Cue selection in discriminative operant conditioning

Hergenhahn, B. R.; Gottlieb, Dietlinde G.

doi:10.3758/bf03342395

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of an additional time-out punishment procedure (Richardson & Baron, 2008) at this stage may promote the extinction process in this task. However, the difficulty of ITR extinction could be a sign of insufficient CS discrimination (S-R-O formation) and stimulus control of behavior (Hergenhahn & Gottlieb, 1968;Zielinsky, 1993). It could also reflect the formation of a habitual strategy, on which the animal relies instead of the stimuli.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As we used the static 20-s CS-30s ITI protocol in both tasks, sharing some similarities with the fixed-interval (FI) protocol, ITRs here could be anticipatory in their nature and reflect the temporal dynamics of Pavlovian influence on the instrumental response (Rescorla & Solomon, 1967). Intertrial shuttling could be compared with the increase in lever-pressing in operant FI appetitive tasks, which is treated as a measure of premature responding and impulsivity (Berger & Sagvolden, 1998) or the prevailing of temporal relations over external cues (Hergenhahn & Gottlieb, 1968). In this regard, it is interesting to note that the majority of ITRs in this study were performed closer to the end of the intertrial period and thus can be scored as terminal behavior, similar to a consummatory response (Castilla & Pellon, 2013;Honig & Staddon, 1977 Whether or not such adjunctive behaviors are under control of reinforcement and underlined by R-O associations is still under discussion (Killeen & Pellon, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Appetitive conditioning task in a shuttle box and its comparison with the active avoidance paradigm

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main features of the Shuttle Box Active Avoidance paradigm (e.g., the use of simple locomotor response as an operant and electrical current as a primary reinforcer) make this task easily automated. However, learning in this paradigm cannot be easily separated from the specificity of fear motivation. Punishment and negative reinforcement highly affect behavior in this task and complicate learning. In the present study, we describe a novel computer-controlled appetitive task in a shuttle box and compare it with active avoidance. The appetitive task was performed in the same shuttle box apparatus, additionally equipped with food dispensers in each compartment, and using a similar protocol. The reinforced reaction included the transition to the feeder in the opposite compartment in response to a stimulus. Animals mastered the appetitive task faster than the active avoidance task in the shuttle box. Other major differences between the models were the number and dynamics of intertrial responses (ITRs). Whereas in active avoidance the number of ITRs was low during learning, in the appetitive task rates were higher and they persisted throughout learning. Overall, the findings demonstrate some benefits of the appetitive task as a control condition to active avoidance: the use of a similar reaction and apparatus, no prior habituation, and fast acquisition.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%