Effect of initial nonrewarded trials: Factors responsible for increased resistance to extinction.

Spear, Norman E.; Spitzner, Joseph H.

doi:10.1037/h0024820

Cited by 28 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, preceding runway acquisition training with a series of nonrewarded placements in the runway retards subsequent extinction (Brooks, 1980;Capaldi & Haggbloom, 1974;Spear, Hill, & O'Sullivan, 1965;Spear & Spitzner, 1967). In a particularly relevant study, Franchina and his colleagues demonstrated that the initial nonreward effect was not affected by differences between the apparatus used in the nonreward phase and that used in the acquisition and extinction phases under conditions in which the nonrewarded preexposure consisted of the animals being placed in the goalbox (Franchina, Weeks, & Pais, 1977).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Effect of taste context and ambient context changes on successive negative contrast

Flaherty

Hrabinski

Grigson

1990

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats shifted from 32% sucrose to 4% sucrose lick less than rats that experience only the 4% solution. Previous experiments have found this negative contrast effect to be reduced ("disinhibited") by the addition of a novel tone in the postshift period. In Experiment 1 of this paper, the negative contrast effect was enhanced when a novel flavor was added to the sucrose solution in the postshift period. In Experiments 2-4, changes in the ambient context, even changes sufficient to produce disruptions in licking, did not alter the degree of negative contrast. These results suggest that (1) rats compare rewards across substantially different contexts, (2) contrast may serve to enhance taste neophobia, and (3) a disinhibitory effect may be confined to the presentation of punctate, nontaste, novel stimuli within a familiar context. Rats shifted from a 32 % to 4 % sucrose solution consume less of the 4% solution than do animals that experience only the latter solution. Such "negative contrast" effects are pervasive in consummatory behavior, but the extent to which negative contrast is confined to the context in which different rewards are received has been little investigated. One study, which was concerned with the role of inhibition in contrast, showed that the introduction of a novel stimulus (a loud tone) concomitant with the shift led to a reduced contrast effect, but only on the second and subsequent postshift days (Lombardi & Flaherty, 1978).Other studies, using different contrast procedures in which animals regularly experienced two different reinforcers, showed that changes in the environment in which the animals received the reinforcers had relatively little effect on contrast (Flaherty & Avdzej, 1976;Premack, 1969). Similarly, recent studies in traditional learning paradigms have indicated that changes in conditioning context have relatively little influence on responding to a previously reinforced signal, although responding to a nonreinforced signal may be substantially impaired by context shifts (Bouton, 1986, in press;Kaye, Preston, Szabo, Druiff, & Mackintosh, 1987;Lovibond, Preston, & Mackintosh, 1984).The consummatory contrastprocedure is different from these traditional conditioning studies in that there is no explicit signal for the sucrose solutions other than the context itself. Since the animals presumably must compare the postshift reward with the memory of the preshift reward in order to show a contrast effect (e.g., see Flaherty & Lombardi, 1977;Gonzalez, Fernhoff, & David, 1973; This research was supported by NIMH Grant MH-40489 and by a Charles and Johanna Busch Memorial grant. Comments made by the reviewers substantially enhanced the paper. Correspondence may be addressed to Charles Flaherty, Psychology Department, Busch Campus, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903. Spear, 1967), the degree to which this memory must be associated with the preshift context is of some interest. The literature mentioned above suggests that rewards are compared across substantially different contexts w...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Effect of taste context and ambient context changes on successive negative contrast

Flaherty

Hrabinski

Grigson

1990

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This processing rule can also be extended to the finding that response inhibition is forgotten more rapidly than is response excitation (Hendersen, 1978) and to evidence that memory for nonreward is forgotten more readily than is memory for reward (Spear, 1967;Spear et aI., 1965;Spear & Spitzner, 1967). Both of these situations embody the principle that events of greater biological importance are remembered better than are events of lesser biological importance, which reflects adaptive forgetting.…”

Section: Retrievability: a Mechanism For Adaptive Forgettingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive forgetting in animals

Kraemer

Golding

1997

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An argument is presented for the possibility that some cases of forgetting in animals are adaptive. In contrast to research on human memory, the idea of adaptive forgetting has not received much attention in research with animals. This paper reviews the status of adaptive forgetting in humans and then outlines an argument for adaptive forgetting in animals. The discussion includes theoretical presuppositions concerning forgetting, a review of selective phenomena indicative of adaptive forgetting in animals, a description of a possible mechanism (retrievability) for this kind of forgetting, and examination of the implications of this analysis for psychological and neurobiological approaches to memory processing.Interest in animal memory has grown considerably over the past two decades. This trend reflects both the cognitive Zeitgeist in psychology and the growing reliance on animal models to study basic and applied issues related to brain function. As the quantity of this research has increased, so too has its complexity. What remains constant, however, is that all research on animal memory depends on one fact: forgetting. If organisms did not forget, if retention interval had no impact on behavior, then research on the types of complex questions now being pursued would be moot. Thus, the need to explain forgetting remains the core challenge for those interested in animal memory.

show abstract

“…Howcvcr, it has frequently been demonstrated that even when the single "indispensable" reward is omitted, R to E will neve rtheless be increlised by nonrewarded trials (McCain, 1966;Robbins, Chait, & Weinstock, 1968;Spear, Hili, & O'Sullivan, 1965;Spear & Spitzner, 1967). However, Amsel et al (1968), in presenting their hypothesis, did not cite these investigations, which suggests obviously that they do not consider them relevant to their view.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus some, or perhaps all, of these studies may not be appropriately described as small-trial studies. Spear and Spitzner (1967) have referred to the increased R to E produced in these studies as the initial nonreward effect, or INE. Whether the INE and the small-trial PRE are similar or different remains to be determined.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Extinction and the necessity or non-necessity of anticipating reward on nonrewarded trials

1970

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect of initial nonrewarded trials: Factors responsible for increased resistance to extinction.

Cited by 28 publications

References 11 publications

Effect of taste context and ambient context changes on successive negative contrast

Effect of taste context and ambient context changes on successive negative contrast

Adaptive forgetting in animals

Extinction and the necessity or non-necessity of anticipating reward on nonrewarded trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About