Literature DB >> 16811855

Partial avoidance contingencies.

G G Neffinger, J Gibbon.   

Abstract

Rats were trained in a discrete-trial paradigm with no intertrial interval. The first response changed an auditory stimulus for the remainder of the trial. Shocks were delivered only at the end of the trial cycle. Avoidance contingencies were defined by the conditional probability of shock, given no response (P(0)), and the conditional probability of shock given a response (P(1)). The maximal avoidance contingency was P(0)=1.0, P(1)=0, and noncontingent conditions were those for which P(0)=P(1). In Experiment I, after training on the maximal contingency, three groups of subjects experienced either P(0)=P(1)=0, P(0)=P(1)=0.5, or P(0)=P(1)=1.0. Eight of 10 subjects stopped responding under the noncontingent conditions. Experiment II studied partial contingencies by varying P(0) and P(1). For one group, P(0) was reduced holding P(1)=0. Responding decreased to zero as P(0) approached zero. A second group was studied under P(1)>0, holding P(0)=1.0. For three of the six rats in this group, responding decreased to zero with increasing P(1). The other three maintained responding as P(1) was increased up to the noncontingent, P(1)=P(0)=1.0 value. The P(0) group was also studied with P(0)=P(1)>0, and half of these subjects responded. The results demonstrated two modes of response to weakening or eliminating the avoidance contingency. Some subjects were sensitive to contingency only, and insensitive to changes in shock density. Approximately one half of the subjects were sensitive to both contingency and shock density. This shared control was observed only when P(1)> 0.

Entities:  

Year:  1975        PMID: 16811855      PMCID: PMC1333368          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-437

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


  8 in total

1.  Maintenance of avoidance behaviour with intermittent shocks.

Authors:  J J BOREN; M SIDMAN
Journal:  Can J Psychol       Date:  1957-09

2.  The effects of termination of the CS and avoidance of the US on avoidance learning.

Authors:  L J KAMIN
Journal:  J Comp Physiol Psychol       Date:  1956-08

3.  Timing in free-operant and discrete-trial avoidance.

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

4.  Effects of long-term shock and associated stimuli on aggressive and manual responses.

Authors:  R R Hutchinson; J W Renfrew; G A Young
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1971-03       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Contingency spaces and measures in classical and instrumental conditioning.

Authors:  J Gibbon; R Berryman; R L Thompson
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1974-05       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning.

Authors:  R A Rescorla
Journal:  J Comp Physiol Psychol       Date:  1968-08

7.  Conditioned inhibition of fear resulting from negative CS-US contingencies.

Authors:  R A Rescorla
Journal:  J Comp Physiol Psychol       Date:  1969-04

8.  Does CS termination reinforce avoidance behavior?

Authors:  R C Bolles; L W Stokes; M S Younger
Journal:  J Comp Physiol Psychol       Date:  1966-10
  8 in total
  7 in total

1.  Chained schedules of avoidance: Reinforcement within and by avoidance situations.

Authors:  R J Dewaard; M Galizio; A Baron
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1979-11       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  The effect of contingency upon the appetitive conditioning of free-operant behavior.

Authors:  L J Hammond
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1980-11       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Warmup in avoidance as a function of time since prior training.

Authors:  P N Hineline
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1978-01       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Warmup in free-operant avoidance as a function of the response-shock = shock-shock interval.

Authors:  P N Hineline
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1978-11       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Partial avoidance contingencies: Absolute omission and punishment probabilities.

Authors:  B L Flye; J Gibbon
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 2.468

Review 6.  Responding changes systematically within sessions during conditioning procedures.

Authors:  F K McSweeney; J M Roll
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Reducing shock imminence eliminates poor avoidance in rats.

Authors:  Lindsay C Laughlin; Danielle M Moloney; Shanna B Samels; Robert M Sears; Christopher K Cain
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 2.460

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.