The Effects of Double-Alternation Schedules of Shock Intensity Upon Patterning of Suppression of Licking in Rats With Special Reference to Cue-Utilization

Sugioka, Kozo; Ohki, Yuji; Ninohira, Hajime; Yamazaki, Akihiko

doi:10.4992/psycholres1954.20.167

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fact that animals can make use of temporal cues has long been shown by such phenomena as temporal conditioning in classical conditioning and the "scalloping" observed under fixed-interval (FI) schedule in operant conditioning. In a licking-suppression experiment, it was also found that when the shocks were given with the fixed-time (FT) schedule, the rats' licking was greatest after each shock, and then it gradually decreased as the next shock approached (Imada & Okamura, 1975;Imada et al, 1978). A similar finding was also reported by Davis, Herrmann, and Shattuck (1979) in a leverpressing suppression experiment.…”

Section: Casesupporting

confidence: 62%

“…All of the results of the experiments conducted in the first author's laboratory using the same licking device have confirmed the signaled-shock effects (Imada, 1972;Imada & Okamura, 1975;Imada & Soga, 1971;Imada, Sugioka, Ohki, Ninohira, & Yamazaki, 1978;Imada, Yamazaki, & Morishita, 1981;Miyashita, 1971; Table 1 Summary of the Experimental Procedures of Nageishi and Imada (1974, Experiment I) Imada, 1974). Imada, 1975).…”

Section: Casementioning

confidence: 64%

“…Would such an ability do any service to the better survival of rats? Partly on the basis of these questions and partly on the basis of our experimental findings described above as well as our failure to obtain a double-alternation pattern of suppression even after prolonged training with a double-alternation schedule of shock intensity (Imada et al, 1978), we are reluctant to accept the view held by Davis and his collaborators.…”

Section: Casementioning

confidence: 94%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The concept of uncertainty in animal experiments using aversive stimulation.

Imada

Nageishi²

1982

Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present article reviews rat experiments using aversive stimuli in which some element of uncertainty was involved. Nine cases of conditions that produce uncertainty are described, and the relevant experimental facts are examined. Rats were found to prefer situations involving certainty to those involving uncertainty, and the rats' basal rate of responding was found to be less in suppression situations involving uncertainty about aversive environmental events than in those involving relative certainty. These results were obtained when the aversive stimuli the rats received were physically matched in quantity among the conditions compared. The results are discussed with reference to five hypotheses. It is concluded that the function of the concept of uncertainty is to organize a class of studies that are otherwise unrelated to each other.

show abstract

Section: Casesupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Casementioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Casementioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The concept of uncertainty in animal experiments using aversive stimulation.

Imada

Nageishi²

1982

Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The present negative results are consistent with those of Imada, Sugioka, Ohki, Ninohira, & Yamazaki (1978), who failed to show doublealternation patterning of licking suppression in rats under the double-alternation schedule of shock intensity, suggesting that rats cannot count even to two.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Can a rat count?

Shuku

Moriya

1983

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A 2 X 2 factorial experiment was conducted in a licking-suppression situation to test if a rat could count the number of shocks given in a 5·min session under signaled and unsignaled shock conditions. Groups F received three .7-sec grid shocks per session throughout 80 sessions, whereas Groups V received, on any day, one, two, three, four, or five shocks, with a mean of three shocks. The rats' counting ability was assessed in terms of the post-third-shock acceleration of licking. The results of this measure were compared between Groups F and Groups V on test days in which both groups received three shocks with the identical shock sequence. There was no evidence that rats could count under either signaled or unsignaled shock conditions. The basal rate of licking was less in groups run under the unsignaled shock condition than under the signaled shock condition. The effect of fixed/variable shock frequency upon basal rate of licking was not significant. The results are discussed with reference to the optimal shock density view of Davis and Memmott (1982).Rats in an aversive situation are known to use various cues as predictors of danger and safety. Predictors may be such salient cues as tones and lights, as well as relatively subtle ones such as temporal cues and frequency cues. In a conditioned suppression situation, the rat's baseline behavior is suppressed in the presence of cues that predict danger, and the behavior recovers in the absence of dangerous cues or in the presence of safe cues. When, in an aversive situation, such cues are absent or when rats are unable to use these cues even when such cues are physically present, the baseline behavior is "chronically" suppressed.In their recent paper, Imada and Nageishi (1982) gave considerable evidence supporting the view that rats can use external cues and temporal cues. As to the rat's ability to use frequency cues, however, the results were rather inconclusive. The present paper, then, addressed the problem of the rat's ability to use a frequency cue as a predictor of safety. Davis and Memmott (1982) recently made an excellent, extensive review of counting behavior in animals and concluded that successful demonstrations of learning to count in animals were most likely to occur under relatively extreme experimental conditions in which alternative predictors of food or safety were unavailable. Experimental studies on counting behavior in rats by Davis and his collaborators formally started with the study by Davis, Memmott, and Hurwitz (1975). They found that when three unsignaled shocks were invariably given superimposed This research was supported in part by a grant in aid of scientific research awarded to Hiroshi lmada for the years 1982-1983 by the Murao Foundation, Kobe, Japan. The authors' mailing address is: Department of Psychology, Kwansei Gakuin University, Nishinorniya, Hyogo 662, Japan. 396 upon a 30-min session of barpressing, rats came to behave as though they had learned, "If three shocks, then no more shocks." More specifically, barpressing was ...

show abstract

“…In this regard, a recent attempt to replicate our findings by Imada (1981, Note 1) has seemingly produced negative results. Imada and his colleagues (e.g., Imada & Okamura, 1975;Imada, Sugioka, Ohki, Ninohira, & Yamazaki, 1978) have reported a series of experiments on the rat's ability to use relatively subtle cues as predictors of danger and safety. In the most recent experiment, Imada exposed rats to a conditioned suppression procedure involving either signaled or unsignaled shock and a fixed or variable number of shock deliveries per session.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autocontingencies: Rats count to three to predict safety from shock

Davis

Memmott

1983

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following training on a variable-interval food-reinforcement schedule, rats were exposed to three unsignaled shocks during each SO-min session. Although leverpressing was initially suppressed, responding was significantly accelerated following offset of the third shock, regardless of when in the session it occurred. Control sessions in which only two shocks were programmed, one early and one late, did not yield baseline acceleration. Evidence of "counting to three" was less obvious in subjects simultaneously exposed to a temporal autocontingency, that is, for which each shock also predicted a minimum S·min safety period. The addition of a signal prior to each shock eliminated evidence of counting behavior altogether. We conclude that rats may be taught to count, but such behavior is highly unnatural and may be blocked or overshadowed by more salient sources of information.Although Clever Hans, the counting horse, appears to be a permanent part of our psychological folklore (Watson, 1914), the formal possibility that infrahuman animals can count has received little serious attention in the modern experimental literature.In this paper, we will present evidence that rats can count to three to predict safety from shock. In evaluating our results, we have considered definitions of counting adapted from human performance. However, even the mechanisms that underlie counting behavior in humans are far from understood (cf. Gelman & Gallistel, 1978;Piaget, 1952). We have therefore adopted the view of counting that is typically held in infrahuman research, viz, an animal is assumed to be counting if behavioral sensitivity to number-related stimuli can be demonstrated. This view requires that all alternative, and presumably simpler, sources of control, such as changes in exteroceptive stimuli or temporal cues, be precluded.We have recently reviewed a variety of evidence that suggests that infrahuman animals are, in fact, capable of counting (Davis & Memmott, 1982). For example, Davis and Mcintire (1969) reported that when three unsignaled shocks were regularly superimposed upon a baseline of food-reinforced leverpressing, responding did not remain totally suppressed, but, rather, recovered immediately following delivery of the third shock. Seligman and Meyer confirmed these findings and concluded that "rats act as if they are able to 'count to three' and useThe preparation of this paper was supported in part by Grant A06973 from the Natural Science and Engineerin. Research Council of Canada to Hank Davis, and by an NSERC postdoctoral fellowship award to John Memmott. Reprints may be obtained from Hank Davis, Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario Nl G 2WI, Canada. 95the information conveyed by the third shock-no further shock-as a safety signal" (1970, p, 2(6).In order to explore this source of control, Davis, Memmott, and Hurwitz (1975) introduced the concept of autocontingencies (ACs), subtle relationships among stimulus events that often go undetected by the experimenter. Our initial work descri...

show abstract

The Effects of Double-Alternation Schedules of Shock Intensity Upon Patterning of Suppression of Licking in Rats With Special Reference to Cue-Utilization

Cited by 4 publications

References 15 publications

The concept of uncertainty in animal experiments using aversive stimulation.

The concept of uncertainty in animal experiments using aversive stimulation.

Can a rat count?

Autocontingencies: Rats count to three to predict safety from shock

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About