Literature DB >> 13677608

Economic and biological influences on key pecking and treadle pressing in pigeons.

Leonard Green1, Daniel D Holt.   

Abstract

Pigeons were studied on a two-component multiple schedule in which the required operant was, in different conditions, biologically relevant (i.e., key pecking) or nonbiologically relevant (i.e., treadle pressing). Responding was reinforced on a variable-interval (VI) 2-min schedule in both components. In separate phases, additional food was delivered on a variable-time (VT) 15-s schedule (response independent) or a VI 15-s schedule (response dependent) in one of the components. The addition of response-independent food had different effects on responding depending on the operant response and on the frequency with which the components alternated. When components alternated frequently (every 10 s), all pigeons keypecked at a much higher rate during the component with the additional food deliveries, whether response dependent or independent. In comparison, treadle pressing was elevated only when the additional food was response dependent; rate of treadling was lower when the additional food was response independent. When components alternated infrequently (every 20 min), pigeons key pecked at high rates at points of transition into the component with the additional food deliveries. Rate of key pecking decreased with time spent in the 20-min component when the additional food was response independent, whereas rate of pecking remained elevated in that component when the additional food was response dependent. Under otherwise identical test conditions, rate of treadle pressing varied only as a function of its relative rate of response-dependent reinforcement. Delivery of response-independent food thus had different, but predictable, effects on responding depending on which operant was being studied, suggesting that animal-learning procedures can be integrated with biological considerations without the need to propose constraints that limit general laws of learning.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 13677608      PMCID: PMC1284946          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2003.80-43

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav        ISSN: 0022-5002            Impact factor:   2.468


  16 in total

1.  Effects of alternative reinforcement on human behavior: the source does matter.

Authors:  Gregory J Madden; Michael Perone
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  A progression for generating variable-interval schedules.

Authors:  M FLESHLER; H S HOFFMAN
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1962-10       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Behavioral contrast.

Authors:  G S REYNOLDS
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1961-01       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  The effects of different component response requirements in multiple and concurrent schedules.

Authors:  M Davison; A Ferguson
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1978-03       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Economic and biological influences on a pigeon's key peck.

Authors:  L Green; H Rachlin
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1975-01       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  On the law of effect.

Authors:  R J Herrnstein
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1970-03       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Response additivity: effects of superimposed free reinforcement on a variable-interval baseline.

Authors:  R A Boakes; M S Halliday; M Poli
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1975-03       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Auto-maintenance in the pigeon: sustained pecking despite contingent non-reinforcement.

Authors:  D R Williams; H Williams
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1969-07       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  Are there two classes of classically-conditioned responses?

Authors:  L Green
Journal:  Pavlov J Biol Sci       Date:  1978 Jul-Sep

10.  Auto-shaping of the pigeon's key-peck.

Authors:  P L Brown; H M Jenkins
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1968-01       Impact factor: 2.468

View more
  3 in total

1.  Disruption of responding maintained by conditioned reinforcement: alterations in response-conditioned-reinforcer relations.

Authors:  Gregory A Lieving; Mark P Reilly; Kennon A Lattal
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Within-trial contrast: pigeons prefer conditioned reinforcers that follow a relatively more rather than a less aversive event.

Authors:  Thomas R Zentall; Rebecca A Singer
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 2.468

Review 3.  Delay discounting: Pigeon, rat, human--does it matter?

Authors:  Ariana Vanderveldt; Luís Oliveira; Leonard Green
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn       Date:  2016-02-15       Impact factor: 2.478

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.