Effects of feedback on discriminative avoidance acquisition and extinction in the gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus)

Abstract

An exteroceptive feedback stimulus (FS) consequent upon an avoidance response was found functionally equivalent to the traditional warning signal termination (WST) contingency in reinforcing shuttlebox avoidance in the Mongolian gerbil. Thus, presentation of an FS in acquisition led to successful avoidance learning even in the absence of immediate WST, while no evidence of summation of the FS and WST contingencies was obtained. In extinction, relatively abrupt loss of responding was observed regardless of the programmed consequences of an avoidance response. These results were discussed in terms of an informational hypothesis of avoidance behavior, especially with respect to the notion of redundancy of information.One recent challenge to the traditional two-factor theory (Mowrer, 1947) interpretation of discriminative avoidance learning has been based on the Significance of response-produced feedback in avoidance learning. Such formulations (e.g., Bolles & Grossen, 1969) have stressed that the traditional warning signal termination (WST) contingency, emphasized within two-factor theory as providing reinforcement for the avoidance response via fear reduction, might be better conceptualized as providing information to the subject. When a subject performs the instrumental avoidance act, several responsecontingent stimulus changes, exteroceptive and interoceptive, may serve as sources of feedback (e.g., WST) and proprioceptive feedback from the response. Anyone of these response-contingent stimulus changes might be viewed as signaling successful shock avoidance, and it is the informational value of such stimulus changes that is functionally significant in the acquisition and maintenance of the avoidance response. Studies of the effects of exteroceptive feedback stimuli (FS) on avoidance acquisition have lent support to this cognitive, informational hypothesis by demonstrating that presentation of an FS consequent upon the avoidance response leads to successful avoidance learning, even in the absence of the WST contingency (Bower, Starr, & Lazarovitz, 1965; D'Amato, Fazzaro, & Etkin, 1968;Keehn & Nakkash, 1959). Such data suggest that the most important function of the WST contingency is that it provides information to the subject about the consequences of responding.As Katzev and Hendersen (1971) have demonstrated,The present research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant B043556-001, awarded to the author. The author thanks Michael Twitty for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Reprints may be obtained from the author, Department of Psychology, State University College at Brockport, Brockport, New York 14420.however, the efficacy of a response-contingent FS does not appear to be independent of the WST contingency. These authors found that if immediate WST was programmed in acquisition, then the exteroceptive FS failed to control behavior. They reasoned that when both FS and WST are response contingent, the FS is a redundant source of information; its presentation provides no information ...

Effects of intertrial interval and exteroceptive feedback duration on discriminative avoidance acquisition in the gerbil

“…The roughly equivalent performance levels of Groups OF and IN, noted at both ITIs (though only later in training at the 30-sec ITI), is consistent with a general rule that the combination of delayed WST and a FS is functionally equivalent to immediate WST in reinforcing avoidance (Bolles & Grossen, 1969;Bower et aI., 1965;Cicala & Owen, 1976;D'Amato et aI., 1968;Galvani, 1977;Keehn & Nakkash, 1959). The supernormal acquisition effect obtained at the 30-sec ITI, however, has seldom been reported.…”

“…The supernormal acquisition effect obtained at the 30-sec ITI, however, has seldom been reported. At the time we collected these data, in fact, there was only one published demonstration of summation of the WST and FS contingencies (Bolles & Grossen, 1969, Experiment 3), and this experiment employed a long ITI; on the other hand, there were numerous cases in which the IF and IN treatments resulted in similar performance (Bolles & Grossen, 1969, Experiments 4 & 5, 1970Bower et al, 1965, Experiment 3;Cicala & Owen, 1976, Experiment 1;Galvani, 1977;Katzev & Hendersen, 1971, Experiment 1). More recently, however, supernormal acquisition has been reported at a 35-sec ITI (Cicala & Owen, 1976, Experiments 2 & 3; Cicala, Owen, & Hill, 1976), demonstrating that the present finding has some generality.…”

“…In both studies, a FS facilitated acquisition but FS duration was not a critical determinant of performance. These results were interpreted in terms of an expectancy account of the informational value of a FS, and the problem of experimentally distinguishing between cognitive and inhibition-of-fear accounts of avoidance learning was discussed.There presently exists a considerable literature demonstrating the, efficacy of an exteroceptive feedback stimulus (FS) on avoidance acquisition (Bolles & Grossen, 1969, 1970 Bower, Starr, & Lazarovitz, 1965; D'Amato, Fazarro, & Etkin, 1968;Galvani, 1977;Keehn & Nakkash, 1959). The typical finding has been that, in the absence of response-produced warning signal termination (WST), a responseproduced FS results in avoidance learning equivalent to that produced by the traditional WST contingency.…”

“…There presently exists a considerable literature demonstrating the, efficacy of an exteroceptive feedback stimulus (FS) on avoidance acquisition (Bolles & Grossen, 1969, 1970 Bower, Starr, & Lazarovitz, 1965; D'Amato, Fazarro, & Etkin, 1968;Galvani, 1977;Keehn & Nakkash, 1959). The typical finding has been that, in the absence of response-produced warning signal termination (WST), a responseproduced FS results in avoidance learning equivalent to that produced by the traditional WST contingency.…”