Sodium Amytal and the Shock-Right Intensity Function for Visual Discrimination Learning.

Fowler, Harry; Goldman, Lindsay M; Gj, Wischner

doi:10.1037/h0020856

Cited by 11 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rather, the effect is better ascribed to the role of noise or shock as a highly discernible stimulus or "distinctive cue" which, applied to one response, can reduce the similarity of the stimulus compounds comprising the alternatives and thereby reduce the generalization of conditioned reward and conditioned nonreward between them. Consistent with this interpretation, it has been shown that the facilitation follows the Weber law on discriminability and is an increasing Sshaped function of noise and shock intensity (Fago & Fowler, 1972;Fowler, Goldman, & Wischner, 1968).…”

mentioning

confidence: 74%

Cue effects of drive and reward as a function of discrimination difficulty: Evidence against the Yerkes–Dodson law.

Hochhauser¹,

Fowler²

1975

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To investigate the possible cue (stimulus) as opposed to motivational functions of drive and reward, the present study assessed the effects of problem difficulty (easy, moderate, and difficult), reward magnitude (1, 2, and 4 pellets), and drive level (moderate and high) on the performance of rats in visual discrimination tasks entailing both choice and speed measures. Errors and trials to criterion were greater with increasing problem difficulty and smaller reward magnitude, with the effect of reward magnitude being amplified by increasing problem difficulty. High drive produced fewer errors and trials to criterion than moderate drive, with this difference being amplified by both smaller reward magnitude and greater problem difficulty. Choice and arm speeds were positively related to reward magnitude, with high drive producing faster speeds than moderate drive at all reward levels. Collectively, the data support a distinctive-cue interpretation of the effects of reward on discrimination learning and provide evidence contrary to the Yerkes-Dodson law.The present study was prompted by recent findings showing that response-contingent neutral and aversive stimuli (e.g., white noise and electric shock) will facilitate the learning of a difficult, but not an easy, discrimination when administered for either a food-rewarded or nonrewarded response (e.g., Fago & Fowler, 1972; Fowler, 1971b;Fowler & Wischner, 1969). The fact that the facilitation is observed only in relatively difficult discriminations, where the discriminative stimuli and/or other characteristics of the alternatives (e.g., physical features, response feedback) are highly similar, argues that the effect is not due simply to the acquired reinforcing or nonreinforcing properties of the events, since such properties

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 74%

Cue effects of drive and reward as a function of discrimination difficulty: Evidence against the Yerkes–Dodson law.

Hochhauser¹,

Fowler²

1975

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consistent with this interpretation, the "shock-right" facilitation effect is typically absent in an easy discrimination in which the discriminative stimuli (e.g., light-dark) are highly dissimilar and hence preclude a distinctive-cue function of the shock (e.g., Wischner & Fowler, 1964;Wischner, Fowler, & Kushnick, 1963); in contrast, the facilitation effect is consistently observed in more difficult (e.g., bright-dim) discriminations in which the discriminative stimuli are similar and thus potentiate the shock's cue function (e.g., Fowler, Spelt, & Wischner, 1967;Fowler & Wischner, 1965). Furthermore, if the aversiveness of the shock is reduced through the administration of sodium amytal (Fowler, Goldman, & Wischner, 1968), the facilitation occurring in a difficult discrimination is, within limits, an increasing S-shaped function of shock intensity, consistent with the Weber principle relating performance to the discriminable cue properties (e.g., the intensity) of a stimulus. The same relationship between a facilitating effect and the intensity of a stimulus has also been observed for a neutral white-noise cue used in place of shock for the correct response (Fago & Fowler, 1972).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitating stimulus effects of reward and punishment in discrimination learning

Fowler

Hochhauser

Wischner

1981

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To demonstrate a facilitating stimulus effect, as opposed to an incentive effect, of food reward, rats were trained on an easy, light-dark discrimination with different amounts of reward for correct and incorrect responses (l-O, 2-0, 3-1, and 5·1 pellets, respectively), and with shock or no shock administered in the correct goalbox. Both errors and trials to criterion were fewer with a large reward differential (LRD: 2-0and 5-1), as compared with a small reward differential (SRD: 1-0 and 3-1), but were not affected by the "base" reinforcement condition of either lor 0 pellets for the incorrect response. In addition, choice and arm speeds during early training were positively related to the combined, or average, number of pellets contingent upon both correct and incorrect responses, indicating a generalization of reward expectancies. Although shock uniformly suppressed arm speeds under all reward conditions, it facilitated discrimination learning in the SRD conditions. That such facilitation occurred only when the conditions of reward for correct and incorrect responses were relatively similar indicates that not only shock, but also food can function as a distinctive cue: As a stimulus selectively applied to one response, it can decrease the similarity of the alternatives, and, in this manner, it can faciltate performance.Studies of the facilitating effect of mild shock punishment for the food-rewarded response in visual discrimination learning (see Fowler, 1971;Fowler & Wischner, 1969) have indicated that shock functions as a highly discernible or "distinctive" cue: It reduces the similarity of the discriminative-stimulus compounds constituting the response alternatives, and thus it facilitates performance by reducing the generalization of reward and nonreward expectancies between the alternatives. Consistent with this interpretation, the "shock-right" facilitation effect is typically absent in an easy discrimination in which the discriminative stimuli (e.g., light-dark) are highly dissimilar and hence preclude a distinctive-cue function of the shock (e.g., Wischner & Fowler, 1964;Wischner, Fowler, & Kushnick, 1963); in contrast, the facilitation effect is consistently observed in more difficult (e.g., bright-dim) discriminations in which the discriminative stimuli are similar and thus potentiate the shock's cue function (e.g., Fowler, Spelt, & Wischner, 1967;Fowler & Wischner, 1965). Furthermore, if the aversiveness of the shock is reduced through the administration of sodium amytal (Fowler, Goldman, & Wischner, 1968), the facilitation occurring in a difficult discrimination is, within limits, an increasing S-shaped function of shock intensity, consistent with the Weber principle relating performance to the discriminable cue properties (e.g., the intensity) of a stimulus. The same relationship between a facilitating effect and the intensity of a stimulus has also been observed for a neutral white-noise cue used in place of shock for the correct response (Fago & Fowler, 1972). The fact that either an aversive or...

show abstract

Effects of Neuroleptics, Ethanol, Hypnotic-Sedatives, Tranquilizers, Narcotics, and Minor Stimulants in Aversive Paradigms

Bignami

1978

Psychopharmacology of Aversively Motivated Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sodium Amytal and the Shock-Right Intensity Function for Visual Discrimination Learning.

Cited by 11 publications

References 6 publications

Cue effects of drive and reward as a function of discrimination difficulty: Evidence against the Yerkes–Dodson law.

Cue effects of drive and reward as a function of discrimination difficulty: Evidence against the Yerkes–Dodson law.

Facilitating stimulus effects of reward and punishment in discrimination learning

Effects of Neuroleptics, Ethanol, Hypnotic-Sedatives, Tranquilizers, Narcotics, and Minor Stimulants in Aversive Paradigms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About