Reinforcing and timing properties of water in the schedule-induced drinking situation

Ruiz, Jorge A.; López-Tolsa, Gabriela E.; Pellón, Ricardo

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2016.03.018

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Secondly, we take the concept of induction to its logical conclusion: that, not only adjunctive behavior, but also operant behavior is induced by the so-called "reinforcers" and other PIEs (Baum, 2012a(Baum, , 2015. A contingency, say, between food and lever pressing, establishes covariance between pressing rate and food rate, and this covariance converts the operant activity (pressing) into food-induced activity (Baum, 2012a(Baum, , 2018a(Baum, , 2018b, Experimental results with foodinduced drinking, for example, indicate that food induces whole patterns of behavior, including operant activities and induced drinking (Ruiz, López-Tolsa, & Pellón, 2016), as Staddon (1977) suggested. The maintenance of pecking seen in Figures 5 and 6, for example, supports this extension.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Matching theory and induction explain operant performance

Baum

Grace

2020

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Matching theory is a general framework for understanding allocation of behavior among activities. It applies to choice in concurrent schedules and was extended to single schedules by assuming that other unrecorded behavior competes with operant behavior. Baum and Davison (2014) found that the competing activities apparently are induced by the “reinforcers” (phylogenetically important events, e.g., food) according to power functions. Combined with power‐function induction, matching theory provides new equations with greater explanatory power. Four pigeons were exposed to conditions in which 7 different schedules of food delivery were presented within each experimental session. We replicated earlier results with variable‐interval schedules: (a) a negatively accelerated increase of peck rate as food rate increased in the low range of food rates; (b) an upturn in pecking at higher rates; and (c) a downturn in pecking at extremely high food rates. When the contingency between pecking and food was removed, the food continued to induce pecking, even after 20 sessions with no contingency. A ratio schedule inserted in place of 1 variable‐interval schedule maintained peck rates comparable to peck rates maintained by short interval schedules. We explained the results by fitting equations that combined matching theory, competition, and induction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Matching theory and induction explain operant performance

Baum

Grace

2020

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the present study, however, when rats had the opportunity to drink both before and after food reinforcement (LL trials), they allocated licks only during pre-food (the response-reinforcer delay) and not post-food (the ITI) periods, developing licking during the ITI just when there was no response-reinforcer delay (SS trials). These data can be interpreted as if pressing the lever and licking from the spout were part of the same behavioral pattern maintained by intermittent food reinforcement (Ruiz et al, 2016), being reinforcer effective given the systematic presence of behaviors in the context of spread reinforcement in time (Killeen and Pellón, 2013; Álvarez et al, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…It was recently suggested that schedule-induced behavior might help organisms improve their performance in temporal tasks such as the temporal bisection or fixed-interval schedules (Ruiz et al, 2016), differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL; Bruner and Revusky, 1961; Segal and Holloway, 1963), or the peak procedure (Mattel and Portugal, 2007), by providing an alternative activity for the organisms. Seemingly, schedule-induced behaviors can make waiting-time less aversive, so having the opportunity to engage in them should make organisms more self-controlled.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditionally, schedule-induced behaviors have been included in a category different than operants (Falk, 1971) because they seem to be induced by a low probability of reinforcement (Staddon, 1977). Nevertheless, Pellón et al (2018) have recently proposed that schedule-induced behaviors are induced by events in the environment and maintained by delayed reinforcement (Killeen and Pellón, 2013; Ruiz et al, 2016; Álvarez et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of Schedule-Induced Behavior on Responses of Spontaneously Hypertensive and Wistar–Kyoto Rats in a Delay-Discounting Task: A Preliminary Report

Ramos

López-Tolsa

Sjoberg

et al. 2019

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delay discounting is the loss of the subjective value of an outcome as the time to its delivery increases. It has been suggested that organisms can become more tolerant of this delay when engaging in schedule-induced behaviors. Schedule-induced behaviors are those that develop at a high rate during intermittent reinforcement schedules without the need of arranged contingency to the reinforcer, and they have been considered as a model of compulsivity. There is evidence that relates compulsivity to greater delay discounting. The rate of delay discounting represents how impulsive the subject is, as the rate of discounting increases the higher the impulsivity. Thus, the main purpose of this study was to undertake a preliminary evaluation of whether developing schedule-induced behaviors affects performance in a delay-discounting task, by comparing spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHRs) and Wistar–Kyoto (WKY) rats. The rats were exposed to a task that consisted of presenting the subjects with two levers: one produced a small, immediate food reinforcer while the other one produced a larger, delayed reinforcer. During Condition A, the levers were presented, and a water bottle and a running wheel were available in the conditioning chambers; during Condition B, only the levers were presented. SHR and WKY rats developed schedule-induced behaviors during Condition A and showed no difference in discounting rates, contradicting previous reports. Lick allocation during response-reinforcer delays and the inter-trial interval (ITI) showed, respectively, pre- and post-food distributions. Discounting rates during Condition B (when rats could not engage in schedule-induced behaviors) did not reach statistical significance difference among strains of animals, although it was observed a tendency for WKY to behave more self-controlled. Likewise it was not found any effect of schedule-induced behavior on discounting rates, however, a tendency for WKY rats to behave more impulsive during access to drink and run seems to tentatively support the idea of schedule-induced behavior as a model of compulsivity in those rats, being impulsivity simply defined as an excess in behavior.

show abstract

“…Frustration counterconditioning should be expected to play a significant role if one looks at behavior as a stream of organized activities (adjunctive behavior) aiming at reward seeking, rather than considering the reduction of frustration as the source of reinforcement for adjunctive behavior. These activities will be initially induced by reward delivery and be subsequently reinforced by the consistent occurrence of reinforcement at the end of the behavioral chain (see Ruiz, López-Tolsa, & Pellón, 2016). This integrative theoretical view makes no fundamental distinction between the different kinds of activities that occur during intermittent reinforcement schedules.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%