Running speed in the rat as a function of shock level and competing responses.

Cicala, George A.; Corey, Joseph

doi:10.1037/h0022352

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, performance was similar whether the same intensities were presented on all trials (constant groups), varied daily (alternated group), or irregularly (random group). The lack of differential or contrast effects for the alternated group is consistent with Cicala and Corey's (1965) study, although the partern of alternation in this study differed from theirs. However, the random group's demonstrated lack of positive contrast, when compared with constant-intensity control groups, disagrees with Franchina's ( 1969) findings.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…This interpretation agrees with Cicala and Corey's (1965) hypothesis that alternated shock levels may prove useful in studying drive-discrimination. Effects of varying drive or reward, such as the contrast effecrs observed by Fran-.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…intensity shock trials on any one day for any one S. Half the alternating group received all high shock trials and the remainder all low shock trials on a single day. The following day, the alternate intensity was given to each S. This differs from Cicala and Corey's (1965) pattern of alternation in chat they alternated high-and low-shock intensities from trial to trial within a given day for each S. The random group received three random-high (2.0 ma.) and three random-low (0.6 ma.)…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another study involving varied shock was performed by Cicala and Corey (1965). These investigators ran three groups of rats in an alley-escape task.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Franchina suggested thac the increment in running speed for Ss in the within-subjects design represented a positive contrast effect. These Ss, exposed to all intensities, adopted a lower decision or detection criterion for responding than Ss in the bemeen-groups design.Another study involving varied shock was performed by Cicala and Corey (1965). These investigators ran three groups of rats in an alley-escape task.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Varied Shock and Simple Escape

Osborne

1971

Psychol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sirmmary.-5 groups of rats were trained on an operant escape task under high, intermediate, or low shock conditions. Each of 3 groups received one o f these intensities on all days and trials. The fourth group alternated between high and low shock intensities on consecutive days and the fifth group berween high and low shock intensities randomly on consecutive trials within a day. High-intensity shock elicited faster escape responding than did low-intensity shock. Responding at a given shock level was similar regardless of the schedule of shock presentation (i.e., constant, alternated, or random). It was concluded that drive level on a given trial was the major determinanr of performance.A number of srudies have compared different levels of shock intensity in a simple escape task and have found thac, within physiological limits, performance is directly proportional to shock intensity (Dinsmoor & Hughes, 1956;Trapold & Fowler, 1960;Winograd, 1965). In a recent study, Franchina (1969) varied shock intensity in a shuttle-box escape task. He compared the effects of a within-subjects design in which a single group of Ss received all three intensities in a random or irregular order with a between-groups design in which three s e p arate groups of Ss received one of three shock intensities. Both designs led to the same conclusion: that responding was faster for greater shock intensities. However, Ss receiving all inrensiries ran faster than Ss receiving single comparable incensities. Franchina suggested thac the increment in running speed for Ss in the within-subjects design represented a positive contrast effect. These Ss, exposed to all intensities, adopted a lower decision or detection criterion for responding than Ss in the bemeen-groups design.Another study involving varied shock was performed by Cicala and Corey (1965). These investigators ran three groups of rats in an alley-escape task. One group was run alternately from trial to trial with high or low shock in the alley. The remaining two groups were run consistently at either the high or low shock intensity. They found Ss ran faster on high-shock trials than on low-shock trials for both the within-subjects alternated group comparison and the constantshock groups comparison. However, they mention no differential or contrast effects for their alternated group versus their conscant-shock groups.It is possible that the schedule of shock presentation (i.e., random versus alternated) plays a role in determining whether or not contrast effects are observed. For example, Cicnla and Corey's Ss may have learned the pattern of

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another study involving varied shock was performed by Cicala and Corey (1965). These investigators ran three groups of rats in an alley-escape task.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations