Differences between behavior reinforced by electrical stimulation of the brain and conventionally reinforced behavior: An associative analysis.

Abstract

The literature dealing with the differences between behavior maintained by rewarding brain stimulation and behavior maintained by conventional rewards is briefly reviewed. The literature is then interpreted in an associative framework, with the emphasis on specifying the stimuli that are controlling the behavior in each situation. The associative analysis shows that rewarding brain stimulation is different from conventional rewards in some fundamental respects, but that, nevertheless, the behavior maintained by rewarding brain stimulation does, in certain situations, resemble behavior maintained by conventional rewards. Brief critiques of some of the earlier theories are offered from the standpoint of the associative model.

Effects of food primes on the operant behavior of nondeprived rats

“…Consistent with this inference are reports that the secondary or conditioned reinforcing properties of stimuli previously paired with conventional rewards appear to be weak or nonexistent for nondeprived subjects (Estes, 1949;Schlosberg & Pratt, 1956). Interestingly, conditioned reinforcement has also been difficult to demonstrate with brain stimulation reward, a difficulty that has been attributed to the fact that most studies involving brain stimulation utilize nondeprived subjects (Lenzer, 1972;Trowill, Panksepp, & Gandelman, 1969). Thus, regarding the present lack of priming by the magazine click, it is possible that conditioned priming properties, like conditioned reinforcing properties, depend upon some degree of deprivation for their ability to affect behavior.…”

Overnight Decrement in Maze Performance of Mice Running for Food Reward

“…While such decrement has repeatedly been observed in behavior maintained by brain stimulation, the phenomenon has only infrequently been noted in behavior reinforced with such conventional rewards as food or water (Trowill, Panksepp, & Gandelrnan, 1969;Lenzer, 1972). Thus, overnight decrement, together with various other brainstimulation effects like rapid extinction, poor performance with intermittent reward, strong priming effects, and persistent dominance of a preference for brain stimulation over conventional rewards, has been taken by some researchers as reflective of an inherent characteristic of brain-stimulation itself (Trowill, et al, 1969;Lenzer, 1972).This conclusion, however, has been challenged by a number of findings which suggest that these seemingly unique characteristics simply derive from important differences between the experimental procedures that are rypically used with brain-stimulation reinforcement and those usually employed with conventional rewards. These differences include deprivation level, magnitude and delay of reward, and the complexity of the reinforced behavior (Trowill, et al, 1969;Lenzer, 1972).…”

“…While such decrement has repeatedly been observed in behavior maintained by brain stimulation, the phenomenon has only infrequently been noted in behavior reinforced with such conventional rewards as food or water (Trowill, Panksepp, & Gandelrnan, 1969;Lenzer, 1972). Thus, overnight decrement, together with various other brainstimulation effects like rapid extinction, poor performance with intermittent reward, strong priming effects, and persistent dominance of a preference for brain stimulation over conventional rewards, has been taken by some researchers as reflective of an inherent characteristic of brain-stimulation itself (Trowill, et al, 1969;Lenzer, 1972).…”

“…These differences include deprivation level, magnitude and delay of reward, and the complexity of the reinforced behavior (Trowill, et al, 1969;Lenzer, 1972). Thus, by manipulating these factors, researchers have largely dissipated the aura of anomaly from the rapid extinction, poor performance with intermittent reward, strong priming and dominance effects of behavior maintained by brain stimulation (Trowill, et al, 1969;Lenzer, 1972).…”

“…Thus, overnight decrement, together with various other brainstimulation effects like rapid extinction, poor performance with intermittent reward, strong priming effects, and persistent dominance of a preference for brain stimulation over conventional rewards, has been taken by some researchers as reflective of an inherent characteristic of brain-stimulation itself (Trowill, et al, 1969;Lenzer, 1972).…”