Aftereffects of the surprising presentation and omission of appetitive reinforcers on key-pecking performance in pigeons.

Abstract

The reinforcement-omission effect (ROE), also known as frustration effect, refers to greater response strength immediately after nonreinforcement (N) than reinforcement (R). The ROE was traditionally interpreted as transient invigoration after N induced by primary frustration. Pigeons demonstrate similar ROEs whether outcomes are surprising (partial R) or expected (discrimination training) in runway (Experiment 1) and Skinner box situations (Experiments 2-3). Variations in the interval between N and the opportunity to respond indicate that the ROE results from an aftereffect of food consumption (Experiment 4). Increasing reinforcer magnitude increased the after-R effect, without modifying the after-N function (Experiment 5). These results are reviewed in the context of comparative research on spaced-trial successive negative contrast and related phenomena that have failed to appear in experiments involving nonmammalian vertebrates.

Thalamic Regulation of Sucrose Seeking during Unexpected Reward Omission

“…Rats in this group exhibited a greater number of press bursts (≥ 3 presses/s, 1.2 ± 0.36 bursts/min, n= 24) compared to the reward available group (0.11 ± 0.11 bursts/min, n= 24; unpaired t test, *p= 0.010, t = 2.68). This is consistent with previous studies showing that omission of an expected reward increases reward-seeking responses (Burokas et al, 2012; Dudley and Papini, 1997; Stout et al, 2002), a phenomenon initially described as a reinforcement-omission effect or frustration effect (Amsel and Roussel, 1952; Jensen and Fallon, 1973). …”

“…Our observation that omission of an expected reward increased bar pressing and induced anxiety-like behavior agrees with prior studies suggesting that unexpected reward omission is aversive (Amsel and Roussel, 1952; Burokas et al, 2012; Dudley and Papini, 1997; Jensen and Fallon, 1973; Komorowski et al, 2012; Manzo et al, 2014; Stout et al, 2002). Recruitment of aPVT neurons during aversive outcomes may serve to adjust reward-seeking responses, resembling previously demonstrated PVT modulation of autonomic, neuroendocrine and behavioral responses to stress (for review see Hsu et al, 2014).…”

Comparative Psychology of Surprising Nonreward

“…The ROE has been described in both rats and pigeons [e.g., Dudley and Papini, 1995;Papini and Hollinsworth, 1998], but a major problem of interpretation has been to determine whether response is facilitated after nonreward (as predicted by frustration theory), or depressed after reward (a postconsummatory effect). Analysis of the time course of the aftereffects of reward and nonreward shows that, unlike in rats, the pigeon ROE is entirely attributable to a postconsummatory effect [Stout et al, 2002]. Thus, whether the aftereffects described in avian species, in- cluding extinction-induced aggression and escape from the B-stimulus of a discrimination, result from the engagement of the same mechanisms giving rise to analogous aftereffects described in mammals awaits a detailed comparative analysis.…”

“…Furthermore, the amygdala is part of a network that participates both in fear conditioning [Blair et al, 2001] and in the adjustment to SN [Henke, 1977;Becker et al, 1984]. High metabolic rates are also likely to have been present in Mesozoic birds, but it is assumed that their predominantly visual foraging style preadapted them for a nonemotional resolution of the incentive disengagement problem [see Stout et al, 2002]. If it is indeed the case that fear, but not frustration, is present in bony fish, and if indeed the brain circuits and neurochemical mechanisms underlying fear and secondary frustration overlap considerably [Gray and McNaughton, 2000], then the egocentric mechanisms underlying secondary frustration could be seen as evolving from those underlying fear by a combination of gene duplication and co-option.…”

Role of the amygdala in the reinforcement omission effect.

“…The importance of training parameters in processes involved in the ROE was highlighted by Stout, Muzio, Boughner, & Papini (2002) and Stout, Boughner, & Papini (2003). The results of the present study suggest that the CeA and BLA may be involved in the modulation of the ROE when (1) the performance is under the control of exteroceptive signaling but not under temporal control, which is more automatic, and (2) the omission of reinforcement is more surprising.…”