Acquisition and extinction after initial trials without reward.

Spear, Norman E.; Hill, Winfred F.; O'Sullivan, Denis

doi:10.1037/h0021628

Cited by 67 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the present data support the hypothesis that establishing the expectancy of reward prior to partial reinforcement results in greater resistance to extinction, it is equally clear that the expectancy of reward on nonreward trials in a PRF schedule is not a necessary condition for the existence of a PREE (Spear, Hill, & O'Sullivan, 1965). Small-trial experiments have also shown that nonreward followed by rewarded trials results in a PREE when the nonreward trials were not preceded by rewarded ones, precluding the possibility of rf being elicited on the nonreward trials (Capaldi & Waters, 1970;Capaldi, Ziff, & Godbout, 1970).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 62%

Partial reinforcement effect: The expectancy of reward on nonreward trials

Mellgren

Lombardo

Wrather

et al. 1973

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to determine the importance of the developmen t of expectancy of reward prior to partial reward trials; rats were given 20 continuously reinforced trials prior to 20 partially reinforced trials (CRF-PRF) and compared to Ss given only 20 partially reinforced trials (PRF). Control groups received 20 or 40 continuously reinforced trials to determine the effect of differing numbers of acquisition trials. Results showed that terminal acquisition differences were minimal in the run segment of the alley and that Group CRF-PRF was more resistant to extinction than Group PRF, and both were more resistant to extinction than the CRF-20 and CRF-40 groups, which did not differ from each other. These results were interpreted as supporting the notion that the expectancy of reward on nomeward trials during partial reinforcement acquisition is a determiner of the magnitude of the partial reinforcement extinction effect.The frustration explanation of the partial reinforcement extinction effect (PREE) requires that the expectancy of reward (rr) be developed first so that later primary frustration (R F ) will occur on nonreward trials and subsequently the anticipation of frustration (rf) and its stimulus consequence (Sf) will be conditioned to approach (Amsel, 1967). If Sf has not been conditioned to approach at the start of extinction, then the PREE will not occur.Capaldi's sequential hypothesis requires only that nonreinforced trials be followed by a reinforced running trial in order to produce a PREE (Capaldi, 1966(Capaldi, , 1967. No mention is made of the necessity of establishing an expectancy of reward prior to partial reinforcement in order for PREE to occur, although recently Waters (1970) andCapaldi, Berg, andSparling (1971) have considered the possible importance of some form of frustration during PRF acquisition in governing resistance to extinction. Sutherland and Mackintosh (1971) claim that continuous reinforcement (establishing rr) prior to partial reinforcement training will reduce the PREE relative to a condition where only partial reinforcement training is given. This prediction is based on the notion that a determiner of the PREE is the number of stimulus analyzers which are switched in and that continuous reinforcement will strengthen only one analyzer and produce less resistance to extinction because only responses to this analyzer need to be weakened for

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 62%

Partial reinforcement effect: The expectancy of reward on nonreward trials

Mellgren

Lombardo

Wrather

et al. 1973

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, preceding runway acquisition training with a series of nonrewarded placements in the runway retards subsequent extinction (Brooks, 1980;Capaldi & Haggbloom, 1974;Spear, Hill, & O'Sullivan, 1965;Spear & Spitzner, 1967). In a particularly relevant study, Franchina and his colleagues demonstrated that the initial nonreward effect was not affected by differences between the apparatus used in the nonreward phase and that used in the acquisition and extinction phases under conditions in which the nonrewarded preexposure consisted of the animals being placed in the goalbox (Franchina, Weeks, & Pais, 1977).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of taste context and ambient context changes on successive negative contrast

Flaherty

Hrabinski

Grigson

1990

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats shifted from 32% sucrose to 4% sucrose lick less than rats that experience only the 4% solution. Previous experiments have found this negative contrast effect to be reduced ("disinhibited") by the addition of a novel tone in the postshift period. In Experiment 1 of this paper, the negative contrast effect was enhanced when a novel flavor was added to the sucrose solution in the postshift period. In Experiments 2-4, changes in the ambient context, even changes sufficient to produce disruptions in licking, did not alter the degree of negative contrast. These results suggest that (1) rats compare rewards across substantially different contexts, (2) contrast may serve to enhance taste neophobia, and (3) a disinhibitory effect may be confined to the presentation of punctate, nontaste, novel stimuli within a familiar context. Rats shifted from a 32 % to 4 % sucrose solution consume less of the 4% solution than do animals that experience only the latter solution. Such "negative contrast" effects are pervasive in consummatory behavior, but the extent to which negative contrast is confined to the context in which different rewards are received has been little investigated. One study, which was concerned with the role of inhibition in contrast, showed that the introduction of a novel stimulus (a loud tone) concomitant with the shift led to a reduced contrast effect, but only on the second and subsequent postshift days (Lombardi & Flaherty, 1978).Other studies, using different contrast procedures in which animals regularly experienced two different reinforcers, showed that changes in the environment in which the animals received the reinforcers had relatively little effect on contrast (Flaherty & Avdzej, 1976;Premack, 1969). Similarly, recent studies in traditional learning paradigms have indicated that changes in conditioning context have relatively little influence on responding to a previously reinforced signal, although responding to a nonreinforced signal may be substantially impaired by context shifts (Bouton, 1986, in press;Kaye, Preston, Szabo, Druiff, & Mackintosh, 1987;Lovibond, Preston, & Mackintosh, 1984).The consummatory contrastprocedure is different from these traditional conditioning studies in that there is no explicit signal for the sucrose solutions other than the context itself. Since the animals presumably must compare the postshift reward with the memory of the preshift reward in order to show a contrast effect (e.g., see Flaherty & Lombardi, 1977;Gonzalez, Fernhoff, & David, 1973; This research was supported by NIMH Grant MH-40489 and by a Charles and Johanna Busch Memorial grant. Comments made by the reviewers substantially enhanced the paper. Correspondence may be addressed to Charles Flaherty, Psychology Department, Busch Campus, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903. Spear, 1967), the degree to which this memory must be associated with the preshift context is of some interest. The literature mentioned above suggests that rewards are compared across substantially different contexts w...

show abstract

“…The idea is that retrieval access to competing memories will change over a period of disuse in such a way that memories of greater importance gain a retrieval advantage over memories of lesser importance. Stated simply, information that is less significant is more likely to undergo forgetting (for examples of this principle, see Aguado, Symonds, & Hall, 1994, Hendersen, 1985, Kraemer & Roberts, 1984, and Spear, Hill, & O'Sullivan, 1965.…”

Section: Phenomena Reflecting Adaptive Forgettingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive forgetting in animals

Kraemer

Golding

1997

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An argument is presented for the possibility that some cases of forgetting in animals are adaptive. In contrast to research on human memory, the idea of adaptive forgetting has not received much attention in research with animals. This paper reviews the status of adaptive forgetting in humans and then outlines an argument for adaptive forgetting in animals. The discussion includes theoretical presuppositions concerning forgetting, a review of selective phenomena indicative of adaptive forgetting in animals, a description of a possible mechanism (retrievability) for this kind of forgetting, and examination of the implications of this analysis for psychological and neurobiological approaches to memory processing.Interest in animal memory has grown considerably over the past two decades. This trend reflects both the cognitive Zeitgeist in psychology and the growing reliance on animal models to study basic and applied issues related to brain function. As the quantity of this research has increased, so too has its complexity. What remains constant, however, is that all research on animal memory depends on one fact: forgetting. If organisms did not forget, if retention interval had no impact on behavior, then research on the types of complex questions now being pursued would be moot. Thus, the need to explain forgetting remains the core challenge for those interested in animal memory.

show abstract

Acquisition and extinction after initial trials without reward.

Cited by 67 publications

References 8 publications

Partial reinforcement effect: The expectancy of reward on nonreward trials

Partial reinforcement effect: The expectancy of reward on nonreward trials

Effect of taste context and ambient context changes on successive negative contrast

Adaptive forgetting in animals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About