Free operant avoidance responding as a function of serially presented variations of UCS intensity

Huff, Frederick W.; Piantanida, Thomas P.; Morris, Grant L.

doi:10.3758/bf03330692

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When shock intensities were decreased to below the highest previous level encountered, these behaviors did not reappear. Huff, Piantanida, and Morris (1967) showed that the intensity of the training stimulus may be an important variable. In that study, changes in shock intensity produced shifts in response rates, with the amount and direction of the shift dependent upon both the training intensity and the previous shock level.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

EFFECTS OF RESPONSE‐SHOCK INTERVAL AND SHOCK INTENSITY ON FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE RESPONDING IN THE PIGEON¹

Klein

Rilling

1972

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments investigated free-operant avoidance responding with pigeons using a treadle-pressing response. In Experiment I, pigeons were initially trained on a free-operant avoidance schedule with a response-shock interval of 32 sec and a shock-shock interval of 10 sec, and were subsequently exposed to 10 values of the response-shock parameter ranging from 2.5 to 150 sec. The functions relating response rate to response-shock interval were similar to the ones reported by Sidman in his 1953 studies employing rats, and were independent of the order of presentation of the response-shock values. Shock rates decreased as response-shock duration increased. In Experiment II, a free-operant avoidance schedule with a response-shock interval of 20 sec and a shock-shock interval of 5 sec was used, and shock intensities were varied over five values ranging from 2 to 32 mA. Response rates increased markedly as shock intensity increased from 2 to 8 mA, but rates changed little with further increases in shock intensity. Shock rates decreased as intensity increased from 2 to 8 mA, and showed little change as intensity increased from 8 to 32 mA.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

EFFECTS OF RESPONSE‐SHOCK INTERVAL AND SHOCK INTENSITY ON FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE RESPONDING IN THE PIGEON¹

Klein

Rilling

1972

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While most studies have reported that rate of avoidance responding is directly related to shock intensity (Campbell and Kraeling, 1953;Kimble, 1955;Denenberg, 1959;Boren, Sidman, and Herrnstein, 1959;Huff, Piantanida, and Morris, 1967), several investigators have found that avoidance responding decreased as shock intensity increased (Moyer and Korn, 1964;Levine, 1966). This conflict in results seems at least partially attributable to differences in procedure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…This conflict in results seems at least partially attributable to differences in procedure. In the latter two experiments, acquisition of avoidance was studied in different groups of animals at different shock intensities, whereas several of the earlier experiments studied changes in shock intensity after asymptotic performance was achieved (Boren et al, 1959;Huff et al, 1967).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Shock Intensity Upon Responding Under a Multiple‐avoidance Schedule

Powell

1970

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of two shock intensities (1.00 and 2.00 mA) were studied in the acquisition, maintenance, and extinction of unsignalled avoidance by albino rats. Single and multiple avoidance schedules were employed, with shock intensity being the principal condition that differed between schedule components. The higher shock intensity was generally more effective in producing avoidance. Higher response rates and lower shock rates were observed under high-intensity shock when performance stabilized. When the multiple schedule was introduced, the six rats trained under a single shock intensity all showed poorer performance under the new shock intensity, whether it was higher or lower than the training intensity. Performance under the original shock intensity did not change substantially with the introduction of a different shock intensity in the other multiple schedule component. Performance under the new shock intensity showed gradual improvement with continued exposure to it. All of the rats showed persistent "warm-up", receiving approximately 40% of the total session shocks in the first one-sixth of the session. The degree of warm-up was unrelated to avoidance shock intensity.

show abstract

“…There is also some evidence that the maintenance of performance on overtrained avoidance tasks is an increasing function of shock intensity for both discrete-trials and free operant tasks (Boren, Sidman, & Herrnstein, 1959;D'Amato, Fazzaro, & Etkin, 1967;Huff, Piantanida, & Morris, 1967).…”

Section: Shock Intensity and Warning Signal Effects On Several Measurmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shock intensity and warning signal effects on several measures of operant avoidance acquisition

Myers

1977

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acquisition of both signaled and unsignaled operant avoidance learning was studied in 64 rats as a function of shock intensity, with three different warning signals used in the signaled procedure. In both signaled and unsignaled avoidance, overall response rate was a progressively increasing function of shock intensity. This was due to both an absolute and relative increase in the frequency of responses at shorter interresponse times with increasing shock intensity. Presence of an effective warning signal in the interval immediately preceding shock increased the probability of an avoidance response in this interval, decreased overall response rate, and reduced shock frequency. A buzzer signal proved most effective, followed by tone and light. However, once a warning signal occurred, the probability of an avoidance response to the signal was virtually independent of shock intensity. Also. an index of avoidance efficiency proved to be inversely related to shock intensity.

show abstract

Free operant avoidance responding as a function of serially presented variations of UCS intensity

Cited by 10 publications

References 5 publications

EFFECTS OF RESPONSE‐SHOCK INTERVAL AND SHOCK INTENSITY ON FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE RESPONDING IN THE PIGEON¹

EFFECTS OF RESPONSE‐SHOCK INTERVAL AND SHOCK INTENSITY ON FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE RESPONDING IN THE PIGEON¹

The Effect of Shock Intensity Upon Responding Under a Multiple‐avoidance Schedule

Shock intensity and warning signal effects on several measures of operant avoidance acquisition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Free operant avoidance responding as a function of serially presented variations of UCS intensity

Cited by 10 publications

References 5 publications

EFFECTS OF RESPONSE‐SHOCK INTERVAL AND SHOCK INTENSITY ON FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE RESPONDING IN THE PIGEON1

EFFECTS OF RESPONSE‐SHOCK INTERVAL AND SHOCK INTENSITY ON FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE RESPONDING IN THE PIGEON1

The Effect of Shock Intensity Upon Responding Under a Multiple‐avoidance Schedule

Shock intensity and warning signal effects on several measures of operant avoidance acquisition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

EFFECTS OF RESPONSE‐SHOCK INTERVAL AND SHOCK INTENSITY ON FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE RESPONDING IN THE PIGEON¹

EFFECTS OF RESPONSE‐SHOCK INTERVAL AND SHOCK INTENSITY ON FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE RESPONDING IN THE PIGEON¹