EFFECTS OF FOOD DEPRIVATION ON FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR<sup>1</sup>

Leander, J. David

doi:10.1901/jeab.1973.19-17

Cited by 18 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Four more recent experiments (Davidson, 1971; Griffin, Medearis, & Hughes, 1973;Leander, 1973;Meyer, Adams, & Worthen, 1969) all found decreased performance on Sidman avoidance when food deprivation was introduced. Four more recent experiments (Davidson, 1971; Griffin, Medearis, & Hughes, 1973;Leander, 1973;Meyer, Adams, & Worthen, 1969) all found decreased performance on Sidman avoidance when food deprivation was introduced.…”

Section: Reviews Of Research On the Effect Of Hunger Or Thirst On Avementioning

confidence: 96%

Effect of Thirst and Change of Thirst on Bar-Pressing to Escape Bright Light

Moriarty¹,

Dachowski²,

Patterson³

1978

The American Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Female albino rats trained to press a bar to turn off a bright light while water-satiated performed better than rats trained while thirsty. It is suggested that thirst elicits responses such as increased activity which compete with stationary behavior required for bar-pressing. Since the proposed competing responses may facilitate locomotor behavior, this hypothesis might also explain the general finding that hunger or thirst facilitates performance on tasks where escape or avoidance requires locomotion. Switching satiated subjects to the thirsty condition caused decreased performance, while the opposite shift apparently failed to improve performance above the level of a control group.

show abstract

Section: Reviews Of Research On the Effect Of Hunger Or Thirst On Avementioning

confidence: 96%

Effect of Thirst and Change of Thirst on Bar-Pressing to Escape Bright Light

Moriarty¹,

Dachowski²,

Patterson³

1978

The American Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, food restriction level obviously affects choice in delayed-reinforcement paradigms, with more severe restriction having more marked motivation-enhancing effects (Bradshaw et al, 1983;Ho et al, 1999; see also among others: Leander, 1973;Takahashi and Singer, 1980;Papasava et al, 1986;Lamas and Pellón, 1995;Haberny et al, 2004). Each animal was then placed daily in a computer-controlled operant chamber (Coulbourn Instruments, Allentown, PA, USA), provided with two nose-poking holes, a chamber light, a feeder device, a magazine where pellets (45 mg, BioServ, Frenchtown, NJ, USA) were dropped, and a magazine light.…”

Section: Behavioral Impulsivity Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive impulsivity in animal models: Role of response time and reinforcing rate in delay intolerance with two-choice operant tasks

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tImpulsivity, a key symptom of ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder), is also common in obsessive-compulsive and addictive disorders. There is rising interest in animal models of inhibitorycontrol impairment. Adolescent rats were tested daily in the intolerance-to-delay (ID) task (session 25 min, timeout 20 s), involving choice between either immediate small amount of food (SS), or larger amount of food after a delay (LL). The mixed 5-HT(1A/7) agonist (8-OH-DPAT, 0 or 0.060 mg/kg i.p.) was administered acutely just before the last three sessions at highest delays. In addition to the classical choice parameter (percent LL preference), the spontaneous waiting (termed response time, RT) occurring between end of a timeout (TO) and next nose-poke was calculated. The pace between consecutive reinforcer deliveries is given by the mean inter-trial interval (mITI, i.e. TO þ RT). Hence, the impact of any given delay may be proportional to this pace and be expressed as delay-equivalent odds, i.e. the extent by which delays are multiples of the mITI. Data revealed that RT/mITI increased sharply from around 15 s/ 35 s to around 30 s/50 s when imposed delay changed from 30 s to 45 s (i.e. odds from 0.91 to 1.06). This suggests that rats adopted a strategy allowing them to keep in pace with perceived reinforcing rate. The increasing delay constraint directly influenced the length of rats' spontaneous waiting (RT) before next decision. For higher delays, with odds >1, rats shifted to a clear-cut SS preference, which is devoid of any exogenous temporal constraint. A challenge with 8-OH-DPAT (0 or 0.060 mg/kg i.p.) decreased impulsive choice but also increased RT. Thus, tapping onto 5-HT(1A/7) receptors slightly enhanced RT/mITI values, possibly reflecting ability of rats to cope with slower reinforcing rates and/or with delay-cancelled reward paces. In summary, delay-induced states of aversion may arise from the innate tendency to rely on a regular rate of reinforcement. Conversely, a drug-enhanced capacity to cope with delay may involve an internal ability to adjust expectancy about such a reinforcing rate.

show abstract

“…The observed learning defect may be the consequence of the low level of activity of the DPH-100 rats, related to their loss of weight. Herrnstein and Hineline [1966], and Leander [1973] showed with overtrained rats a significant correlation between the reduction of the animal's weight (ob tained by reducing the food ration) and its level of response.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%