Suppressing an avoidance response by a pre-aversive stimulus

Hurwitz, Harry M. B.; Roberts, Albert E.

doi:10.3758/bf03336544

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As reported by Waller and Waller (1963), enhanced avoidance responding was maintained over sessions and did not decrease as reported earlier by Sidman et al (1957). A different result has been reported by Hurwitz and Roberts (1969): they reported changes in response rate of rats, as well as changes in shock frequencies, wlhen a 1-min signal, followed by shock, was presented on a response rate that was being maintained under a free-operant avoidance schedule. Response rates during signalled periods were determined not only by the procedure but also by the intensity of shock: low-intensity shock (0.8 mA) initially decreased the rate of response, which decreased below baseline after relatively few sessions; high shock intensity (2.0 mA) also increased rate of response, which declined to 331 1970, 14, 331-340 NUMBER 3 (NOVEMBER) A. E. ROBERTS and HARRY M. B. HURWITZ baseline only after many sessions.…”

supporting

confidence: 54%

THE EFFECT OF A PRE‐SHOCK SIGNAL ON A FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE RESPONSE¹

Roberts

Hurwitz²

1970

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After 25 free-operant avoidance training sessions, a 1-min signal followed by a brief shock was presented on the average of once every 4 min. During the signal, the avoidance schedule was suspended (20 sessions). Response rates during the signal were markedly reduced. Shock rates during non-signalled periods increased. Fifteen additional sessions were given during which the signal was presented without shock. Response rates during signalled periods were greater than previously observed during signalled periods, indicating that signalled shock had suppressive control over a previously acquired avoidance response rate.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 54%

THE EFFECT OF A PRE‐SHOCK SIGNAL ON A FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE RESPONSE¹

Roberts

Hurwitz²

1970

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When the baseline schedule remained in effect in the presence of CS (Phase 4), as in the standard CER paradigm, response rates were higher than when the baseline schedule was suspended; the degree of suppression relative to pre-CS rates appeared greater for the 5-sec TO group than for the 2-sec Ss, confirming Pomerleau's (1970) finding with rhesus monkeys. Moreover, shock density increased in the presence of CS relative to pre-CS density, a finding similar to that noted by Hurwitz & Roberts (1969). In the fifth phase, when the baseline schedule was again withheld during CS, response patterns were generally similar to those observed on the first exposure to this condition.…”

supporting

confidence: 62%

The effects of signaled response-independent shocks on behavior under avoidance and extinction schedules

1972

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Response rates of rats were recorded during a 30-sec signal (CS) which preceded a response-independent electric shock when: (1) baseline avoidance shocks were withheld during the signal; (2) baseline avoidance shocks were available during the stimulus; and (3) baseline avoidance shocks were withheld but a response-independent shock was intruded on each trial at the midpoint of the signal. Two different adjusting avoidance baselines were used. The data suggest that the signal suppresses responding, but also that this effect can be overcome by shocks supplied either from the baseline schedule or intruded on a response-independent schedule.

show abstract

“…One difference between earlier studies (McIntire et al, 1968;Hurwitz & Roberts, 1969Roberts, 1971) and the present study was the amount of training under the free operant avoidance procedure. Previous studies by the principal investigator and his associates preceded exposure to the RIS procedure by 39, or more, 2-h sessions of free operant avoidance training.…”

Section: -40contrasting

confidence: 46%

Deterioration of avoidance during a preshock signal

1971

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A l·min signal followed by unavoidable shock was presented to Ss whose behavior was being maintained by a free operant avoidance schedule. Measures of the response and shock rate before, during, and after presentation of the signal were obtained. Although the response rates during successive periods of the signal exceeded baseline performance, the shock rate da ta indicated a progressive breakdown of avoidance as a function of the signal's duration.Under a free operant shock avoidance procedure the S can preclude shocks by responding at a constant rate. If shock is occasionally given independently of the S's behavior, avoidance often deteriorates. It is possible that the coincidence of shock and ongoing avoidance behavior account for these findings (McIntire et al, 1968). If response-independent shocks (RIS) are signaled, the deterioration of avoidance worsens so that most of the shocks available under the avoidance schedule during the signaled period are encountered (Hunvitz & Roberts, 1969.In the present study we examine in more detail the deterioration of avoidance during a l-min preshock signal. Measures were obtained of shock frequency and response rates during the first, second, and third 20 sec of signal presentation. SUBJECTS Six fe male hooded rats served as Ss. They were purchased from Blue Spruce Farms, N.J., and were approximately 120 days old at the beginning of experimentation. APPARATUS mechanical scrambler to the grids, lever, and sides of the chamber. Eaeh chamber was loeated in a larger sound-insulated box. An exhaust fan provided ventilation and a masking noise (approximately 80 dB). A cIicking noise presented for 1 min was used to signal shock. It added 10 dB to the ambient noise level. All three boxes were housed inside a sound-attenuated man-sized cubicIe, and the electromechanical programming and recording equipment were stationed on the outside. PROCEDURE The experiment consisted of two phases. During the lust phase, the Ss received daily 2-h sessions of training under a free operant avoidance procedure for 20 days. The procedure was programmed so that a O.I-sec shock occurred at 5-sec intervals unless aleverpress was made, in w hich case shock was postponed for 20 sec. At the end of the 20 sec, the 5-sec shock series was resumed.During the second phase, daily 2-h sessions were given for 20 days. A l-min clicking signal was foIlowed immediately by a shock of the same intensity as that used under the avoidance procedure. The signal-shock sequence was presented on a variable interval schedule, at a mean rate of 6 min so that 20 signal-shock presentations were encountered on each session.The number of shocks preeeding and foIIowing each signal-shock presentation was recorded in addition to shock frequencies during the first, second, and final 20 sec of each signal presentation. The rates of response were recorded during pre-and postsignal periods as weIl as during each 20-sec interval of the signal.RESUL TS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 presents the mean shock and response rates for each S over th...

show abstract

Suppressing an avoidance response by a pre-aversive stimulus

Cited by 12 publications

References 5 publications

THE EFFECT OF A PRE‐SHOCK SIGNAL ON A FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE RESPONSE¹

THE EFFECT OF A PRE‐SHOCK SIGNAL ON A FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE RESPONSE¹

The effects of signaled response-independent shocks on behavior under avoidance and extinction schedules

Deterioration of avoidance during a preshock signal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Suppressing an avoidance response by a pre-aversive stimulus

Cited by 12 publications

References 5 publications

THE EFFECT OF A PRE‐SHOCK SIGNAL ON A FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE RESPONSE1

THE EFFECT OF A PRE‐SHOCK SIGNAL ON A FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE RESPONSE1

The effects of signaled response-independent shocks on behavior under avoidance and extinction schedules

Deterioration of avoidance during a preshock signal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

THE EFFECT OF A PRE‐SHOCK SIGNAL ON A FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE RESPONSE¹

THE EFFECT OF A PRE‐SHOCK SIGNAL ON A FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE RESPONSE¹