NOTE ON CHANGES IN RESPONSE LATENCY FOLLOWING DISCRIMINATION TRAINING IN THE MONKEY<sup>1</sup>

Stebbins, William C.; Reynolds, Robert W.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1964.7-229

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Taken together, the experimental data obtained in this study unambiguously demonstrate the capability of lobsters to perform discriminative tasks on different light intensities ranging 20 -60 lx. In addition, the shortening of the action latency upon light stimulation (Figs.7-9) also support our conclusion on the analogy of psychological investigations into discriminative operant tasks using mammals reporting considerable shortening of latencies for the reinforced action [78][79][80][81].…”

Section: Discrimination Learning In the Lobstersupporting

confidence: 86%

Discrimination learning with light stimuli in restrained American lobster

Tomina

Takahata

2012

Behavioural Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Operant discrimination learning has been extensively utilized in the study on the perceptual ability of animals and their higher-order brain functions. We tested in this study whether American lobster Homarus americanus, which was previously found to possess ability of operant learning with claw gripping, could be trained to discriminate light stimuli of different intensities. For the current purpose, we newly developed a PC-controlled operant chamber that allowed the animal under a body-fixed condition to perform operant reward learning with claw gripping. Lobsters were first reinforced when they gripped the sensor bar upon presentation of a light cue. Then they were trained to grip the bar only when the light stimulus of a specific intensity was presented to obtain food reward while the stimuli of three different intensities including the reinforced one were presented in a random order. Finally, they were re-trained to grip the bar only when the light stimulus of another intensity that was not rewarded in the preceding training to obtain food while other intensities including the one that was rewarded previously were not rewarded any more. In these training procedures, the operant behavior occurred more frequently in response to the rewarded cue than to the non-rewarded one. The action latency for the reinforced stimuli showed a significant decrease in the course of training.These data demonstrate that lobsters can be trained with the light cues of different intensity as discriminative stimuli under a restrained condition that would allow application of electrophysiological techniques to the behaving subjects.-3-

show abstract

Section: Discrimination Learning In the Lobstersupporting

confidence: 86%

Discrimination learning with light stimuli in restrained American lobster

Tomina

Takahata

2012

Behavioural Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Figures 2 and 3 show frequency distributions of latencies for the final sessions of discrimination training for M-22 and M-9 respectively. Aside from the obvious differences in median latencies to S+ and S-, the outstanding difference shown by these figures is the substantially greater amount of variability in S-responding, thus confirming results of Stebbins and Reynolds (1964). It is also apparent in the data of M-22 (Fig.…”

Section: And Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

“…Their procedure requires that the animal hold down a bar to produce a stimulus and then release it for the reinforcer and proceed to the next trial. Stebbins and Reynolds (1964) showed that in a standard positive-negative stimulus training paradigm, latencies become much longer to the negative stimulus than to the positive (S+).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

AUDITORY GENERALIZATION GRADIENTS FOR RESPONSE LATENCY IN THE MONKEY¹

Moody¹,

Stebbins²,

Iglauer³

1971

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two monkeys were trained to press and hold a response key in the presence of a light and to release it at the onset of a pure tone. Initially, all responses with latencies shorter than 1 sec were reinforced without regard to the frequency of the pure tone, and the intensity of the pure tone that resulted in equal latencies at each frequency was determined. The second stage of the experiment consisted of discrimination training, during which releases to one pure-tone frequency (positive stimulus) were reinforced and releases to a second frequency (negative stimulus) were extinguished. Median latencies to the negative stimulus slowly increased as did the variability of the latency distribution for the negative stimulus. There was no evidence of a concurrent decrease in latencies to the positive stimulus indicative of behavioral contrast. The third part of the experiment consisted of determining maintained generalization gradients by increasing the number of nonreinforcement stimuli. The gradients that eventually resulted showed approximately equal latencies to all frequencies of the negative stimulus and shorter latencies to the positive stimulus frequency.The use of sophisticated behavioral techniques in recent years has added a great deal to knowledge of the stimulus control of operant behavior. Much of this knowledge, however, is based on observations of a single dependent variable: rate of responding. Although rate is widely accepted, in many instances it does not adequately specify behavior. For example, Blough (1963) (e.g., Terrace, 1963a, b;Farmer, Schoenfeld, and Harris, 1966;Winograd, Cohen, and Cole, 1965;Jenkins, 1961). Two problems are frequently encountered when the latency measure is used. The first is that suitable contingencies are not included to control where the animal is in the chamber at the moment of stimulus onset. The inclusion of key approach time in the latency increases variability and may hide the latency differences related to the value of the stimulus. The second problem is that no latency can be measured if the animal fails to respond. Since well-trained subjects seldom respond to the negative stimulus (S-), few latencies enter into the S-sample. Latency is frequently discarded as a useful dependent 105 197 1, 16, 105-11 1 NUMBER I (J ULY)

show abstract

“…In an early study, Henmon (1906) showed that the correct and incorrect responses of observers releasing a telegraph key could be distinguished by mean latency. Recent experiments have shown that correct responses are made with generally shorter latencies than are errors in a variety of species such as goldfish (Yager & Duncan, 1971), rat (Hack, 1966;Terman, 1970;Terman & Terman, 1973), monkey (Clopton, 1972;Moody, Stebbins & Inglauer, 1971;Stebbins & Reynolds, 1964) and human (Cross & Lane, 1962;Emmerich, Gray, Watson & Tanis, 1972;Sekular, 1965). Response differentiation on the basis of latency suggests that the subject may demonstrate some degree of discrimination even when emitting errors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Yes‐no and Latency Measures of Auditory Intensity Discrimination

Green¹,

Terman²,

Terman³

1979

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats discriminated auditory intensity differences of sinusoids at 3.0 kilohertz in a go/no-go signal detection procedure. Responses to the signal (hits) were reinforced with electrical brain stimulation, and misses produced a brief timeout. On intermixed noise trials, withholding of responses (correct rejections) was reinforced, and false alarms produced the timeout. In two test conditions, the signal was either the louder (100 decibels) or softer (90, 93, 96, or 99 decibels) of the pair of intensities presented within a set of trials. Each animal was first trained with signal value louder or softer, and reversed for the second condition so that the former noise value served as signal. Hits showed shorter latencies than false alarms, regardless of the relative intensity of signal and noise, and the nmagnitude of differentiation was proportional to signal-noise separation. Both hits and false alarms showed longer latencies as the discrimination became more difficult. Isosensitivity contours derived from the latencies showed close similarity across conditions; in comparison, the yes-no measure of detectability, d', showed greater variability. The similarity of latency differentiation across louder and softer signal conditions supports a detection model in which the ob.erver's judgment is controlled by the distance of sensory effect from criterion on each trial, as opposed to the loudness of the tones per se.

show abstract

NOTE ON CHANGES IN RESPONSE LATENCY FOLLOWING DISCRIMINATION TRAINING IN THE MONKEY¹

Cited by 16 publications

References 4 publications

Discrimination learning with light stimuli in restrained American lobster

Discrimination learning with light stimuli in restrained American lobster

AUDITORY GENERALIZATION GRADIENTS FOR RESPONSE LATENCY IN THE MONKEY¹

Comparison of Yes‐no and Latency Measures of Auditory Intensity Discrimination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

NOTE ON CHANGES IN RESPONSE LATENCY FOLLOWING DISCRIMINATION TRAINING IN THE MONKEY1

Cited by 16 publications

References 4 publications

Discrimination learning with light stimuli in restrained American lobster

Discrimination learning with light stimuli in restrained American lobster

AUDITORY GENERALIZATION GRADIENTS FOR RESPONSE LATENCY IN THE MONKEY1

Comparison of Yes‐no and Latency Measures of Auditory Intensity Discrimination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

NOTE ON CHANGES IN RESPONSE LATENCY FOLLOWING DISCRIMINATION TRAINING IN THE MONKEY¹

AUDITORY GENERALIZATION GRADIENTS FOR RESPONSE LATENCY IN THE MONKEY¹