Performance in different segments of an instrumental response chain as a function of reinforcement schedule.

Goodrich, Kenneth P.

doi:10.1037/h0043228

Cited by 164 publications

(135 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There was no significant Group by Block interaction at any age. Generally, in the seperate measures, PRF training tended to result in slower running than CRF training, particularly in older rats, and the classic partial reinforcement acquisition (PRAE) (Goodrich, 1959;Haggard, 1959), which we found in rats trained between 30 and 44 days of age (Chen & Amsel, 1975, Experiment I), is not demonstrated in any of the present age groups. Of course, the conditions of the two experiments are very different not only in respect to age, but also for reward magnitude and number of trials per day.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 51%

Ontogeny of persistence: Immediate extinction effects in preweanling and weanling rats

Burdette

Brake

Chen

et al. 1976

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiment I rats were trained for 2% days under partial (PRF) or continuous reinforcement (CRF) conditions starting at 18, 22,28, or 36 days of age and were then subjected to immediate extinction. At all ages there was a strong partial reinforcement extinction effect (PREE), and absolute size of PREE was greatest in the youngest rats. Rate of extinction increased as a function of age following both CRF and PRF. In Experiment II the youngest and oldest age groups of Experiment I were run under the two reward conditions of Experiment I and in a third condition, PRF with number of rewards rather than trials equated to CRF (PRF-R). The PRF-R and PRF groups were not different in extinction, and both were more persistent than CRF. The youngest rats were again more persistent than the oldest, particularly after PRF training. In Experiment III it was shown that the well-known paradoxical effect, greater reward in CRF acquisition leads to faster extinction, operates in our youngest and oldest animals, but is more pronounced in the oldest. The results are discussed in terms of whether they require different explanations than those often applied to extinction data from adult rats.We seem to know much more about the ontogeny of aversive (fear) conditioning in rats than about appetitive learning, perhaps because it seems easier to equate motivational factors at different ages in aversive than in appetitive learning (Campbell, 1967). However, we do have a little information on how level of maturity in rats affects learning in appetitive situations. Weanling rats are reported to be inferior to adults in learning a barpress response for food reward and in forming a lightdark discrimination (Campbell, Jaynes, & Misanin, 1968). Similarly, juvenile rats (less than 50 days of age) do less well on a spatial discrimination than adults (Bronstein & Spear, 1972). The younger rats in the studies of Campbell and his colleagues also show poorer retention of both a learned barpress and light-dark discrimination (Campbell et al., 1968), unless there are periodic reexposures of the rats to the experimental task over the retention interval (Campbell & Jaynes, 1969).While these experiments tell us something about the ontogeny of appetitive learning, they fall short of being decisive in several respects. First, the number of ages investigated is small over the range of ages investigated. This makes it difficult to determine the age at which an adult pattern first appears, and says little about the abruptness of the transition. A second related point is that, when traimng sessions are conducted over an extended period of time, it is difficult to separate changes in performance related to developmental factors from changes resulting from amount or duration of training. Finally, experimental treatment of the youngest subjects in these studies on appetitive learning usually begins in the fourth postnatal week or later,

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 51%

Ontogeny of persistence: Immediate extinction effects in preweanling and weanling rats

Burdette

Brake

Chen

et al. 1976

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I). Significance was found only at the 8-h level (t = 1..91, df = 8, .. any apparent CE for start scores is at variance with previous findings which indicate that, if -the CE is obtained in an experiment for any response measure at aJl, it is invariably found in the measure taken earliest in the response chain (Amsel, Rashotte, & MacKinnon, 1966;Goodrich, 1959;Haggard, 1959;Surridge, Boehnert, & Amsel, 1966;Wagner, 1961Wagner, , 1963Weinstock, 1958). Perhaps low drive leads to less generalization of rr to earlier.…”

Section: Resul Ts and Dlscussioncontrasting

confidence: 50%

“Transfer of learning” by injection of brain RNA as a function of time

1969

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results of studies of "transfer of learning" effects by brain ribonucleic acid (RNA) extraction from trained rats and its injection into naive rats have been apparently conflicting. In a recent study by Luttges, Johnson, Buck, Holland, & McGaugh (I %6) no difference was found in task performance between naive rats injected with RNA from trained rats and naive rats injected with RNA from naive rats. On the other hand, Babich, Jacobson, Bubash, & Jacobson (1965) found the task performance of naive rats injected with RNA from trained rats to be superior to that of naive rats injected with RNA from naive rats.Studies supporting RNA "transfer of learning" effects have tested recipient rats I to 3 h after injection, whereas, studies disproving this transfer effect have tested the rats 18 to 24 h after RNA injection. In the present study, time between RNA injection and performance testing of recipient rats was varied in an attempt to verify "transfer of learning" effects and determine the optimal transfer retention interval for a passive-avoidance task requiring light-dark discrimination. METHOD The Ss were 80 naive, male, Sprague-Dawley rats, approximately 55 days old at the beginning of the study.A Miller-Mowrer box (24 x 5 x 15 in.) was divided into a black and a white section of equal size by a guillotine door (5 x 15 in.). A 25-W light was placed directly above the white section and a shock source of 2.4 mA was wired to the grid of the black section. Electric clocks with photoelectric relays measured time (to the nearest .1 sec) spent in each section.Previous work has demonstrated that rats showadefinite preference for the darkest areas in a maze when permitted to explore freely (Gay & Rapheison, 1967). Avoidance training for this preference was carried out on 20 rats. These 20 rats and 20 others were decapitated and brain RNA extracted and injected into 40 rats. The recipients were tested for light-dark preference 1,2,8, or 16 h after injection.On a 3-min preference trial all 80 rats showed the expected preference for the black compartment and were randomly divided into four groups of 20: Learned-Donor, ControlDonor, Learned-Recipient, and Control-Recipient. Each Leamed-Donor rat was confined in the black compartment and administered a 2.4-mA shock for 5 sec, after which time the dOOf was raised 3 in. and Spermitted to escape to the white compartment. Three such shock trials per day for five consecutive days was sufficient for the Ss to exhibit an inhibition of their original preference for the black compartment. 1 During these sessions the Donor-Control Ss were administered an equal amount and dura ti on of shock in a neutral environment. Two hours after the last training session both Donor groups were decapitated.Within each group the Donor brains were pooled and processed together according to the following procedure: 2

show abstract

“…Rats run faster during the early portions of an alley under intermittent than under continuous reinforcement (Amsel, MacKinnon, Rashotte, & Surridge, 1964;Goodrich, 1959;Wagner, 1961;Weinstock, 1958). In the terminal section of the alley, running speeds tend to be lower for partial than for continuous groups.…”

Section: Acquisitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partial reinforcement in autoshaping with pigeons

Gibbon

Farrell

Locurto

et al. 1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

144

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The acquisition, maintenance, and extinction of autoshaped responding in pigeons were studied under partial and continuous reinforcement. Five values of probability of reinforcement, ranging from .1 to 1.0, were combined factorially with five values of intertrial interval ranging from 15 to 250 sec for different groups. The number of trials required before autoshaped responding emerged varied inversely with the duration of the intertrial interval and probability of reinforcment, but partial reinforcement did not increase the number of reinforcers before acquisition. During maintained training, partial reinforcement increased the overall rate of responding. A temporal gradient of accelerated responding over the trial duration emerged during maintenance training for partial reinforcement groups, and was evident for all groups in extinction. Partial reinforcement groups responded more than continuous reinforcement groups over an equivalent number of trials in extinction. However, this partialreinforcment extinction effect disappeared when examined in terms of the omission of "expected" reinforcers.

show abstract

Performance in different segments of an instrumental response chain as a function of reinforcement schedule.

Cited by 164 publications

References 15 publications

Ontogeny of persistence: Immediate extinction effects in preweanling and weanling rats

Ontogeny of persistence: Immediate extinction effects in preweanling and weanling rats

“Transfer of learning” by injection of brain RNA as a function of time

Partial reinforcement in autoshaping with pigeons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About