment consisted of discrimination training, during which releases to one pure-tone frequency (positive stimulus) were reinforced and releases to a second frequency (negative stimulus) were extinguished. Median latencies to the negative stimulus slowly increased as did the variability of the latency distribution for the negative stimulus. There was no evidence of a concurrent decrease in latencies to the positive stimulus indicative of behavioral contrast. The third part of the experiment consisted of determining maintained generalization gradients by increasing the number of nonreinforcement stimuli. The gradients that eventually resulted showed approximately equal latencies to all frequencies of the negative stimulus and shorter latencies to the positive stimulus frequency.The use of sophisticated behavioral techniques in recent years has added a great deal to knowledge of the stimulus control of operant behavior. Much of this knowledge, however, is based on observations of a single dependent variable: rate of responding. Although rate is widely accepted, in many instances it does not adequately specify behavior. For example, Blough (1963) (e.g., Terrace, 1963a, b;Farmer, Schoenfeld, and Harris, 1966;Winograd, Cohen, and Cole, 1965;Jenkins, 1961). Two problems are frequently encountered when the latency measure is used. The first is that suitable contingencies are not included to control where the animal is in the chamber at the moment of stimulus onset. The inclusion of key approach time in the latency increases variability and may hide the latency differences related to the value of the stimulus. The second problem is that no latency can be measured if the animal fails to respond. Since well-trained subjects seldom respond to the negative stimulus (S-), few latencies enter into the S-sample. Latency is frequently discarded as a useful dependent 105 197 1, 16, 105-11 1 NUMBER I (J ULY)

show abstract

A TECHNIQUE FOR MEASURING THE LATENCY OF A DISCRIMINATIVE OPERANT¹

Cited by 38 publications

References 6 publications

Discrimination learning with light stimuli in restrained American lobster

Discrimination learning with light stimuli in restrained American lobster

NOTE ON CHANGES IN RESPONSE LATENCY FOLLOWING DISCRIMINATION TRAINING IN THE MONKEY¹

AUDITORY GENERALIZATION GRADIENTS FOR RESPONSE LATENCY IN THE MONKEY¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A TECHNIQUE FOR MEASURING THE LATENCY OF A DISCRIMINATIVE OPERANT1

Cited by 38 publications

References 6 publications

Discrimination learning with light stimuli in restrained American lobster

Discrimination learning with light stimuli in restrained American lobster

NOTE ON CHANGES IN RESPONSE LATENCY FOLLOWING DISCRIMINATION TRAINING IN THE MONKEY1

AUDITORY GENERALIZATION GRADIENTS FOR RESPONSE LATENCY IN THE MONKEY1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A TECHNIQUE FOR MEASURING THE LATENCY OF A DISCRIMINATIVE OPERANT¹

NOTE ON CHANGES IN RESPONSE LATENCY FOLLOWING DISCRIMINATION TRAINING IN THE MONKEY¹

AUDITORY GENERALIZATION GRADIENTS FOR RESPONSE LATENCY IN THE MONKEY¹