Apparent double alternation in the rat: A failure to replicate

Pitt, Sarah J.; Davis, Stephen F.; Brown, Bruce P.

doi:10.3758/bf03334411

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

1973

DOI: 10.3758/bf03334411

|View full text |Cite

Apparent double alternation in the rat: A failure to replicate

Sarah J. Pitt

Stephen F. Davis

Bruce P. Brown

Abstract: Two groups of rats, run under odor-maximizing and odor-minimizing trial sequences, served as Ss in a three-phase study investigating the role of olfactory cues in the acquisition, extinction, and reacquisition of double-alternation patterning in the runway. The 104 acquisition trials and 8 extinction trials were run in an apparatus having hardware-cloth tops. The tops of the apparatus were covered by a transparent plastic sheet during the 32 reacquisition trials. During acquisition, double-alternation patterni… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

1974

1999

Publication Types

Select...

Article8

Relationship

Self Cite2

Independent6

Authors

Journals

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, a large body of data has been accumulated (e.g., Bloom & Phillips, 1973;Ludvigson, 1969;Ludvigson & Sytsma, 1967;Mellgren, Fouts, & Martin, 1973;Pitt, Davis, & Brown, 1973;Prytula & Colbert, 1975;Prytula, Lawler, & Davis, 1975;Seago, Ludvigson, & Remley, 1970, etc. ) indicating that the rat exudes an odor on frustrative or nonreward trials which (a) can be utilized by subsequent subjects as a discriminative cue, or (b) can produce an avoidance response.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivational specificity of the signal value of odor cues

Davis

Prytula

Noble

et al. 1976

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance of the laboratory rat in the enclosed maze apparatus is profoundly influenced by subject-generated cues that seem to be olfactory. The present experiment investigated the specificity of these cues. Odor cues produced by odor-donor rats placed in the startbox were ineffective determinants of the behavior of runway-trained rats when the deprivation states of these two groups differed. However, when the deprivation states of these two groups coincided, the odor cues produced by the odor-donor rats became effective determinants of performance. Thus, it would appear that even though odor cues are influential in determining the runway performance of the rat subject, their effectiveness may well be drive-state dependent.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivational specificity of the signal value of odor cues

Davis

Prytula

Noble

et al. 1976

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such proposed R and N odors are not allowed to accumulate under odor-minimizing conditions. At present , data in this research area (e.g., Pitt , Davis, & Brown, 1973) suggest that such odors are at least partially airborne. However, despite verification of R and N odors via single-cell recordings from mitral cells in the olfactory bulb (Voorhees & Remley, 1981) , their exact chemical structure and anatomical locus have yet to be determined.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Odor-based runway performance as a function of deprivation state, squad size, and subject-rotation procedures

Weaver

Davis

Moore

1984

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results of a two-phase experiment investigating odor-based alleyway performance of rats are reported. During both phases, two squads (n = 8) received daily double-alternation training.Each squad was composed of two subgroups (n = 4), one food deprived and one water deprived. The water-deprived animals were tested first in one squad, whereas the food-deprived animals were tested first in the second squad. During Phase 2, a daily subject-rotation procedure, under which the last subject in each of the second subgroups was rotated to the initial position in that subgroup, was implemented. Odor-based patterning was developed in Phase 1 only by the subgroup run last within each of the larger squads. Phase 2 rotation failed to disrupt patterned responding in the rotated animals. The results of this experiment support the contention that, even though specific deprivation conditions may have a bearing upon the use of odors as discriminative stimuli, such constraints are certainly not absolute. Ludvigson and Sytsma (1967) demonstrated that rats can learn a double-alternation (DA) sequence of reward (R) and nonreward (N) by running fast on R trials and slow on N trials when they are tested under odormaximizing conditions, but not under odor-minimizing conditions. Odor-maximizing conditions typically involve the administration of R and N trials such that odors unique to a particular goal event are allowed to accumulate and act as discriminative cues for subsequent subjects . Such proposed R and N odors are not allowed to accumulate under odor-minimizing conditions. At present , data in this research area (e.g., Pitt , Davis, & Brown, 1973) suggest that such odors are at least partially airborne. However, despite verification of R and N odors via single-cell recordings from mitral cells in the olfactory bulb (Voorhees & Remley, 1981) , their exact chemical structure and anatomical locus have yet to be determined.As suggested, when rats are tested under odormaximizing conditions, odors will theoretically accumulate as additional subjects are tested. This prediction was recently verified by Prytula, Davis, and Fanning (1981). The results of this study indicated that animals tested earlier in the running sequence of a larger squad displayed weaker patterned responding than did animals tested later in the sequence. Furthermore, naive subjects introduced at the end of the running-order sequence , once patterning had been established by the original squad , developed patterned responding much sooner than did naive subjects introduced into earlier positions in the running order.The authors' mailing address is: Department of Psychology, Emporia State University, Emporia, Kansas 66801. 155Furthermore, past research (Davis, Prytula, Harper, Tucker, Lewis, & Flood, 1974 ;Davis, Prytula, Noble, & Mollenhour, 1976) has suggested that R and N odors produced under water deprivation may differ from R and N odors produced under food deprivation . In these studies, runway-trained animals displayed patterned responding in the start and run...

show abstract

“…Although many studies have found that laboratory rats excrete different odors upon receipt of unsignaled reward and nonreward on a partial reinforcement schedule (e.g., Amsel, Hug, & Surridge, 1969;Howard & McHose, 1974;Ludvigson, 1969;Ludvigson & Sytsma, 1967;McHose & Ludvigson, 1966;Pitt, Davis, & Brown, 1973), recent data have suggested that similar schedules of large and small rewards do not occasion different odors (Bums, Thomas, & Davis, 1981;Davis, Bums, Howard, & Voorhees, 1982;Davis & Weaver, 1981;Davis, Whiteside, Bramlett, & Petersen, 1981). This latter suggestion is surprising, since prior studies employing frustrative treatments have found evidence for distinctive odor emissions, and large versus small incentive contrast has usually been considered a frustrative operation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Different odors in rats from large and small rewards

Ludvigson

Mathis

Choquette

1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although rats emit different odors in a goalbox upon receipt of unsignaled reward and nonreward, recent studies have failed to find odor differences from unsignaled large and small reward, apparently disconfirming the generalization that frustration-producing manipulations lead to a distinctive emission. Experiment 1 tested the hypothesis that providing discriminative runway signals, permitting subjects to anticipate the large and small rewards, would lead to different odor emissions. Results supported the hypothesis: donor rats emitted odors sufficiently different to provide cues for differential responding in test subjects. However, an attempt to replicate the recent observations on unsignaled rewards suggested that these, too, occasioned goalbox emissions. Therefore, Experiment 2 again gave donors unsignaled large and small reward, but increased the incentive for discrimination in test rats. Test subjects readily discriminated, confirming the conclusion that large and small rewards occasion different emissions even without discriminative signals and supporting a frustration-odor interpretation.Although many studies have found that laboratory rats excrete different odors upon receipt of unsignaled reward and nonreward on a partial reinforcement schedule (e.g.,

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Apparent double alternation in the rat: A failure to replicate

Cited by 11 publications

References 12 publications

Motivational specificity of the signal value of odor cues

Motivational specificity of the signal value of odor cues

Odor-based runway performance as a function of deprivation state, squad size, and subject-rotation procedures

Different odors in rats from large and small rewards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About