The Timing of Bar-Pressing Behaviour

Trotter, J. R.

doi:10.1080/17470215708416224

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, successive instances of these operants may differ in many different characteristics, such as peak force (Goldberg, 1959;Notterman, 1959), time integral of force (Trotter, 1956), position of the organism (Antonitis, 1951), or locus of occurrence (Antonitis, 1951). Quantitative investigations suggest an increased stereotopy in these measures during regular reinforcement, and an increased variability of performance during extinction.The results of Notterman, ' Hurwitz (1954), andTrotter (1957) suggest that similar conclusions also apply to duration measures. This study was intended, in part, to provide a more detailed account of the changes in response duration during regular reinforcement and extinction.…”

supporting

confidence: 62%

“…The results of Notterman, ' Hurwitz (1954), andTrotter (1957) suggest that similar conclusions also apply to duration measures. This study was intended, in part, to provide a more detailed account of the changes in response duration during regular reinforcement and extinction.…”

supporting

confidence: 62%

“…Both Hurwitz (1954) and Trotter (1957) have reported that the increase in D from the low values in conditioning to the high values in extinction is a continuous process, with durations longer as extinction proceeds. Figure 3 examines D in successive 5-minute intervals for one representative subject, and confirms the Hurwitz and Trotter findings.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

RESPONSE DURATION IN OPERANT LEVEL, REGULAR REINFORCEMENT, AND EXTINCTION¹

Margulies

1961

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An operant is ordinarily recorded as having occurred or not occurred. However, successive instances of these operants may differ in many different characteristics, such as peak force (Goldberg, 1959;Notterman, 1959), time integral of force (Trotter, 1956), position of the organism (Antonitis, 1951), or locus of occurrence (Antonitis, 1951). Quantitative investigations suggest an increased stereotopy in these measures during regular reinforcement, and an increased variability of performance during extinction.The results of Notterman, ' Hurwitz (1954), andTrotter (1957) suggest that similar conclusions also apply to duration measures. This study was intended, in part, to provide a more detailed account of the changes in response duration during regular reinforcement and extinction. The data also allowed a comparison of response duration in the early and late stages of both operant level and. extinction.Besides the more general statement indicating a decrease in variability during conditioning and increase in variability during extinction, Schoenfeld (1950) suggested a more detailed account of the acquisitionextinction relation. If this argument may be extended to duration, each response (such as a bar press) may be viewed as composed of several response subcategories (such as bar presses of 0-0.2 second, 0.2-0.4 second, or 0.4-0.6 second); and conditioning or extinguishing a response is regarded as not only raising or lowering response frequency of occurrence, but also as similarly affecting its constituent response subcategories. The simplifying assumption is then made that each response subcategory can be treated as an independent response, and that the same findings governing responses also govern response subcategories. 'Personal communication, 1960. if the response-duration subcategory 0-0.2 second appeared most frequently in regular reinforcement, 0.2-0.4 second appeared with second greatest frequency, and 0.4-0.6 second appeared least often, we would again expect to find these response subcategories appearing in the same rank order in extinction.Goldberg (1959) tested this formulation. Using a 3-gram force requirement for the bar press, he demonstrated significant concordance (the same rank order) between the force distributions in conditioning and in extinction. Goldberg further argued that any experimental procedure which altered the force distribution in conditioning would result in a new extinction distribution concordant with the new conditioning distribution. This was tested by using a 15-gram reiiiforcement criterion in conditioning, with the outcome that the extinction distribution was quite different from that with a 3-gram requirement, but concordant with the 15-gram conditioning distribution.Another possible test of the dependence of the extinction distribution upon the conditioning distribution is also available. As conditioning proceeds, the studies quoted above would lead us to expect a shift to shorter response durations. Organisms which have received many reinforcements should yield co...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 62%

supporting

confidence: 62%

See 1 more Smart Citation

RESPONSE DURATION IN OPERANT LEVEL, REGULAR REINFORCEMENT, AND EXTINCTION¹

Margulies

1961

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Initial increases in the variability of a response during extinction can occur in terms of its duration (Trotter, 1957), location (Antonitis, 1951), interresponse time (Millenson & Hurwitz, 1961), latency (Stebbins & Lanson, 1962), and amplitude (Morris, 1968). Extinction has also been associated with an increase in the variability of response sequences (e.g., Schwartz, 1980Schwartz, , 1981Schwartz, , 1982.…”

Section: Extinction Burst Basic (Nonclinical) Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a Technology for the Use of Operant Extinction in Clinical Settings: An Examination of Basic and Applied Research

Lerman

Iwata

1996

J of App Behav Analysis

188

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extinction of operant behavior, which involves terminating the reinforcement contingency that maintains a response, is important to the development, generalization, and reduction of behavior in clinical settings. We review basic and applied research findings on variables that influence the direct and indirect effects of extinction and discuss the potential value of a general technology for the use of extinction. We suggest that current research findings are not sufficient for the development of a comprehensive, applied technology of extinction and provide extensive guidelines for further studies on factors that may affect the course of extinction in clinical settings.DESCRIPTORS: extinction, behavior disorders, reinforcementExtinction of operant behavior involves terminating the reinforcement contingency that maintains a response, which results in a reduction in the behavior's occurrence over time. 1 Results of basic research (e.g., Ferster & Skinner, 1957;Skinner, 1938) have revealed much about its direct and indirect effects, including a number of variables that influence the general course of responding during extinction. These findings have important implications for the use of extinction in applied settings, in which behavior is ofWe thank Marc Branch, Timothy Hackenberg, Cecil Mercer, and Betty Capaldi for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.Reprints may be obtained from

show abstract

“…Of course, each response may be analyzed into smaller units, or particular dimensions. Trotter (1956aTrotter ( , 1956bTrotter ( , 1957 has divided the response in a bar-pressing situation into three components: the active time when the rat is touching the bar; eating time spent in picking up and eating food; and extra time spent in washing, resting, etc. Gilbert (1958) has investigated other dimensional properties.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

THE EFFECT OF CHANGING THE SCHEDULE OF REINFORCEMENT UPON DURATION OF RESPONDING¹

Schaefer

Steinhorst

1959

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A usual datum under study in free-operant research is the rate of responding (Ferster, 1957). Of course, each response may be analyzed into smaller units, or particular dimensions. Trotter (1956aTrotter ( , 1956bTrotter ( , 1957 has divided the response in a bar-pressing situation into three components: the active time when the rat is touching the bar; eating time spent in picking up and eating food; and extra time spent in washing, resting, etc. Gilbert (1958) has investigated other dimensional properties. He lists seven, and presents cogent arguments that awareness and use of such dimensions in the analysis of the response will avoid several pitfalls of uncritically combining them.The reduction of gross behavior to finer quantifiable units obviously would facilitate greater predictive value and better control over the organism's behavior. At this time, we wish to investigate the length of bar depression (hereafter called D). From existing evidence (Trotter, 1957), we would hypothesize that D is not consistently influenced by such variables as force required to depress the bar or length of deprivation.The duration of bar depression may be measured in three ways: mechanically (by coupling a moving pen with the bar), electronically (by coupling a moving electric-eye diaphragm with the pen), and electrically (by letting the bar close a microswitch). The latter method was selected because of its simplicity; but this measure will yield no record of the actual time the animal was in contact with the bar. The animal may make bar presses which are not sufficient to close the microswitch. Thus, the measure obtained will constitute only those parts of the response when the pressure applied to the bar will be at least as strong as the resistance of the combined springs of the bar and the microswitch involved.The purpose of this study is to develop a reliable method of measuring the length of depression in the bar-pressing situation, and to determine the lawfulness of this datum under varied schedules of reinforcement. APPARATUSTwo response cages with a rat lever (Stoelting, University of Chicago design) were placed in insulated cooler chests to eliminate outside lighting and noise disturbances. Except for the translucent plastic front, the cage is made of heavy-gauge sheet aluminum. The substrate consists of stainless-steel rods spaced to pass animal waste freely. The stainlesssteel lever is sprung, and protrudes 2 centimeters from the rear wall, 8.5 centimeters above the grid floor and 5.5 centimeters off the right wall. The bar is 5.5 centimeters wide and center-mounted horizontally to the lever; it travels approximately 0.4 centimeter when depressed; an 18-gram downward force upon the bar is required to activate the microswitch.The reward lever is activated by an impulse such that it dips down and returns (by means of a counterweight) when the impulse ceases, but not before an interrupter switch has been activated at the lowest point of the reward lever. This interrupter switch serves to bring the reward lever to its l...

show abstract

The Timing of Bar-Pressing Behaviour

Cited by 8 publications

References 2 publications

RESPONSE DURATION IN OPERANT LEVEL, REGULAR REINFORCEMENT, AND EXTINCTION¹

RESPONSE DURATION IN OPERANT LEVEL, REGULAR REINFORCEMENT, AND EXTINCTION¹

Developing a Technology for the Use of Operant Extinction in Clinical Settings: An Examination of Basic and Applied Research

THE EFFECT OF CHANGING THE SCHEDULE OF REINFORCEMENT UPON DURATION OF RESPONDING¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The Timing of Bar-Pressing Behaviour

Cited by 8 publications

References 2 publications

RESPONSE DURATION IN OPERANT LEVEL, REGULAR REINFORCEMENT, AND EXTINCTION1

RESPONSE DURATION IN OPERANT LEVEL, REGULAR REINFORCEMENT, AND EXTINCTION1

Developing a Technology for the Use of Operant Extinction in Clinical Settings: An Examination of Basic and Applied Research

THE EFFECT OF CHANGING THE SCHEDULE OF REINFORCEMENT UPON DURATION OF RESPONDING1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

RESPONSE DURATION IN OPERANT LEVEL, REGULAR REINFORCEMENT, AND EXTINCTION¹

RESPONSE DURATION IN OPERANT LEVEL, REGULAR REINFORCEMENT, AND EXTINCTION¹

THE EFFECT OF CHANGING THE SCHEDULE OF REINFORCEMENT UPON DURATION OF RESPONDING¹