Literature DB >> 16811813

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

M Stiers, A Silberberg.   

Abstract

Pairing the presentations of one lever (cueing lever) with food led to the acquisition and persistence of lever contacts by rats. This behavior did not occur with a second lever, which was presented randomly with regard to food delivery. This finding obtained whether food delivery was independent of cueing-lever contacts (positive automaintenance) or dependent on the absence of cueing-lever contacts (negative automaintenance). The general findings were: (1) cueing-lever contacts on the positive automaintenance procedure occurred on a higher proportion of trials and at higher rates when contacts occurred than on the negative automaintenance procedure; (2) instances of the cueing lever's failure to support responding were more frequent on the negative than the positive automaintenance procedure; and (3) the topography and median contact duration of positively automaintained responding differed from negatively automaintained responding. These findings agree substantially with the automaintenance literature on pigeons, suggesting that similar processes may characterize automaintained responding in both pigeons and rats.

Entities:  

Year:  1974        PMID: 16811813      PMCID: PMC1333298          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-497

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


  12 in total

1.  Electronic drinkometer and recorder.

Authors:  J D DAVIS
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1961-04       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  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

3.  "Automaintenance": the role of reinforcement.

Authors:  S R Hursh; D J Navarick; E Fantino
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1974-01       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  The form of the auto-shaped response with food or water reinforcers.

Authors:  H M Jenkins; B R Moore
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1973-09       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  A demonstration of auto-shaping with monkeys.

Authors:  M Sidman; F G Fletcher
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1968-05       Impact factor: 2.468

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
  30 in total

1.  Drug effects on the performance of pigeons under a negative automaintenance schedule.

Authors:  A Poling; J B Appel
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  1979-01-31       Impact factor: 4.530

2.  Sign-tracking (autoshaping) in rats: a comparison of cocaine and food as unconditioned stimuli.

Authors:  David N Kearns; Stanley J Weiss
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 1.986

3.  Three versions of the additive theories of behavioral contrast.

Authors:  F K McSweeney; R H Ettinger; W D Norman
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1981-09       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  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

5.  Behavioral contrast as differential time allocation.

Authors:  K G White
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1978-03       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  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

7.  Topographical variations in behavior during autoshaping, automaintenance, and omission training.

Authors:  G D Eldridge; J J Pear
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1987-05       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Maintenance of responding when reinforcement becomes delayed.

Authors:  Daniel S J Costa; Robert A Boakes
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 1.986

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.