Within-session responding when different reinforcers are delivered in each half of the session

Weatherly, Jeffrey N.; Stout, Jason E; McMurry, A S.; Rue, Hanna C.; Melville, Cam L.

doi:10.1016/s0376-6357(99)00046-7

Cited by 31 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since its description by Weatherly et al (1999), several characteristics of this induction effect have been identified . It is observed at different rates of reinforcement (Weatherly, Rue, et aI., 2000) and its relative size is inversely related to the sucrose concentration for which subjects respond (Weatherly, Davis, et aI., 2000;Weatherly, Stout, et aI.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rats’ Response Rates for 1 % Sucrose When Food-Pellet Reinforcement is Upcoming: Effect Of Upcoming Reinforcement Contingency

2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has demonstrated that rats' rates of lever pressing for 1 % liquid-sucrose reinforcers in the first half of a 50-min session increase when food-pellet, rather than the same sucrose, reinforcement will be delivered in the second half of the session. The present study investigated whether this increase (i.e., induction) would be influenced by alterations to the responsereinforcer relationship in the second half of the session. Experiment 1 manipulated this relationship by delaying reinforcers in the second half of the session by 0.1, 1.0, or 10.0 s, in different conditions. Induction was little affected by the delays. Experiment 2 provided reinforcers in the second half of the session on a different schedule of reinforcement (fixed ratio, fixed interval, or differential reinforcement of low rates) across conditions. Induction was large when the fixed-ratio schedule was upcoming and small or absent when the differential-reinforcement-of-Iow-rates schedule was upcoming. These differences, however, covaried with differences in obtained reinforcement. Experiment 3 eliminated the response-reinforcer relationship in the second half of the session by, in some conditions, delivering reinforcers on a variable-time schedule. Doing so reduced the size of, but did not eliminate, the observed induction. The present results increase the generality of induction and suggest that both the type of upcoming reinforcer and the contingency that will deliver that reinforcer can contribute to its appearance.A series of recent studies have reported that rats' rates of lever pressing for low-concentration (i.e., 1 or 5%) liquid-sucrose reinforcement are increased when food-pellet, rather than the same sucrose, reinforcement will be available later in the same session (Weatherly,

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rats’ Response Rates for 1 % Sucrose When Food-Pellet Reinforcement is Upcoming: Effect Of Upcoming Reinforcement Contingency

2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, if induction occurs because of the level of reinforcement associated with the entire session, the effect should also be present for responding for sucrose in the second half of the session when food pellets are delivered in the first half. And in fact, both Weatherly, Stout, McMurry, Rue, and Melville (1999) and reported finding such a result. However, neither paper established that this increase was an induction effect, because it was possible that the increased response rates occurred, in part, because of thirst brought about by the consumption of the food pellets.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…If providing food pellet reinforcement in a session increases responding for sucrose by altering overall reinforcement, why does providing sucrose reinforcement in a session in which food pellet reinforcement is also available not decrease response rates for the food pellets, relative to when only food pellet reinforcement will be available Weatherly et al, 1999)? Related to this, Weatherly, Stout, Davis, and Melville (2001) did report that responding for 5% liquid sucrose in the first half of the session decreased when 1% sucrose (an arguably lower valued reinforcer than 5% sucrose) would be delivered in the second half versus when 5% sucrose would be delivered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the determinants of induction in responding for sucrose when food pellet reinforcement is upcoming

Weatherly

Plumm

Smith

et al. 2002

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats' rates of leverpressingfor low-concentration liquid-sucrose reinforcers in the first half of an experimental session increase when food pellet, rather than sucrose, reinforcers will be available in the second half. Experiment 1 determined that this induction effect was the outcome of food pellet reinforcement' s increasing response rates, not of continued sucrose reinforcement's decreasing them. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that induction was primarily controlled by the conditions of reinforcement in the current session, not by those in the previous one. Experiment 4 showed little evidence that the induction was the outcome of Pavlovian processes. These results suggest that induction may occur because of processes operating at the level of the entire session. They also provide a link to a seemingly related area of study: contrast effects. Some of the results are consistent with what is known about contrast effects, but there are also several, yet unexplained differences.

show abstract

“…Sucrose as the reinforcer was investigated because recent research from our laboratory has suggested that behaviors maintained by food-pellet or sucrose reinforcement may be differentially affected by changes in the conditions of reinforcement (Weatherly, Stout, McMurry, Rue, & Melville, 1999).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Unsignaled Delay to Reinforcement on Within-Session Responding

et al. 2000

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study determined if altering the unsignaled delay to reinforcement would alter the within-session pattern of responding. In both Experiments 1 and 2, 4 rats pressed a lever for reinforcers delivered by a variable-interval schedule during 50-min sessions. Across conditions, the value of the variable-interval schedule' was either 15 or 60 s and the unsignaled delay to reinforcement was 0.04, 0.20, 1.00, 5.00, or 25.00 s. Food-pellet reinforcers were delivered in Experiment 1 and 5% liquid-sucrose reinforcers were delivered in Experiment 2. Increasing the delay to reinforcement altered both response rates and response patterns, except when sucrose reinforcers were delivered by a variable interval 60-s schedule. These results may pose problems for some theories of delayed reinforcement. Perhaps more importantly, they indicate that procedural aspects can potentially influence conclusions made about the effect of delayed reinforcement. ,

show abstract

Within-session responding when different reinforcers are delivered in each half of the session

Cited by 31 publications

References 33 publications

Rats’ Response Rates for 1 % Sucrose When Food-Pellet Reinforcement is Upcoming: Effect Of Upcoming Reinforcement Contingency

Rats’ Response Rates for 1 % Sucrose When Food-Pellet Reinforcement is Upcoming: Effect Of Upcoming Reinforcement Contingency

On the determinants of induction in responding for sucrose when food pellet reinforcement is upcoming

Effect of Unsignaled Delay to Reinforcement on Within-Session Responding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About