Sensory Deprivation and Sensory Reinforcement with Shock

Harrington, Gordon M.; Kohler, Glenn R.

doi:10.2466/pr0.1966.18.3.803

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Harrington & Linder (1962) proposed the use of mild shock as the most appropriate test of this hypothesis and reported reinforcing effects when shock was substituted for another sensory reinforcement. Subsequently it was shown that rats would acquire a shuttle box response for mild shock positive reinforcement (Harrington & Kohler, 1966). The present study extends these investigations to operant acquisition in a shock contingent bar press situation.…”

supporting

confidence: 68%

“…Premack & Collier (1962) observed that short-term pretest adaptation to test apparatus enhanced light contingent bar press and remarked that this was the least understood of their outcomes. It has been suggested (Harrington, 1963;Harrington & Kohler, 1966) that sensorY reinforcement can be interpreted in terms of simultaneous action of arousal and satiation variables. This is interpreted to mean that with adaptation there is satiation on the stimuli present during adaptation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Strain differences and positive reinforcement with shock

Harrington

Kohler

1966

Psychon Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strain differences and positive reinforcement with shock l Groups of 6, (j, and 7 IR and INR rats were adapted to test chambers in total darkness for one week, one month, and two months and habituated to operant bar apparatus for 70, 300, and 600 sessions then tested for operant level, shock contingent bar press, and extinction in ISO, ISO, and 350 sessions, all of 16-2/3 min. each. Shock proved positively reinforcing and cumulative shock durations were functions of shock intensity and animal reactivity (p < .001). Absolute response levels declined as a decelerated funct.ion of adaptation time. Results were interpreted in accord with an arousal and satiation model.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 68%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Strain differences and positive reinforcement with shock

Harrington

Kohler

1966

Psychon Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Melzack, 1962), patterns of exploratory activity (e.g. Zimbardo & Montgomery, 1957), or reactivity to shock (Harrington & Kohler, 1966;Lore, 1969) could contribute to differences in performance on the task, groups of blind and sighted, LR and D R rats were tested under appetitive and aversive motivation. If such variables d o have a significant impact, comparison of the maze performance of the various groups of animals under the 2 conditions of rearing should reveal it.…”

Section: Tees Midgley and Nesbitmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of early visual experience on spatial maze learning in rats

Tees

Midgley

Nesbit

1981

Developmental Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the 1st of 2 experiments on spatial ability, groups of sighted and blind, light-reared (LR) and dark-reared (DR) rats were tested on a series of (Hebb-Williams) maze problems and their reversals under appetitive and aversive reinforcement conditions. Significant effects due to early rearing conditions, vision at time of testing, and problem were found. Dark-reared rats learned the problems whose solution depended on nonvisual cues more slowly than LR animals. Blindness at time of testing had a significantly adverse effect on the performance of LR and DR rats on all problems, but a significantly greater effect in the DR animals. In a 2nd experiment DR rats were also found to perform less effectively than LR rats on a 17-arm radial maze throughout a 36-day period during which variations in the task were introduced. The results reveal the impact of early visual experience on the development of the ability to acquire spatial concepts.

show abstract

“…Admittedly, there may be practical examples in which seemingly “bad” things appear to have become “good.” For example, Harrington and Kohler (1966) found that between animals reared in deprivation versus those reared in normal environments, those in deprived environments demonstrated a preference for shock. More recently, Wilson and colleagues (2014) tested the effect of stimulation deprivation on college students.…”

Section: Motivating-operation Effects On Reinforcement and Punishment...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual determinants of reinforcement: A motivational analysis.

Valdovinos

Kennedy

2019

Behavioral Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we address how variables functioning as motivating operations differentially impact distinct reinforcement and punishment processes. This conceptual analysis suggests an inherent asymmetry in motivational effects between positive and negative reinforcement processes. Although establishing operations increase the effectiveness of both positive and negative reinforcers, abolishing operations appear to have an asymmetrical effect on positive reinforcers only. After describing this potential asymmetry in motivational effects for abolishing operations, we note some theoretical implications of this observation.

show abstract

Sensory Deprivation and Sensory Reinforcement with Shock

Cited by 9 publications

References 5 publications

Strain differences and positive reinforcement with shock

Strain differences and positive reinforcement with shock

The effect of early visual experience on spatial maze learning in rats

Contextual determinants of reinforcement: A motivational analysis.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About