EFFECTS OF RESPONSE‐SHOCK INTERVAL AND SHOCK INTENSITY ON FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE RESPONDING IN THE PIGEON 1

Five pigeons were exposed to an unsignalled avoidance procedure where key pecks were inaintained through shock postponement. Functions obtained showed an inverse relationship between rate of responding and length of the response-shock interval, while changes in the shock-shock interval had no systematic effect on response rates. The rate of shocks delivered generally decreased with increases in length of both response-shock and shockshock intervals. Results show that key pecking in pigeons, maintained through an unsignalled avoidance procedure, was affected by changes in response-shock and shock-shock intervals in the same manner as other responses in pigeons and in rats.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

KEY PECKING AS A FUNCTION OF RESPONSE‐SHOCK AND SHOCK‐SHOCK INTERVALS IN UNSIGNALLED AVOIDANCE¹

Todorov¹,

Ferrari²,

Souza³

1974

“…Todorov et al found that the longer the responseshock interval, the lower the response rate. This relationship has also been reported for an unprepared lever response with rats (Sidman, 1953) and for an unprepared treadle response with pigeons (Klein and Rilling, 1972).…”

supporting

confidence: 75%

PARAMETERS AFFECTING THE MAINTENANCE OF NEGATIVELY REINFORCED KEY PECKING¹

Gardner

Lewis

1977

Three negative reinforcement experiments employing a key-peck response are described. In Experiment I, pigeons shocked on the average of twice per minute (imposed condition) could produce, by pecking a key, an alternate condition with correlated stimuli. Delayed shocks were added, across sessions, to the alternate condition until pecking stopped. Two of three pigeons continued to peck despite a 100% increase in shock frequency. In Experiment II, pigeons were shocked in the imposed condition four times per minute. The postresponse delay to shock was held constant by delivering, in the alternate condition, the next shock, or the next two, three, or four shocks from the imposed-condition shock schedule. All three subjects continued to peck with no change in delay to the first two postresponse shocks but with a 75% reduction in shock frequency. In Experiment III, a response produced an immediate shock followed by a shock-free period. Three of four subjects continued to respond despite reduced delay to shock. Delay-to-shock or shock-frequency reduction was sufficient to maintain key pecking, but neither was necessary. The conditions that negatively reinforce the pigeon's key peck were similar to conditions that negatively reinforce the rat's bar press.

“…In addition to noncriterion responses made with the feet to the treadle itself, many responses were made with feet, wings, and beak to the box from which the treadle extended. Klein and Rilling (1972) also observed rapid sequences of treadle pressing in pigeons. It seems likely, therefore, that altering force and excursion requirements, and possibly the dimensions of the treadle apparatus, would affect the rate of responding to the treadle.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

ERRATUM A COMPARISON OF THE KEY‐PECK AND TREADLE‐PRESS OPERANTS IN THE PIGEON: DIFFERENTIAL‐REINFORCEMENT‐OF‐LOW‐RATE SCHEDULE OF REINFORCEMENT¹

Richardson

Clark

1976

Key pecking and treadle pressing in pigeons were compared under concurrent (key-treadle) and single-operant differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules of food reinforcement ranging from 5 to 60 sec (concurrent procedure) or 5 to 120 sec (single-operant procedure). Under both procedures, the two operants followed the same general law: decreasing response rate and reinforcement rate and increasing number of responses per reinforcement as a function of increasing schedule interval. High correlations were found between key pecking and treadle pressing for the measures of response rate, reinforcement rate, and responses per reinforcement. Regression equations allowed the prediction of treadle pressing from key pecking. More bursting occurred in responding to the key, and key pecking showed a more precise temporal discrimination than treadle pressing. A test for sequential dependencies between key and treadle responses showed significant dependencies not only under the concurrent procedure but also in data created artificially by merging key and treadle sequences from different pigeons under the concurrent procedure and from the same pigeon under the single-operant procedure. It seems likely that the sequential dependencies found were due to the independent action of the schedule on each operant and that behavioral dependencies did not occur with the concurrent training procedure. The key-peck operant does not appear to have any special qualities that preclude its use in discovering general laws of behavior, at least under the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule. The usefulness of the key peck in other situations requires direct experimental study.