Polydipsia and autoshaping: Drinking and leverpressing as substitutes for eating

Allison, James P.; Mack, Roy

doi:10.3758/bf03212286

Cited by 11 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thispossibility is supported by research (e.g., Allison & Mack, 1982;Beck, 1964;Collier, 1964) which hasexplicitly examined various foodintakemeasures as a function of amount of water intake. Suchresearch has shown that thepellets-per-dipper functions and the pellets-per-minute functions shown in Figure 2 and the linear relationbetween log food intake versus log water intake shown in Figure 3 are relationships commonly observed in rats exposed to various manipulations of amount of water.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After several researchers reported failure to produce schedule-induction of eating by intermittent water (Carlisle, Shanab, & Simpson, 1972;King, 1974; also see Allison & Mack, 1982 stein (1979) raised the possibility that eating nevertheless might be under the control of intermittent water in terms of temporal patterning. They varied the interwater interval from 30 to 240 sec and found that eating was indeed temporally modulated by the water schedule; this temporal modulation is a characteristic property of SIP.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differences in food consumption under intermittent and continuous reinforcement schedules of water delivery: Some implications for schedule-induced behavior

Wetherington

Riley

1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consumption of food pellets was examined in four water-deprived rats during 1-h sessions in which water was presented once every 30, 60, or 120 sec independently of the rats' behavior according to three fixed-time (FT) schedules. Correlated with each FT condition was a continuous reinforcement (CRF) control condition in which the rats received, at the start of the session, the number of dipper presentations that were programmed to occur during the corresponding FT condition. During both the FT and CRF conditions, pellets per dipper presentation decreased and food intake rate increased with rate of water presentation, and there was a direct linear relation between log food intake and log water intake. For each of these three measures there was less eating under the FT condition than under the CRF condition, but the difference between the FT and CRF functions decreased at shorter FT values. These data are discussed in terms of the effects of amount of water on food consumption and the principle of temporal summation.A large body of research has shown that when fooddeprived animals are intermittently presented small portions offood, they consume an excessive amount of water. This phenomenon is called "schedule-induced polydipsia" (SIP) (see Falk, 1969Falk, , 1971Staddon, 1977;Wetherington, 1982). In addition to excessive fluid consumption, intermittent food has been reported to induce other excessive behaviors, including aggression, pica, escape, and wood-ehewing (see Falk, 1971;Roper & Crossland, 1982). Falk (1971) has argued that collectively these excessive behaviors, which occur under an intermittent schedule, form a class of behavior which he has termed "schedule-induced" or "adjunctive."Given that intermittent food readily induces water consumption, the question of whether scheduling intermittent water produces excessive food consumption naturally arises. After several researchers reported failure to produce schedule-induction of eating by intermittent water (Carlisle, Shanab, & Simpson, 1972;King, 1974 stein (1979) raised the possibility that eating nevertheless might be under the control of intermittent water in terms of temporal patterning. They varied the interwater interval from 30 to 240 sec and found that eating was indeed temporally modulated by the water schedule; this temporal modulation is a characteristic property of SIP. They also reported two other parallels with SIP: food ingestion rate increased and food responses per water presentation decreased with rate of water presentation.There are at least two possible explanations for these three parallels between eating under spaced water and SIP. First, it is possible that eating under spaced water is, in fact, schedule induced. Prior reported failures at producing schedule-induced eating had tested for excessiveness at only one schedule value (Carlisle et al., 1972;King, 1974). And since Wetherington and Brownstein (1979) did not explicitly test for excessiveness, it is possible that some of the schedule values they examined would have produced sche...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in food consumption under intermittent and continuous reinforcement schedules of water delivery: Some implications for schedule-induced behavior

Wetherington

Riley

1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reprints may be obtained from JenniferJ. Higa, Departmentof Psychology, WashingtonState University, Pullman, sia (Allison & Mack, 1982). Autoshaping wasdiscovered by Brown and Jenkins (1968).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Allison and Mack (1982) tested these predictions by varying the total grams of food (NE) delivered during the experimental session. They found that there was a linear increase in Ud and Up as NE decreased.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A test of the conservation model for autoshaped leverpressing and polydipsia in the rat

Higa

McSweeney

1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined a conservation model (Allison & Mack, 1982) that predicts a linear relation between the weighted sum of two responses, autoshaped leverpressing and polydipsia, and the amount of food delivered on a variable-time schedule. Fifteen rats were assigned randomly to one of three groups. The rats in Group 1 were maintained at 80% of their free-feeding body weights. Those in Group 2 began at 100% but were allowed to lose weight during the experiment. The rats in Group 3 also began at 100%of their free-feeding weights and were maintained at this level. Each group was exposed to five conditions that delivered less food than that consumed during baseline and to one condition that delivered more food, The results did not support the conservation model. Contrary to the model, the decreasing linear relation between the individual responses, or the weighted sum of the responses, and the amount of food delivered was not found for all rats, and some rats responded more when an excessive amount of food was presented than during baseline, Conservation theory predicts how an animal will respond during schedules of reinforcement, by assuming that the responses involved can be scaled on some common dimension such as energy expenditure. It also assumes that this dimension is conserved across two sessions of the sameduration: an experimental session, in which the opportunity to performa particular response is on a schedule,anda baseline session, in which theresponses involved are freely available. For example, the total dimension apportioned to leverpressing and eating will be the same during baseline sessions, in which access to food and a lever are freely available, and experimental sessions, in which food is delivered on a specified schedule of reinforcement. This conserved dimension can be interpreted as a variable common to these responses; it is represented as a scaling parameter in the conservation models.Conservation models have successfully predicted responding during a numberof different schedules that use reciprocal contingencies. For example, there is considerable evidence supporting the model for the simple fixedratio schedule of this type (Allison, 1976;Allison, Miller, & Wozny, 1979). Such a schedule specifies that the subject must perform a fixed number of responses of one type (e.g., leverpressing) forthe opportunity to perform another type (e.g., drinking), and mustthenperform a fixed number of responses of the second type (drinking) for another chance to engage in the first, and so on.Recently, the conservation model has beenextended to account for autoshaping and schedule-induced polydip-The authors which to thank John M. Hinson for his invaluable assistancein preparing this manuscript. Reprints may be obtained from JenniferJ. Higa, Departmentof Psychology, WashingtonState University, Pullman, sia (Allison & Mack, 1982). Autoshaping wasdiscovered by Brown and Jenkins (1968). In one condition, Brown andJenkins presented, to food-deprived pigeons, a lighted key followed by access to grain on a vari...

show abstract

Basic Research on the Behavioral Economics of Reinforcer Value

Reed

Kaplan

Becirevic

2015

Autism Service Delivery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polydipsia and autoshaping: Drinking and leverpressing as substitutes for eating

Cited by 11 publications

References 26 publications

Differences in food consumption under intermittent and continuous reinforcement schedules of water delivery: Some implications for schedule-induced behavior

Differences in food consumption under intermittent and continuous reinforcement schedules of water delivery: Some implications for schedule-induced behavior

A test of the conservation model for autoshaped leverpressing and polydipsia in the rat

Basic Research on the Behavioral Economics of Reinforcer Value

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About