Examination of reinforcement magnitude on the pharmacological disruption of fixed-ratio performance.

Abstract

Behavioral momentum theory proposes that operant behavior is the product of two separable processes: its rate of occurrence and its resistance to change. Generally speaking, operant situations providing more densely spaced or greater magnitudes of reinforcement should be more resistant to disruption. Attempts to disrupt ongoing behavior by manipulating the availability of food or deprivation level typically have supported the predictions of behavioral momentum. Tests with pharmacological disruptors, however, have yielded mixed results. Most investigations of pharmacological disruption of operant behavior have evaluated momentum across situations that differ in rate of reinforcement. The present experiment was an attempt to systematically replicate prior work, but under conditions of differing reinforcement magnitudes. Pigeons were trained to key peck on a multiple fixed-ratio thirty schedule of food presentation, where different components programmed 2, 4, or 8-s access to grain. Resistance to rate-decreasing effects of drugs was evaluated with several compounds drawn from distinct pharmacological classes: chlordiazepoxide, cocaine, clonidine, haloperidol, morphine, and ethanol were tested. Additionally, disruption by pre-feeding and extinction was examined. Generally, resistance to change by drug administration was not modulated by reinforcement magnitude. Pre-feeding and extinction tests, however, replicated previous work, indicating that our procedure was sensitive to more common disruptors. The results give additional support to the notion that pharmacological disruptors may not behave in the manner predicted by behavioral momentum theory.Keywords behavioral momentum; reinforcement magnitude; fixed ratio; resistance to change; pigeon; key peck Behavioral momentum is a development in learning theory that proposes behavior is the result of two separable processes: its rate of occurrence and its resistance to change (Nevin, 1992;Nevin & Grace, 2000;Nevin, Tota, Torquato, & Shull, 1990). The theory is an analogy of behavior to the momentum of a physical body. Response rate is analogous to velocity of a moving body, and resistance to change is analogous to the body's mass. Behavioral momentum, Corresponding Author: Jonathan W. Pinkston, Department of Psychiatry Mail Code 7743, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX 78229, pinkstonj@uthscsa.edu. The following manuscript is the final accepted manuscript. It has not been subjected to the final copyediting, fact-checking, and proofreading required for formal publication. It is not the definitive, publisher-authenticated version. The American Psychological Association and its Council of Editors disclaim any responsibility or liabilities for errors or omissions of this manuscript version, any version derived from this manuscript by NIH, or other third parties. The published version is available at www.apa.org/pubs/journals/pha. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptExp Clin Psychopharmacol. Author manuscript; available in...

In vivo Effects of Abused ‘Bath Salt’ Constituent 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) in Mice: Drug Discrimination, Thermoregulation, and Locomotor Activity

“…In contrast, during cumulative dose-substitution sessions, as well as during bolus dose time-course tests, no responses were reinforced. This likely resulted in very different states of 'behavioral momentum' (Nevin et al, 1983) for the subjects across these distinct procedures, which has previously been shown to modulate drug effects in pigeons (Poling et al, 2000;Pinkston et al, 2009) and mice (Leslie et al, 2005).…”

Disruptive effects of prefeeding and haloperidol administration on multiple measures of food-maintained behavior in rats

“…Although some researchers (e.g., Egli et al, 1992;Harper, 1999aHarper, , 1999bHoffman et al, 1987;Poling et al, 2000;Yoo et al, 2003) have obtained results consistent with behavioral momentum theory with drugs from several pharmacological classes such as stimulant (e.g., cocaine), antipsychotic (e.g., haloperidol), and opioid (e.g., morphine), others have found that pharmacological disruptors do not operate in the same manner as non-pharmacological disruptors (e.g., Cohen, 1986;JimenezGomez and Shahan, 2007;Lamb and Ginsburg, 2005;Pinkston et al, 2009). For example, Cohen (Experiment 3) investigated resistance of food-maintained responses by rats to damphetamine, sodium pentobarbital, haloperidol, and cholecystokinin, and found that behavior was not necessarily more resistant to disruptive effects of these drugs in the component with higher reinforcement rates.…”

Resistência à mudança: efeitos da administração e retirada do etanol

“…Os resultados de alguns estudos mostram que drogas tem a função de eventos perturbadores tal qual é esperado nos estudos de resistência à mudança, ou seja, com maior resistência (ou menor mudança do comportamento) na condição rica ou no componente rico (e.g., Egli, Schaal, Thompson, & Clearly, 1992, Harper, 1999a e, de modo contrário, outros estudos que não encontraram os mesmos resultados (Cohen, 1986, Pinkston, Ginsburg, & Lamb, 2009 Essa inconsistência entre os diferentes experimentos que empregam drogas como evento perturbador (Egli et al, 1992, Harper, 1999a, Cohen, 1986, Pinkston et al, 2009 Grace, Bedell, & Nevin, 2002;Grace & Nevin, 1997;Nevin, Mendell, & Yarensky, 1981), todavia, esses estudos não empregam drogas como evento perturbador. Parece que os resultados de drogas como eventos perturbadores podem ser relacionados ao emprego de esquemas de intervalo, assim como feito por Egli et al (1992) e Harper (1999a.…”

“…Protocolo para administração da gelatina com etanol Tal resultado é consistente com os dados da literatura que emprega drogas como evento perturbador (cf., Cohen, 1989;Pinkston, 2009) Egli et al (1992) e Harper (1999a.…”

“…Em suma, os resultados replicam e dão força a afirmação de outros estudos que sugerem que drogas não têm características de evento perturbador (Cohen, 1986, Nevin & Grace, 2000, e mais especificamente, replicaram os resultados quando se administrou etanol como evento perturbador (Pinkston et al, 2009). Quanto aos efeitos à administração do etanol na resistência à mudança empregando-se extinção como evento perturbador, não houve indícios que exista qualquer alteração, contudo, quando a análise foi voltada à administração da gelatina, fosse com MALTO ou ET, houve diferentes efeitos em relação à fase de linha de base.…”