Response latency as a function of change in delay of reward.

Seward, John P.; Weldon, Roger J.

doi:10.1037/h0062278

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a recent study, Lattal and Gleeson (1990) showed that discrete responses can be acquired with delayed and unsignaled reinforcement. Prior to their study, attempts to demonstrate this outcome either arranged an immediate consequence for responding or failed to provide critical procedural details (e.g., Harker, 1956;Logan, 1952;Seward & Weldon, 1953;Skinner, 1938). Neither of these problems was evident in the work of Lattal and Gleeson, who convincingly demonstrated the acquisition of key pecks in pigeons and lever presses in rats when delayed and unsignaled food deliveries were the consequences of these types of behavior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Acquisition of Lever‐press Responding in Rats With Delayed Reinforcement: A Comparison of Three Procedures

Wilkenfield

Nickel

Blakely

et al. 1992

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined the acquisition of lever pressing in rats under three procedures in which food delivery was delayed by 4, 8, and 16 seconds relative to the response. Under the nonresetting delay procedure, food followed the response selected for reinforcement after a specified interval elapsed; responses during this interval had no programmed effect. Under the resetting procedure, the response selected for reinforcement initiated an interval to food delivery that was reset by each subsequent response. Under the stacked delay procedure, every response programmed delivery of food t seconds after its occurrence. Two control groups were studied, one that received food immediately after each lever press and another that never received food. With the exception of the group that did not receive food, responding was established with every procedure at every delay value without autoshaping or shaping. Although responding was established under the resetting delay procedure, response rates were generally not as high as under the other two procedures. These findings support the results of other recent investigations in demonstrating that a response not previously reinforced can be brought to strength by delayed reinforcement in the absence of explicit training.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Acquisition of Lever‐press Responding in Rats With Delayed Reinforcement: A Comparison of Three Procedures

Wilkenfield

Nickel

Blakely

et al. 1992

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, the possibility for immediate reinforcement occurred on those trials because such elicited responses were followed by obtaining the food pellet in the slot. Logan (1952) and Seward and Weldon (1953) placed experimentally naive rats in a chamber with a retractable lever. A response on the lever resulted in its immediate withdrawal, followed by delays of up to 10 s that ended with the delivery of a food pellet.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Response acquisition with delayed reinforcement.

Lattal¹,

Gleeson²

1990

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

132

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discrete responses of experimentally naive, food-deprived White Carneaux pigeons (key pecks) or Sprague-Dawley rats (bar or omnidirectional lever presses) initiated unsignaled delay periods that terminated with food delivery. Each subject first was trained to eat from the food source, but no attempt was made to shape or to otherwise train the response. In both species, the response developed and was maintained. Control procedures excluded the simple passage of time, response elicitation or induction by food presentation, type of operandum, food delivery device location, and adventitious immediate reinforcement of responding as the basis for the effects. Results revealed that neither training nor immediate reinforcement is necessary to establish new behavior. The conditions that give rise to both the first and second response are discussed, and the results are related to other studies of the delay of reinforcement and to explanations of behavior based on contingency or correlation and contiguity.

show abstract

“…After that incident, I always asked each new patient "What would you like to work for?" Second, it is well known that the rate of learning is retarded the longer the time lapse between the performance of a correct response and the delivery of a consequence (Perin, 1943;Seward and Weldon, 1953;Kimble, 1961). Therefore, consequences should be applied as soon as possible after an appropriate response has been made.…”

Section: Treatment Program Similaritiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Young Stutterer: Diagnosis, Treatment and Assessment of Progress

Adams¹

1980

Semin Hear

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Response latency as a function of change in delay of reward.

Cited by 10 publications

References 20 publications

Acquisition of Lever‐press Responding in Rats With Delayed Reinforcement: A Comparison of Three Procedures

Acquisition of Lever‐press Responding in Rats With Delayed Reinforcement: A Comparison of Three Procedures

Response acquisition with delayed reinforcement.

The Young Stutterer: Diagnosis, Treatment and Assessment of Progress

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About