Partial reinforcement in autoshaping with pigeons

Gibbon, John; Farrell, Louise; Locurto, Charles; Duncan, Heather J.; Terrace, H. S.

doi:10.3758/bf03209729

Cited by 143 publications

(188 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

160

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, there is very little evidence in support of this notion. Gibbon et al (1980) found that the acquisition of responding (conditioning) emerged much earlier than the acquisition of a well established temporal gradient during the CS (timing). However, they did not attempt to directly compare the emergence of these two features of responding by using a common metric.…”

Section: Summary Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are separate theories of conditioning and timing necessary?

Kirkpatrick

Church

1998

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conditioning and timing studies have evolved under separate traditions, which is exemplified in both traditional theories (e.g. the Rescorla-Wagner model of conditioning vs. Scalar Timing Theory) and in a dual process model (Gibbon, J., Balsam, P., 1981. In: Autoshaping and Conditioning Theory. Academic Press, New York.). Other lines of theoretical development in both timing and conditioning fields have resulted in the emergence of 'hybrid' theories in which conditioning and timing processes are integrated. Simulations were conducted with a recent hybrid theory of timing (Machado, A., 1997. Psychol. Rev. 104, 241 -265). The simulations were of classical conditioning procedures in which the local or global predictability of food was varied by manipulating the variability of the CS-US relationship, variability of the CS duration, and variability of the intertrial interval. The hybrid model provided good qualitative fits to indices of conditioning (discrimination ratios) and timing (local rates of responding), indicating that it may be possible to model both conditioning and timing results with a single process in which an internal representation of time and a strength of association are integrated. However, the failure of the model to provide good quantitative fits of the data indicates the need for a consideration of alternative perceptual representations of time and/or principles of association within the framework of the hybrid model.

show abstract

Section: Summary Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are separate theories of conditioning and timing necessary?

Kirkpatrick

Church

1998

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Like extinction, partial reinforcement relies only on CS-alone presentations to achieve a decrement in responding, and CS-alone presentations should theoretically lead to associative inhibition with our protocols Mackintosh 1975;Gibbon et al 1980;Pearce and Hall 1980;Wagner 1981;Gallistel and Gibbon 2000). While other theories have somewhat different interpretations of inhibitory learning, they generally state that partial reinforcement and extinction are explained by the same mechanism (Amsel 1958;Mackintosh 1975;Gibbon et al 1980;Pearce and Hall 1980;Gallistel and Gibbon 2000;Sunsay 2001, 2003). In a follow-up experiment designed to make the partial reinforcement procedure more closely resemble our extinction procedure (more CSs; all pairings first) (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Partial reinforcement effects are often explained by an extinction-like process that is triggered by CS-alone presentations Mackintosh 1975;Gibbon et al 1980;Pearce and Hall 1980;Wagner 1981;Gallistel and Gibbon 2000). For this reason, we expected the partial reinforcement effect to be blocked by nifedipine, since nifedipine prevents extinction (Fig.…”

Section: Contingency Reduction: Further Examination Of Partial Reinfomentioning

confidence: 99%

The L-type calcium channel blocker nifedipine impairs extinction, but not reduced contingency effects, in mice

Cain

Godsil²,

Jami³

et al. 2005

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We recently reported that fear extinction, a form of inhibitory learning, is selectively blocked by systemic administration of L-type voltage-gated calcium channel (LVGCC) antagonists, including nifedipine, in mice. We here replicate this finding and examine three reduced contingency effects after vehicle or nifedipine (40 mg/kg) administration. In the first experiment, contingency reduction was achieved by adding USs to the training protocol (degraded contingency), a phenomenon thought to be independent of behavioral inhibition. In the second experiment, contingency reduction was achieved by varying the percentage of CS-US pairing, a phenomenon thought to be weakly dependent on behavioral inhibition. In the third and fourth experiments, contingency reduction was achieved by adding CSs to the training protocol (partial reinforcement), a phenomenon thought to be completely dependent on behavioral inhibition. We found that none of these reduced contingency effects was impaired by nifedipine. In a final experiment, we found that extinction conducted 1 or 3 h post-acquisition, but not immediately, was LVGCC-dependent. Taken together, the results suggest that reduced contingency effects and extinction depend on different molecular mechanisms and that LVGCC dependence of behavioral inhibition develops with time after associative CS-US learning.Pavlovian fear conditioning in rodents has been widely used in the laboratory setting to model human fear and anxiety, as well as excitatory learning and memory processes (Fendt and Fanselow 1999;Maren 2001;Ohman and Mineka 2001;Fanselow and Gale 2003;LeDoux 2003). Fear conditioning is achieved by temporally pairing an initially neutral conditional stimulus (CS), such as a tone, with an aversive unconditional stimulus (US), usually a mild footshock. Rats show robust fear responding to a CS with as little as one CS-US pairing (Fanselow 1990). Extinction of conditional fear, the progressive weakening of the fear response by repeated presentations of the CS alone, has been an important model in the development of behavior therapy for human anxiety disorders (Wolpe 1969;Wolpe and Rowan 1988;Craske 1999;Myers and Davis 2002) and is the prototypical procedure for inducing inhibitory learning (Davis et al. 2003;Delamater 2004).While the molecular and cellular mechanisms of fear acquisition have been intensely studied for decades, the mechanisms of fear extinction are only beginning to be unraveled. For instance, lesion and local infusion studies suggest that the amygdala (Falls et al. 1992;Quirk et al. 1997;Lu et al. 2001;Marsicano et al. 2002;Royer and Pare 2002;Walker et al. 2002;Davis et al. 2003;Ledgerwood et al. 2003; Lin et al. 2003a,b,c) and prefrontal cortex (Morgan et al. 1993;Quirk et al. 2000;Herry and Garcia 2002;Milad and Quirk 2002;Santini et al. 2004;Shah et al. 2004) participate in the learning and retention of fear extinction. Additionally, both local infusion and systemic behavioral pharmacology studies have identified important roles in extinction for the NMDA-type ...

show abstract

“…However, the possibility that the PREE contradicted the single-process rule of learning (Guthrie, 1935;Hull, 1943) has not stood the test of time. Many studies of Pavlovian conditioning have now demonstrated that a conditioned stimulus (CS) that is intermittently paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) will show a resistance to extinction relative to a CS that is consistently paired with a US (e.g., Fitzgerald, 1963;Fitzgerald, Vardaris, & Teyler, 1966;Gibbon, Farrell, Locurto, Duncan, & Terrace, 1980;Gibbs, Latham, & Gormezano, 1978;Pearce, Redhead, & Aydin, 1997;Rescorla, 1999b;Slivka & Bitterman, 1966). This has not prevented the PREE from continuing to be a thorn in the side of theories of learning, however.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect Despite Equal Rates of Reinforcement During Pavlovian Conditioning.

Haselgrove

Aydin

Pearce³

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 4 experiments rats received appetitive Pavlovian conditioning followed by extinction. Food accompanied every trial with the conditioned stimulus (CS) for the continuously reinforced groups and only half of the trials for the partially reinforced groups. In contrast to previous experiments that have compared the effects of partial and continuous reinforcement, the rate at which food was delivered during the CS was the same for both groups. The strength of the conditioned response during extinction weakened more rapidly in the continuously than in the partially reinforced groups. The results demonstrate that the partial reinforcement extinction effect is a consequence of the nonreinforced trials with the CS, rather than the rate at which the unconditioned stimulus is delivered during the CS.For many years the partial reinforcement extinction effect (PREE) was a mainstay of research in the field of animal learning and behavior. Within the context of instrumental conditioning, the PREE can be defined as a resistance to the detrimental effects of extinction following trials in which responding is intermittently rather than consistently paired with reinforcement (for a review see Mackintosh, 1974). So widespread was the PREE in studies of instrumental conditioning-and such was the paucity of evidence for the effect within Pavlovian conditioning-that for some time the PREE was thought to differentiate these two forms of conditioning (Kimble, 1961). However, the possibility that the PREE contradicted the single-process rule of learning (Guthrie, 1935;Hull, 1943) has not stood the test of time. Many studies of Pavlovian conditioning have now demonstrated that a conditioned stimulus (CS) that is intermittently paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) will show a resistance to extinction relative to a CS that is consistently paired with a

show abstract

Partial reinforcement in autoshaping with pigeons

Cited by 143 publications

References 58 publications

Are separate theories of conditioning and timing necessary?

Are separate theories of conditioning and timing necessary?

The L-type calcium channel blocker nifedipine impairs extinction, but not reduced contingency effects, in mice

A Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect Despite Equal Rates of Reinforcement During Pavlovian Conditioning.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About