Invariance of the rat's rate of drinking.

Corbit, John D.; Luschei, Erich S.

doi:10.1037/h0027943

Cited by 107 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some of the rats may have emptied the dipper cup in slightly less than the scheduled 3.00-sec reinforcement duration. However, reports that the rat drinks at a rate of about 0.03 ml per second from a drinking tube (Corbit and Luschei, 1969;Stellar and Hill, 1952), along with the lick data reported above, indicate that the reinforcement magnitude received at 3.00 sec was clearly larger than that received at 1.50 sec, and probably close to twice as large. Informal occasional visual observation suggested that the rats did not continue to lick the cup if it was emptied before the end of the 3.00-sec reinforcement duration.…”

Section: Baseline Reinforcement Schedulementioning

confidence: 86%

BEHAVIORAL AFTEREFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT AND ITS OMISSION AS A FUNCTION OF REINFORCEMENT MAGNITUDE¹

Jensen

Fallon

1973

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Baseline Reinforcement Schedulementioning

confidence: 86%

BEHAVIORAL AFTEREFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT AND ITS OMISSION AS A FUNCTION OF REINFORCEMENT MAGNITUDE¹

Jensen

Fallon

1973

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Corbit and Luschei (1969) measured the interlick intervals of rats (only the intervals within a burst of licking), and found that treatments with a large effect on the amount of water drunk did not change the mean interlick interval. For example, changing the duration of water deprivation from 24 to 96 h changed the amount drunk in a lO-rnin test by .25 log units (from 8 to 14 ml), but changed the mean interlick interval by only .006 log units, not a reliable change.…”

Section: More Evidence For Response Elaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, the presence or absence of noise followed a pattern and made sense in terms of other knowledge. Table 2 divides 12 cases of multiplicative factors along two dimensions: (a) whether or not at least one of the two factors was a stimulus dimension (e.g., time, wavelength) Schwartz, 1977b) nonconsummatory (Roberts, 1983) responses, and the features that can be added by elaboration include location (Skinner, 1950;Roberts, 1983), form (Roberts, 1983), latency (Blough, 1978), and perhaps rate (Corbit & Luschei, 1969) and duration (B. Schwartz, 1977b).…”

Section: Conclusion From the Examples Taken Togethermentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for distinct serial processes in animals: The multiplicative-factors method

Roberts

1987

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The assumption that responses are controlled by distinct serially arranged processes was used by Sternberg (1969a) to explain the result, observed in many human experiments, that two factors have additive effects on reaction time (RT). With slight changes, Sternberg's explanation of additive factors with RT also explains the result, observed in animal experiments, that two factors have multiplicative effects on response rate. This article describes and interprets 17 examples of multiplicative factors from response-rate experiments with rats, pigeons, and goldfish, as well as some other animal evidence for distinct serial processes. The examples suggest and/or support new and old ideas about generalization, attention, timing, learning, motivation, and response production. Most important, the animal evidence makes the case for distinct serial processes considerably stronger. Since the procedures used in the two sets of experiments (human and animal) have little in common, distinct serial processes may control behavior in a very wide range of situations.Sternberg (l969a) introduced the additive-factor method (AFM), a guide to designing and interpreting reaction time (RT) experiments, and used the method to show that there was evidence for distinct serially arranged processes (which Sternberg called processing stages) in a number of human RT experiments. The data that he used to illustrate the method are unusual. They come from factorial RT experiments, and the key result, found in a number of experiments, was that pairs of factors (treatments) had close-to-additive effects on mean RT. One unusual feature of the data is the precision of the additivity. In most cases, an additive model fit so well that in graphs of the data, all of the points (representing the data) touched the fitted lines (representing the model). In a few cases, it was not obvious that the lines had not been drawn through the points. Ten of Sternberg's examples provided enough data to calculate the percentage of variance explained by an additive model; on the average (median over the 10 cases), an additive model describes 99.89% of the variance. In one set of experiments, not done with the method in mind, an additive model described RTs with median absolute error of 1.8 msec (median taken over five pairs of factors). In an experiment designed for the method, the errors were .9 msec (one pair offactors) and.4 msec (same pair at a different level of a third factor), with RTs on the order of 500 msec. Sternberg (1971) described 9

show abstract

“…The rat's licking behavior is capable of numerous adjustments which depend upon the properties of the solution being licked (see Corbit & Luschei, 1969;Hulse, 1966;Hulse & Suter, 1968Petrie & Hulse, 1971). Allison (1971) compared a relatively visco us liquid food (Nutrament) with a less viscous, non nutritive saccharin solution during a 60-min test session.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Macro- and microbehavioral response to viscosity among rats licking saccharin

Wilcove

Allison

1972

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of viscosity upon licking were studied by providing rats with thick and thin .4% saccharin solutions in separate 1-h sessions. Volumetric intake{lick was greater for the thin than for the thick solution and was the only measure affected by viscosity. As the session progressed, the two solutions caused (1) comparable satiation effects, as evidenced by comparable decreases in several indices of the average rate of ingestion; (2) comparable decreases in the average duration of the lick; and (3) no reliable change in the average volumetric intake of the lick. The results were related to earlier comparisons of liquid food and saccharin and indicated that the differences produced by the latter solutions are not fully attributable to their differential viscosity.

show abstract

Invariance of the rat's rate of drinking.

Cited by 107 publications

References 5 publications

BEHAVIORAL AFTEREFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT AND ITS OMISSION AS A FUNCTION OF REINFORCEMENT MAGNITUDE¹

BEHAVIORAL AFTEREFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT AND ITS OMISSION AS A FUNCTION OF REINFORCEMENT MAGNITUDE¹

Evidence for distinct serial processes in animals: The multiplicative-factors method

Macro- and microbehavioral response to viscosity among rats licking saccharin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Invariance of the rat's rate of drinking.

Cited by 107 publications

References 5 publications

BEHAVIORAL AFTEREFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT AND ITS OMISSION AS A FUNCTION OF REINFORCEMENT MAGNITUDE1

BEHAVIORAL AFTEREFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT AND ITS OMISSION AS A FUNCTION OF REINFORCEMENT MAGNITUDE1

Evidence for distinct serial processes in animals: The multiplicative-factors method

Macro- and microbehavioral response to viscosity among rats licking saccharin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

BEHAVIORAL AFTEREFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT AND ITS OMISSION AS A FUNCTION OF REINFORCEMENT MAGNITUDE¹

BEHAVIORAL AFTEREFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT AND ITS OMISSION AS A FUNCTION OF REINFORCEMENT MAGNITUDE¹