1978
DOI: 10.1037/h0077527
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evidence for a transitional period for development of persistence in infant rats.

Abstract: Four experiments point to the existence of a transitional period in neonatal rats for the learning of persistence. Partial reinforcement training with suckling on an anesthetized dam as reward induced greater persistence in extinction of the approach response than did continuous reinforcement in rat pups 14 days old but not in 11-day-old pups. Other aspects of this period of development are discussed.The partial reinforcement extinction effect (FREE) describes the relative persistence-increased resistance to e… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

7
33
0

Year Published

1980
1980
1999
1999

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
(29 reference statements)
7
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results of the previous experiments, as well as those of others (Brake, 1981;Brake et al, 1982;Letz et al, 1978), demonstrate that rat pups as young as 11 days of age perceive milk delivery as a salient event and are capable of discriminating suckling associated with milk delivery from nonnutritive suckling. Rat pups apparently become even more responsive to the nutritive contingencies associated with feeding between 15 and 25 days of age (Kenny et al, 1979;Williams, Hall, & Rosenblatt, 1980), which is the beginning of the weaning period.…”
Section: Experiments 111supporting
confidence: 62%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The results of the previous experiments, as well as those of others (Brake, 1981;Brake et al, 1982;Letz et al, 1978), demonstrate that rat pups as young as 11 days of age perceive milk delivery as a salient event and are capable of discriminating suckling associated with milk delivery from nonnutritive suckling. Rat pups apparently become even more responsive to the nutritive contingencies associated with feeding between 15 and 25 days of age (Kenny et al, 1979;Williams, Hall, & Rosenblatt, 1980), which is the beginning of the weaning period.…”
Section: Experiments 111supporting
confidence: 62%
“…Pups given experience with continuous milk delivery from 14 to 18 days of age also spent significantly more time attached to the nipple at 19 days of age than did pups in control groups. It was concluded that experience with different milk delivery schedules can affect subsequent sucking and nipple attachment behavior.Several investigators have demonstrated that 2-week-old rats traverse runways and mazes more efficiently when reinforcement consists of sucking a nipple which provides milk rather than sucking a nipple which does not (Letz, Burdette, Gregg, Kittrell, & Amsel, 1978;Kenny, Stolhoff, Bruno, & Blass, 1979). We are now finding that the pup's behavior while on the nipple is also affected by milk delivery.…”
mentioning
confidence: 64%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Beyond this general trend, however, we have found that the PREE appears much earlier in ontogeny than do other paradoxical effects. The PREE first appears at 12-14 days (Chen & Amsel, 1980;Letz, Burdette, Gregg, Kittrell, & Amsel, 1978), whereas the MREE fails to appears clearly until about 21 days (Burdette, Brake, Chen, & Amsel, 1976;Chen, Gross, & Amsel, 1981;; SNC first appears at 25-26 days (Chen et al, 1981;; and there is no evidence of the OEEprior to 25-26 days . The sequence of appearance of these extinction effects remains to be explained by theories that attribute these effects to a common set of learning mechanisms.…”
mentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The suggestion by Bitterman is that the early appearance of the PREE may depend on training with relatively massed trials. He might be right, but we do have experiments on the PREE in 14-day-old rats in which the intertrial interval (lTI) is 10-12 min (Letz, Burdette, Gregg, Kittrell, & Amsel, 1978). Bitterman's statement that massed-trial SNC can be accounted for in terms of primary frustration (R F) alone is puzzling: in massed trials, primary frustration produces FE-like effects, not SNC.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%