Topographical Variations in Behavior During Autoshaping, Automaintenance, and Omission Training

Abstract

Three pigeons were exposed to an autoshaping and automaintenance procedure while a computer-controlled tracking system continuously recorded the position of the bird's head as it moved freely in the experimental chamber. Although only 2 birds pecked the key during the conditional stimulus (red keylight), all 3 birds exhibited stable patterns of approaching the conditional stimulus and withdrawing from the intertrial stimulus (white keylight). Subsequent exposure to an omission procedure, in which pecks on the red key cancelled the presentation of food upon the termination of the red keylight, greatly reduced key pecking, but approaching and pecking in the vicinity of the conditional stimulus were maintained at high levels. When the omission contingency was removed key pecking increased. During all phases the birds withdrew from the area of the white key and engaged in repetitive back-and-forth or circuiting movements during this intertrial stimulus. The data document (a) the strong control the conditional stimulus in autoshaping and automaintenance exerts over approach to the key and pecking motions whether or not the conditional stimulus elicits key pecking at a high level; and (b) withdrawal from the vicinity of the key and the occurrence of stereotypic behavior during the intertrial interval.

Sign‐ Versus Goal‐tracking: Effects of Conditioned‐stimulus‐to‐unconditioned‐stimulus Distance

“…For example, some researchers have observed that sign-tracking persists even when opposed by strong reinforcement contingencies (e.g., Williams & Williams, 1969) and that the form of the sign-tracking response (i.e., the manner in which the animal approaches and interacts with the CS) can be strongly influenced by factors that are almost certainly of phylogenetic origin (e.g., Timberlake & Grant, 1975). Nevertheless, studies also show that sign-tracking (in pigeon and rats) and goaltracking (at least in rats) is modifiable to some extent by its consequences (e.g., Barrera, 1974;Eldridge & Pear, 1987;Holland, 1979). Most sign-/goal-tracking theorists acknowledge an interaction between operant and nonoperant processes, but the exact nature of the interaction is usually not specified clearly in the theories.…”

“…Responses that are excluded from reinforcement by the omission contingency may occur due to response generalization from responses that are similar to them but are not excluded from reinforcement (cf. Eldridge & Pear's [1987] demonstration that pigeons make pecking motions close to the key in the presence of a keylight paired with food during a food-omission contingency for key pecking).…”

“…Because there have been few studies on the relationship between CS-US distance and the occurrence of sign-and goal-tracking in pigeons, and fewer yet that have reported unambiguous quantitative data in either numerical or graphical form, the present study was undertaken to provide detailed quantitative data on this relationship. We used an apparatus that tracked the position of the animal continuously (Eldridge & Pear, 1987;Eldridge, Pear, Torgrud, & Evers, 1988;Pear, 1985;Pear & Eldridge, 1984;Pear & Legris, 1987). This tracking apparatus enabled us to record approaches of varying degrees of closeness to the CS and to the site of the US over the entire CS interval, as opposed to the more commonly used discrete measures of approach (e.g., stepping on a platform or breaking a photocell beam in front of the CS or the feeder).…”

An omission procedure reorganizes the microstructure of sign-tracking while preserving incentive salience

“…For example, Locurto et al (1976) have found that lever contacts after sign-tracking are markedly reduced in rats moved to an omission schedule, with similar rates of lever contacts compared with rats exposed to extinction or random cue/reward delivery. However, typically, sign-tracking does not decline to zero (Atnip 1977;Eldridge and Pear 1987;Schwartz and Williams 1972a;Stiers and Silberberg 1974;Woodard et al 1974), suggesting some motivational persistence as well. Thus, sign-tracking CRs may be partly sensitive to contingency and partly under control of motivational forces that promote its persistence.…”

Behavioral Stereotypy and the Generalized Matching Equation

“…For example, the fact that pigeons' autoshaped key pecks are redirected to a region near the key when key pecks cause scheduled food presentations to be omitted (Barrera, 1974;Eldridge & Pear, 1987) may be the result of an interaction between a relatively high bias to orient toward and peck at stimuli paired with food and the relatively low reinforcement rate for that behavior. Unlike the Pavlovian account of autoshaping, the present interpretation has no difficulty with the fact that, although highly stereotypic, an autoshaped response need not resemble the response elicited by the reinforcer (Timberlake & Grant, 1975;Wasserman, 1973).…”