Discriminated lever-press avoidance learning as a function of type and intensity of shock.

D’Amato, M. R.; Fazzaro, James

doi:10.1037/h0023146

Cited by 71 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A preliminary study confirmed earlier research that has shown that discriminated avoidance behavior is acquired most rapidly when electric shock is discontinuous and of low intensity (D'Amato and Fazzaro, 1966), when there is prior pairing of the warning signal and shock (Zielinski and Soltysik, 1964), and when an explicit shaping procedure is used (Keehn and Webster, 1968;Lockard, 1969). The main 97 1971,15,[97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108] NUMBElt I (JANUARY) difference between shaping and exposing the animal immediately to the final schedule lies in the treatment of approximations to the specified operant.…”

supporting

confidence: 75%

SIGNAL FUNCTIONS IN DISCRIMINATED AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR¹

Gilbert

1971

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four rats were trained to lever press under a discriminated avoidance/escape schedule in which separately signalled safe and warning periods were 100 sec and 32 sec respectively. The auditory and not the visual component of the compound warning signal became associated with the discriminative control of lever pressing. Avoidance behavior also came under temporal control, in that the probability of lever pressing increasd as the warning period progressd. Timing began with the onset of the waming signal rather than the offset of the safe dgnal. However, after the warning signal had been pogrively eiminated, timing began with the offset of the safe signal. When neither signal was normally available, the temporal distribution of avoidance behavior changed markedly. Drifts in the temporal distribution of lever pressing occurred throughout the study; these were manipulated for two animals.In the conventional discriminated avoidance procedure, a safe period, during which behavior is without scheduled consequence, is followed by a warning period during which emission of behavior selected arbitrarily by the experimenter, such as pressing a lever or leaving a certain area, reinstates the safe period. If the selected behavior is not emitted during the warning period, a shock period follows and continues until the behavior is emitted, whereupon the safe period is reintroduced. If the selected behavior is lever depression, a lever press during the warning period avoids shock and a lever press during the shock period escapes shock. One environmental state, the safe signal, is correlated with the safe period, and another state, the warning signal, is correlated with the warning period. The warning signal usually continues through the shock period.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 75%

SIGNAL FUNCTIONS IN DISCRIMINATED AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR¹

Gilbert

1971

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At longer ITls responses incompatible with the avoidance response may be extinguished. Whether it is possible to separate the factors characteristic of CRS from those characteristic of conditioned fear as suggested by D 'Amato & Fazzaro (1966) is questionable.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The interaction of UCS intensity and intertrial interval in avoidance learning

Kurtz

Shafer

1967

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are various forms of active avoidance that can be modeled in rats, but the desire to track the development of increased avoidant behavior over time led us to adopt distinct lever-press avoidance as our active avoidance procedure. Lever-press avoidance has been utilized for decades to study learning, but it also has a history as a prominent model of anxiety (Pearl, 1963;D'Amato & Fazzaro, 1966;Hurwitz & Dillow, 1968;Gilbert, 1971;Dillow et al, 1972;Berger & Brush, 1975). Derived initially from the 2-factor theory of threat/fear motivation and learned avoidance (Mowrer, 1939a;Mowrer, 1939b;Mowrer & Lamoreaux, 1942;Mowrer & Lamoreaux, 1946), the general premise of this approach is that a learned fear of signals is sufficient to support avoidant behavior without requiring a continued re-exposure to the actual noxious stimulus or event.…”

Section: Behavioral Avoidancementioning

confidence: 99%