Temporal Control in a Complex Environment: An Analysis of Schedule‐related Behavior

Abstract

Three experiments conducted in an automated ten-compartment chamber recorded collateral activities of rats reinforced for lever pressing on differential-reinforcement-of-lowrate schedules. In Experiment 1, the rate of lever pressing increased when stimulus support for collateral activities was removed, thus confirming earlier findings. However, there were no temporal or sequential patterns of collateral activities that predicted operant responding.In Experiment 2, the rate of lever pressing increased only if (a) access to all stimulus support for collateral activities was simultaneously prevented, and (b) the rat was forced to remain in the presence of the lever and food tray. The availability of any of the stimuli related to collateral activity was sufficient to keep lever-pressing rates from increasing. Experiment 3 examined collateral activities under a signaled differential-reinforcementof-low-rate schedule. Preventing access to stimuli supporting collateral activities had little effect on stable lever pressing when the signal was maintained. When the signal was removed, collateral activities continued, but lever-pressing rates increased in three of the four rats and rates of food presentation declined in all rats. Hypotheses that collateral activities have (a) a timekeeping or discriminative function, or (b) directly inhibit operant responding were not supported. The results suggest that collateral activities may facilitate operant responding by simply removing the subject from the presence of reinforcementrelated stimuli.Key words: DRL, fixed-time, collateral, lever press, competition, concurrent, ratsExperimental manipulation of collateral activities affects the rate of operant responding under the control of differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedules. Preventing the occurrence of established collateral activities increases the rate of operant responding, and providing stimuli for the occurrence of collateral activities generally reduces the rate of operant responding.There are four hypotheses regarding the inverse relationship between collateral activities and operant responding. First, collateral activities serve as the timekeeping mechanism and become discriminative for the operant response (e.g

Timing and space usage are disrupted by amphetamine in rats maintained on DRL 24-s and DRL 72-s schedules of reinforcement

“…Thus, the present data do not support previously offered hypothesis that active overt collateral behaviors contribute beneficially to DRL performance (cf., Laties et al 1965; Staddon 1977). Instead, the current results appear to be consistent with the idea that some aspects of collateral behavior remove the animal from the proximity of the stimuli (operandum aperture in this case) that control the operant response (McGown et al 1977; McIntire et al 1983). In addition, the current data are compatible with the view of Richelle and Lejuene (1980) that timing involves waiting (attributed to Pierre Janet 1928) and waiting is the expression of inhibitory processes.…”

“…Despite such interest in the DRL schedule, little is known about collateral behavior (behavior occurring between separate operant responses) of rats during DRL performance, and the literature to date contains mixed and conflicting interpretations of the role of behavior during the IRT (cf. Laties et al 1965; McIntire et al 1983; McMillan 1969: Zuriff 1969). …”

Response Induction During the Acquisition and Maintenance of Lever Pressing With Delayed Reinforcement

“…Given that spatial and temporal patterns of responding appeared in both the RI and FT components, a further analysis was performed. The probability of sequences of two events during both components [specifically, a pair of responses to different levers or a responsereinforcer (a response before or after a reinforcer)] was calculated for all subjects (see McIntire, Lundervold, Calmes, Jones, & Allard, 1983, for a similar analysis). To determine if the patterns were consistent within Fig.…”

Caixa de atividades diárias para ratos

“…A partir do trabalho de Costa (2010), foi construído um novo protótipo de caixa de condicionamento operante para ratos em que múltiplos operantes podem ser registrados (para outras caixas experimentais similares, ver também Lucas, Timberlake & Gawley, 1988;Lyons & Cheney,1984;Mcintire, Lundervold, Calmes, Jones & Allard, 1983;Mellgren, 1982;Sales, 2006;Timberlake & Lucas, 1991).…”