Prior exposure to a running wheel and scheduled food attenuates polydipsia acquisition

Williams, Shelly L.; Tang, Maisy; Falk, John L.

doi:10.1016/0031-9384(92)90334-x

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Acquisition of adjunctive behavior is not simply a matter of accommodation to the feeding schedule, as schedule-induced drinking can be acquired even after extended pretraining with the feeding schedule (Reynierse & Spanier, 1968;S. L. Williams, Tang, & Falk, 1992).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response–food delay gradients for lever pressing and schedule-induced licking in rats

Pellón

Pérez-Padilla

2012

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eight food-deprived Wistar rats developed stable patterns of lever pressing and licking when exposed to a fixed-time 30-s schedule of food pellet presentation. The rats were trained to lever press by presenting the lever 10 s before the programmed food delivery, with the food pellet being delivered immediately upon a lever press. The operant contingency was then removed and the lever was inserted through the entire interfood interval, being withdrawn with food delivery and reinserted 2 s later. On successive phases of the study, a protective contingency postponed food delivery if responses (lever presses or licks) occurred within the last 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, or 25 s of the interfood interval. Lever pressing was reduced at much shorter response-food delays than those that reduced licking. These results demonstrate that reinforcement contributes to the maintenance of different response patterns on periodic schedules, and that different responses are differentially sensitive to delays.Keywords Lever pressing . Schedule-induced licking . Response-food delays . Control by consequences . Fixed-time food schedule . Rats Schedule-induced behavior is behavior that occurs in excess when reinforcers are programmed intermittently, when there is no explicit contingency arranged between the occurrence of the behavior and the delivery of the reinforcer (for reviews, see Reid & Staddon, 1990;Wetherington, 1982). The first published experimental demonstration of schedule-induced behavior was by Falk (1961), who found that food-deprived but not water-deprived rats consumed unusual and excessive amounts of water concurrently with their execution of operant lever pressing that was intermittently reinforced by food. Falk (1961) termed this behavior "schedule-induced polydipsia," because the drinking was excessive and there was no apparent contingency between the behavior and the delivery of food. Furthermore, Falk (1971) argued that schedule-induced polydipsia was the prototype of a category of behavior that he termed "adjunctive," differentiating it from operant behavior on the basis of being induced rather than controlled by the reinforcement schedule. Clark (1962) disagreed, suggesting that schedule-induced polydipsia results from adventitious reinforcement of licking by food delivery. Staddon (1977) extended and integrated the analysis of adjunctive and operant behavior by suggesting that scheduleinduced behavior could be divided into interim and terminal activities. Such a classification depended on the nature of the behavior and on its temporal location within interfood intervals, with adjunctive behavior being equivalent to interim activity and operant behavior being instances of terminal ac-

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response–food delay gradients for lever pressing and schedule-induced licking in rats

Pellón

Pérez-Padilla

2012

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Quantities of ethanol consumption by an organism are dependent on prior ethanol drinking initiation procedures (Samson and Czachowski 2003). Furthermore, prior experience with a single adjunctive behavioral option may attenuate the expression of a second adjunctive behavior when both behavioral options are available together (Williams et al 1992). More specifically, all rats in this study were first trained in sessions during which water was the sole fluid available, followed by the ethanol concentration response phase, and then the two-bottle choice phase.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Schedule-induced Polydipsia in Lines of Rats Selectively Bred for High and Low Ethanol Preference

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethanol drinking was assessed in the P/NP, HAD1/LAD1, and HAD2/LAD2 lines of rats under environmental conditions that produce schedule-induced polydipsia. Female rats (n = 8/line), maintained at 85% of free-feeding body weights, underwent daily 1-h sessions during which 45-mg food pellets were delivered every 60 s. Water, 2, 4, 8, 16, or 32% w/v ethanol solution was available from a single bottle for 8 consecutive sessions at each concentration, with blood-ethanol levels (BELs) determined after selected sessions. P and HAD2 rats drank more water and ethanol than their non-preferring counterparts, while HAD1 and LAD1 rats did not differ. Ethanol intake and BELs were positively correlated (r = 0.75) across lines. Finally, rats were allowed 14 daily choice sessions with 8% ethanol and water concurrently available. Water intake generally exceeded ethanol intake in all lines, while P rats drank similar amounts of both fluids. These line differences indicate pleiotropic effects of genes that mediate ethanol intake and schedule-induced behaviors. KeywordsAdjunctive behavior; Schedule-induced polydipsia; Alcohol-preferring rats; Alcohol-nonpreferring rats; Genetic correlation; P rats; NP rats; HAD rats; LAD rats It is well accepted that alcoholism is a complex behavioral genetic trait accounted for by the interaction effects of multiple genes and environmental factors (Crabbe 2002;Enoch and Goldman 2001). A useful approach to the development of an animal model of the genetic contribution to alcohol drinking has been the development of programs in which rats are selectively bred for extremes of high and low voluntary oral alcohol consumption (Lumeng et al. 1995). Perhaps the most powerful, albeit controversial, animal model of the contribution of environmental factors to excessive alcohol drinking is drinking engendered by scheduleinduced polydipsia (Falk 1998). The purpose of the present investigation is to study geneenvironment interactions by examining alcohol drinking by selectively bred rats under conditions that produce schedule-induced polydipsia.The alcohol-preferring (P) and-nonpreferring (NP) lines were developed at Indiana University through bidirectional selective breeding from a randomly bred closed colony of Wistar rats from the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington, D.C. (Lumeng et al. 1977;Li et al. 1991). The selection criterion for P rats is intake greater than 5 g ethanol/kg body weight/ day and the selection criterion for NP rats is intake less than 1.5 g ethanol/kg body weight/day with 10% (v/v) ethanol, water, and food continuously available (Lumeng et al. 1977 NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript rats have characteristics important for an animal model of alcoholism (Cicero 1979). Voluntary oral consumption of ethanol by P rats results in high blood ethanol concentrations (50-250 mg %) even in the presence of food and water (Murphy et al. 1986). P rats consume ethanol for its pharmacological effects rather than its taste, smell or caloric co...

show abstract

“…The slow acquisition is not simply a matter of accommodation to the schedule of feeding, since even after extended pretraining with that feeding schedule, an acquisition function for SIP ensues (Reynierse & Spanier, 1968;Williams, Tang, & Falk, 1992). The left panel of Fig.…”

Section: Acquisitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The rats that had the reinforcement schedule without water took longer to acquire scheduleinduced drinking and failed to attain the same level of ingestion as the group without prior conditioning history. The degree of schedule-induced drinking is also lower when the previous history included access to an activity wheel (Williams et al, 1992). Johnson, Bickel, Higgins and Morris (1991) trained rats on a DRL 11-s schedule or on an FR 40-s schedule.…”

Section: Path Dependencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Adjunctive behaviors are operants

Killeen

Pellón

2013

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adjunctive behaviors such as scheduleinduced polydipsia are said to be induced by periodic delivery of incentives, but not reinforced by them. That standard treatment assumes that contingency is necessary for conditioning and that delay of reinforcement gradients are very steep. The arguments and evidence for this position are reviewed and rejected. In their place, data are presented that imply different gradients for different classes of responses. Proximity between response and reinforcer, rather than contingency or contiguity, is offered as a key principle of association. These conceptions organize a wide variety of observations and provide the rudiments for a more general theory of conditioning.Keywords Adjunctive . Conditioning . Contingency . Contiguity . Proximity . Schedule inducedResponse acquisition with delayed reinforcement is a robust phenomenon that may not depend on a mechanically defined response or an immediate external stimulus change to mediate the temporal gap between response and reinforcer. Critchfield and Lattal (1993, p. 373) Schedule-induced drinking as the prototypical adjunctive behavior: Arguments against reinforcement Ever since the laboratory discovery of adjunctive behavioralso known as schedule-induced or interim behavior-by John Falk (1961), analysts have treated these anomalies as belonging to a separate class of behavior, induced by incentives such as periodic food, but not reinforced by them. The discovery of adjunctive behavior was a bombshell in the behavioral community, since it seemed an exception to the orderly account of all behavior subsumed under the tripartite hegemony of operant, respondent, and unconditioned responses. What were the implications for the Skinnerian project of applied behavior analysis, if so substantial a proportion of the behavior that was induced by reinforcement was adamant to control by reinforcement? In the case of schedule-induced polydipsia, Falk (1971) voiced the contemporary amazement:It was an outright absurd [finding]. It was absurd because food deprivation in rats yields a decrease in water intake, not an increase. It was absurd because heating a large quantity of room-temperature water to body heat and expelling it as copious urine is wasteful for an animal already pressed for energy stores by food deprivation. It is absurd for an animal to drink itself into a dilutional hyponatremia bordering on water intoxication. But perhaps most absurd was not the lack of a metabolic or patho-regulatory reason for the polydipsia, but the lack of an acceptable behavioral account. (p. 577) Falk detailed the arguments against various "acceptable behavioral accounts," which he summarized in the following: "Polydipsia is not the result of food delivery directly or adventitiously reinforcing water intake. Nor does it serve a problem-solving mediational, or timing function. Furthermore, drinking is not an unconditioned

show abstract

Prior exposure to a running wheel and scheduled food attenuates polydipsia acquisition

Cited by 8 publications

References 9 publications

Response–food delay gradients for lever pressing and schedule-induced licking in rats

Response–food delay gradients for lever pressing and schedule-induced licking in rats

Schedule-induced Polydipsia in Lines of Rats Selectively Bred for High and Low Ethanol Preference

Adjunctive behaviors are operants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About