Faster rates of discrimination learning with centrally elicited reinforcement than with food.

Abstract

Independent groups of rats were reinforced by either hypothalamic stimulation, septal stimulation, or liquid food in a two-choice brightness-discrimination task. Both groups receiving intracranial reinforcement learned the brightness discrimination more rapidly than did the food-reinforced group. The superiority of hypothalamic and septal reinforcement persisted even when, in a second experiment, the intracranial stimulation was withheld for 1.0 sec. following each correct response. Such a result rules out the possibility that the small but unavoidable delay associated with the delivery of food is responsible for the differences in learning between the food-and intracranial-reinforcement groups. Further, the incentive or motivational properties of the food and intracranial stimulation, as indexed by tests of running speed, appeared to be of comparable value. It is suggested that certain temporal characteristics of intracranial reinforcement may provide more favorable conditions for learning than food reinforcement.

Differences between behavior reinforced by electrical stimulation of the brain and conventionally reinforced behavior: An associative analysis.

“…This last point is substantiated by the experiments reported by Lindholm and Keesey (1970). Even though the training and deprivation conditions were identical, even though the stimulus control was the same, animals given ESB reward learned a twochoice brightness discrimination task faster than animals given food reward.…”

“…Other evidence, however, suggests that the rapid acquisition of the lever-press response, reinforced by ESB on a CRF schedule, is an artifact of training and deprivation conditions (Gibson et al, 1965;Panksepp & Trowill, 1967b). Moreover, there is some evidence (Kling & Berkley, 1968;Kling & Matsumiya, 1962;Terman & Kling, 1968) that discrimination behavior maintained by ESB reward is not acquired more rapidly than conventionally reinforced discrimination behavior, although this evidence is not as persuasive as that provided by Sadowsky (1969) and Lindholm and Keesey (1970).…”

“…There is some evidence that lever-pressing behavior maintained by ESB reward on a CRF schedule (Olds & Milner, 1954) and certain types of discrimination behavior maintained by ESB reward (Lindholm & Keesey, 1970;Sadowsky, 1969) are acquired more rapidly than the corresponding behaviors maintained by conventional rewards. Other evidence, however, suggests that the rapid acquisition of the lever-press response, reinforced by ESB on a CRF schedule, is an artifact of training and deprivation conditions (Gibson et al, 1965;Panksepp & Trowill, 1967b).…”

“…One possibility is that the aftereffect of septal stimulation is more long lasting and therefore reinforces competing responses, as well as the running response (cf. Lindholm & Keesey, 1970). Another possibility is that septal ESB has a larger inhibitory effect on sensory input (cf.…”

Dopaminergic Lesions of the Dorsolateral Striatum in Rats Increase Delay Discounting in an Impulsive Choice Task

“…For example, rats prefer ICSS to food reinforcement [ 21 , 22 ]. ICSS results in faster acquisition of operant responding [ 23 ] and as satiety is not an issue, the rats can be tested several times in a day which reduces the number of days needed to generate stable responding, and the response stability is maintained for several weeks [ 24 – 26 ]. Previously, we reported on the use of ICSS for an operant task measuring probability discounting [ 24 – 26 ]; here we illustrate its utility in a delay discounting task.…”