Literature DB >> 16811749

Autoshaping and automaintenance of a key-press response in squirrel monkeys.

E Gamzu, E Schwam.   

Abstract

Following exposure for a minimum of 500 to 600 trials, three of four naive squirrel monkeys eventually pressed a response key, illumination of which always preceded delivery of a food pellet. Three other naive monkeys did not press the key when the pellets were delivered randomly with respect to key illumination. Despite some similarities to autoshaping using pigeons, the data indicate many points of difference when squirrel monkeys are used as subjects. Although key-food pairings were shown to be important in the acquisition of the key-press response, they were ineffective in maintaining the response when either a negative response-reinforcer dependency was introduced, or when there was no scheduled response-reinforcer dependency (fixed trial). Not all demonstrations of autoshaping can be considered to be under the control of those processes that are primarily responsible for the phenomena obtained in pigeons.

Year:  1974        PMID: 16811749      PMCID: PMC1333204          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-361

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


  15 in total

1.  Repeated conditioning-extinction sessions as a function of the reinforcement schedule.

Authors:  D H BULLOCK
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1960-07       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  An effect of repeated conditioning-extinction upon operant strength.

Authors:  D H BULLOCK; W C SMITH
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1953-11

3.  The maintenance of key pecking by stimulus-contingent and response-independent food presentation.

Authors:  E Gamzu; B Schwartz
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1973-01       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Autoshaping of key pecking in pigeons with negative reinforcement.

Authors:  H Rachlin
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1969-07       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Associative factors underlying the pigeon's key pecking in auto-shaping procedures.

Authors:  E R Gamzu; D R Williams
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1973-03       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Two different kinds of key peck in the pigeon: some properties of responses maintained by negative and positive response-reinforcer contingencies.

Authors:  B Schwartz; D R Williams
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1972-09       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Pitfalls of organismic concepts: "learned laziness"?

Authors:  E R Gamzu; D R Williams; B Schwartz; R L Welker; G Hansen; L A Engberg; D R Thomas
Journal:  Science       Date:  1973-07-27       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Conditioned Approach and Contact Behavior toward Signals for Food or Brain-Stimulation Reinforcement.

Authors:  G B Peterson; J E Ackilt; G P Frommer; E S Hearst
Journal:  Science       Date:  1972-09-15       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Auto-shaping in bobwhite quail.

Authors:  W M Gardner
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1969-03       Impact factor: 2.468

10.  Failure to escape traumatic shock.

Authors:  M E Seligman; S F Maier
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1967-05
View more
  15 in total

1.  Lever-contact responses in rats: automaintenance with and without a negative response-reinforcer dependency.

Authors:  M Stiers; A Silberberg
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1974-11       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Temporal distributions of responding during discrete-trial omission training in rats.

Authors:  M F O'connell
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1979-01       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Interactions in multiple schedules: negative induction with squirrel monkeys.

Authors:  R D Spealman
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1978-11       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Responding under positive and negative response contingencies in pigeons and crows.

Authors:  R W Powell; W Kelly
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1976-03       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Stimulus- and response-reinforcer contingencies in autoshaping, operant, classical, and omission training procedures in rats.

Authors:  G W Atnip
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1977-07       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Negative automaintenance omission training is effective.

Authors:  Federico Sanabria; Matthew T Sitomer; Peter R Killeen
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Autoshaping and automaintenance: a neural-network approach.

Authors:  José E Burgos
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Automaintenance in guinea pigs: effects of feeding regimen and omission training.

Authors:  A Poling; T Poling
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1978-07       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  Autoshaping, random control, and omission training in the rat.

Authors:  C Locurto; H S Terrace; J Gibbon
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1976-11       Impact factor: 2.468

Review 10.  Individual variation in resisting temptation: implications for addiction.

Authors:  Benjamin T Saunders; Terry E Robinson
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2013-02-21       Impact factor: 8.989

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.