Stimulus‐ and Pellet‐induced Drinking During a Successive Discrimination

Abstract

In three experiments, interim water drinking was examined in rats exposed to a multiple schedule whose two components were extinction and a variable-time 30-s schedule of food delivery. Two different drinking patterns were observed in Experiment 1. Pellet-induced drinking, characterized by high rates of postpellet drinking in the variable-time component, with little or no drinking in extinction, occurred when the acquisition of stable postpellet drinking preceded discrimination training. Stimulus-induced drinking, characterized by a burst of drinking at the onset of extinction, with no drinking during the variable-time schedule, occurred when discrimination training preceded all other experimental conditions. With extended training, stimulus-induced drinking eventually was accompanied by postpellet drinking. In Experiment 2, the rate of stimulus-induced drinking and the number of sessions during which it occurred without postpellet drinking were found to be inversely related to component duration. In Experiment 3, the rate of schedule-induced drinking was found to vary directly with component duration.

Delay discounting in C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mice: Adolescent-limited and life-persistent patterns of impulsivity.

“…When milk delivery was terminated, responding of both strains underwent extinction. For both strains, suspension of the reinforcement contingency resulted in increased levels of responding or extinction bursts (Minor, 1987; Weissman, 1959) early during the session, followed by a clear decline in responding across the remainder of the session. By the end of the session, response rates were reduced significantly compared to those maintained by the operant contingency.…”

The effects of varying the interreinforcement interval on appetitive contextual conditioning

“…More generally, these results highlight the difficulties of inferring the underlying cause of behavior from its time of occurrence in the IRI (Falk, 1971;Staddon, 1977). It seems worthwhile to investigate the source of control for other schedule-induced, adjunctive, or interim behaviors in designs that permit the differentiation of conditioned and unconditioned behavior (see, e.g., Minor, 1987).…”

“…Alternatively, the increased activity may be a direct consequence of US presentations. Responses may be directly elicited by the US, and repeated US presentations have been shown to increase a variety of scheduleinduced or adjunctive behaviors (Falk, 1971;Staddon, 1977), elicited by discriminable periods of low reinforcement probability (Minor, 1987;Staddon & Simmelhag, 1971), and/or the cumulation of elicited arousal across trials (Killeen, Hanson, & Osbome, 1979). However, in the usual situations in which these activities have been observed (during training sessions), ODe cannot distinguish between activities that are elicited by the preceding food presentation and activities that occur in anticipation of the next one.…”

Negative correlation between tone (S−) and water increases target biting during S− in rats

“…A number of investigators (Lashley & Rosellini, 1980;Millenson, Allen, & Pinker, 1977;Minor, 1987;Minor & Coulter, 1982;Staddon, 1977) have proposed that schedule-induced behaviors may be particularly likely to be displayed in the presence of stimuli, including exteroceptive cues, associated with a reduction in the probability of reinforcement. While a number of investigators have reported evidence of schedule-induced drinking during the S-component of multiple schedules employing food reinforcers (Dougan, McSweeney, & Farmer, 1985;Keehn & Colotla, 1971;Minor, 1987;Minor & Coulter, 1982), other investigators have failed to obtain evidence of such an effect (cf. Hamm, Porter, & Kaempf, 1981;Jacquet, 1972; for reviews see Lashley & Rosellini, 1987;Minor, 1987;Porter & Hamm, 1984).…”

“…While a number of investigators have reported evidence of schedule-induced drinking during the S-component of multiple schedules employing food reinforcers (Dougan, McSweeney, & Farmer, 1985;Keehn & Colotla, 1971;Minor, 1987;Minor & Coulter, 1982), other investigators have failed to obtain evidence of such an effect (cf. Hamm, Porter, & Kaempf, 1981;Jacquet, 1972; for reviews see Lashley & Rosellini, 1987;Minor, 1987;Porter & Hamm, 1984).…”