Chlorpromazine and pimozide alter reinforcement efficacy and motor performance

Heyman, Gene M.; Kinzie, Diana L.; Seiden, Lewis S.

doi:10.1007/bf00180837

Cited by 39 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This within-session procedure has produced 66 BACKGROUND REINFORCEMENT reliable results in previous studies of environmental (Bradshaw, Szabadi, & Bevan, 1976Heyman & Monaghan, 1987;Petry & Heyman, 1994) and pharmacological (Hamilton, Stellar, & Hart, 1985;Heyman, 1983Heyman, , 1992Heyman, Kinzie, & Seiden, 1986) manipulations of reinforcement efficacy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 62%

“…However, this procedure has been used in numerous studies in a variety of contexts with an ascending order of VI schedules (Heyman, 1983;Petry & Heyman, 1994), a descending order (Heyman, 1983), a random order (Heyman et al, 1986;Heyman & Monaghan, 1987), and an ascending and then descending order (Heyman, 1992). In each case, response rates have varied in accord with the obtained rates of reinforcement in an orderly manner.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Increasing and Signaling Background Reinforcement: Effect on the Foreground Response—reinforcer Relation

Belke

Heyman

1994

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Herrnstein's (1970) hyperbolic matching equation describes the relationship between response rate and reinforcement rate. It has two estimated parameters, k and Re. According to one interpretation, k measures motor performance and Re measures the efficacy of the reinforcer maintaining responding relative to background sources of reinforcement. Experiment 1 tested this interpretation of the Re parameter by observing the effect of adding and removing an additional source of reinforcement to the context. Using a within-session procedure, estimates of Re were obtained from the responsereinforcer relation over a series of seven variable-interval schedules. A second, concurrently available variable-interval schedule of reinforcement was added and then removed from the context. Results showed that when the alternative was added to the context, the value of Re increased by 107 reinforcers per hour; this approximated the 91 reinforcers per hour obtained from this schedule. Experiment 2 investigated the effects of signaling background reinforcement on k and Re. The signal decreased Re, but did not have a systematic effect on k. In general, the results supported Herrnstein's interpretation that in settings with one experimenter-controlled reinforcement source, Re indexes the strength of the reinforcer maintaining responding relative to uncontrolled background sources of reinforcement.Key words: Herrnstein's hyperbola, matching law, background reinforcement, signaled reinforcement, lever press, rats Herrnstein (1970) formulated an elementary matching law equation for the case in which there is only a single measured source of reinforcement and a single measured response rate. The form of that equation is kRj BIRi+Re' (1) where B1 is response rate, R1 is reinforcement rate, and k and Re are fitted constants. The structural or curve-fitting definitions of the constants reveal the relationship between response rate and reinforcement rate implied by Equation 1. In the numerator, k is an estimate of the response-rate asymptote. For instance, as reinforcement rate increases, response rate approaches but does not exceed k. Thus, k is measured in the same units as the measured behavior (e.g., responses per minute). In the numerator, Re is equal to the rate of reinforcement that maintains a one-half asymp-The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of the reviewers and members of the Behavioral and Decision Analysis research seminar in the Department of Psychology at Harvard in the preparation of this manuscript. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to Terry W. Belke, Department of Psychology, Biological Sciences Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9, Canada (E-mail: tbelke@cyber.psych.ualberta.ca).totic response rate. For example, when RI is equal to Re, response rate must be equal to k/2. Thus, Re is measured in the same units as the experimenter-controlled reinforcer (e.g., 0.10 mL sucrose servings per hour).On the basis of the matching law, Herrnstein (1970, 1974) provided em...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increasing and Signaling Background Reinforcement: Effect on the Foreground Response—reinforcer Relation

Belke

Heyman

1994

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The activity of cortical dopamine neurons discriminates between two reinforcement alternatives and reflects an animal's preference in a choice setting, suggesting that these neurons process the relative value of reinforcement [40,41]. Developmental MeHg exposure alters the synaptosomal uptake of dopamine [3], dopamine transmitter levels and turnover [3,4], and reduces monoamine oxidase (MAO) activity [7], alterations that may increase synaptic dopamine levels and thereby increase reinforcer efficacy [15,44]. These synaptic effects are reflected in elevated sensitivity of the behaving animal to acute doses of amphetamine in young rats [12,18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of gestational exposure to methylmercury and dietary selenium on reinforcement efficacy in adulthood

Reed

Banna

Donlin

et al. 2008

Neurotoxicology and Teratology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has recently been demonstrated that developmental exposure to methylmercury (MeHg) is associated with perseveration on operant tasks. An understanding of the behavioral mechanisms underlying this phenomenon may improve human testing of MeHg exposures and could provide insight into clinical syndromes that include perseveration as a component. One possible mechanism is that MeHg-induced enhancement of reinforcer efficacy produces a "reinforcement trap" that inhibits change in novel situations. Rats were exposed gestationally to 0, 0.5 or 5 ppm mercury (Hg) as MeHg via maternal drinking water. They also received a diet during gestation and throughout life that was marginal (0.06 ppm) or rich (0.6 ppm) in selenium (Se), a nutrient believed to protect against MeHg's toxicity. Reinforcer efficacy was evaluated using a progressive ratio schedule of reinforcement during adulthood. Maximum ratio obtained (MRO) was determined using 20 or 60 mg sucrose pellets and with ratio requirements that increased at 5% or 20% per reinforcer. MRO was related to the rate at which the ratio increased, reinforcer magnitude, sex, and exposure regimen; MRO was increased for the 0.6 ppm Se, 5 ppm Hg group. This extends an earlier observation that developmental MeHg exposure enhances reinforcer efficacy, an effect that could be related to reports of perseveration.

show abstract

“…However, Belke (1997) showed that both localleverpressing and wheel-running rates increased throughout the session in rats responding on a tandem FR 1 VI 30-sec schedule for the opportunity to run. Belke (1996) found that wheel-running rates during 60-sec reinforcement peri- Note-For the Heyman, Kinzie, and Seiden (1986) and the Heyman and Monaghan (1987) studies, medians and ranges, rather than means and standard deviations, are reported. For studies using access to a running wheel as a reinforcer, the schedules were tandem FR I variable interval reinforcement schedules.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Qualitatively different reinforcers and parameters of Herrnstein’s (1970) response-strength equation

Belke

1998

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research that compared the estimated parameters (i.e., k and R e ) from Herrnstein's (1970) hyperbolic matching law equation within the same individuals responding for qualitatively different consummatory reinforcers (i.e., water and sucrose solution) found similar asymptotic response rates (k). The present study compared these parameters within subjects responding on levers for consummatory and nonconsummatory reinforcers. Male Wistar rats responded on a lever in a running wheel on a series of tandem FR 1 VI schedules for either 0.1 ml of a 15%sucrose solution or the opportunity to run for 15 sec. Herrnstein's hyperbola was fit to response and reinforcement rates from each session. Results showed that k values were significantly higher for sucrose than for wheel-running reinforcement. On average, R; was lower for sucrose than for wheel-running reinforcement, though not significantly lower. The results of the present study appear to violate the assumption of the constancy of kin Herrnstein's matching law analysis.In Equation 2, B I is the response rate on the single alternative, R I is the reinforcement rate obtained from that alternative, and k and R; are estimated parameters. Specifically, k refers to the asymptotic rate ofresponding (i.e., the maximal response rate), whereas R; is the rate of rein- forcement associated with one halfthe asymptotic rate ofresponding. R, describes how quickly the response rate rises toward asymptote as the reinforcement rate increases, and, at one half the asymptotic response rate (k/2), the value of R; can be estimated because R I and R; are equivalent.Although there is only a single experimenter-arranged source of reinforcement, Herrnstein (1970Herrnstein ( ,1974 assumed that responding for this reinforcement represented the choice between responding for the arranged source and responding for all other sources of reinforcement in the context. In other words, responding on the arranged source ofreinforcement is a function ofthe rate of reinforcement from that alternative, relative to the rate of reinforcement for any behavior other than responding for the arranged reinforcement (e.g., sniffing, grooming, exploring). Accordingly, R; in Equation 1 represents the rate of reinforcement from all sources ofreinforcement in the context, other than that arranged by the experimenter. The parameter k represents both responding (B I) maintained by the arranged source of reinforcement (R I) and responding (Be) maintained by the uncontrolled (i.e., extraneous) sources of reinforcement in the context (R e ) .

show abstract

Chlorpromazine and pimozide alter reinforcement efficacy and motor performance

Cited by 39 publications

References 26 publications

Increasing and Signaling Background Reinforcement: Effect on the Foreground Response—reinforcer Relation

Increasing and Signaling Background Reinforcement: Effect on the Foreground Response—reinforcer Relation

Effects of gestational exposure to methylmercury and dietary selenium on reinforcement efficacy in adulthood

Qualitatively different reinforcers and parameters of Herrnstein’s (1970) response-strength equation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About