Literature DB >> 16811960

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

C Locurto, H S Terrace, J Gibbon.   

Abstract

The role of the stimulus-reinforcer contingency in the development and maintenance of lever contact responding was studied in hooded rats. In Experiment I, three groups of experimentally naive rats were trained either on autoshaping, omission training, or a random-control procedure. Subjects trained by the autoshaping procedure responded more consistently than did either random-control or omission-trained subjects. The probability of at least one lever contact per trial was slightly higher in subjects trained by the omission procedure than by the random-control procedure. However, these differences were not maintained during extended training, nor were they evident in total lever-contact frequencies. When omission and random-control subjects were switched to the autoshaping condition, lever contacts increased in all animals, but a pronounced retardation was observed in omission subjects relative to the random-control subjects. In addition, subjects originally exposed to the random-control procedure, and later switched to autoshaping, acquired more rapidly than naive subjects that were exposed only on the autoshaping procedure. In Experiment II, subjects originally trained by an autoshaping procedure were exposed either to an omission, a random-control, or an extinction procedure. No differences were observed among the groups either in the rate at which lever contacts decreased or in the frequency of lever contacts at the end of training. These data implicate prior experience in the interpretation of omission-training effects and suggest limitations in the influence of stimulus-reinforcer relations in autoshaping.

Entities:  

Year:  1976        PMID: 16811960      PMCID: PMC1333535          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-451

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


  17 in total

1.  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

2.  Controls for and constraints on auto-shaping.

Authors:  J Bilbrey; S Winokur
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1973-11       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.  The role of the response-reinforcer contingency in negative automaintenance.

Authors:  B Schwartz; D R Williams
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1972-05       Impact factor: 2.468

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

Authors:  E Gamzu; E Schwam
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1974-03       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  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

7.  Food-avoidance in hungry pigeons, and other perplexities.

Authors:  R J Herrnstein; D H Loveland
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1972-11       Impact factor: 2.468

Review 8.  Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures.

Authors:  R A Rescorla
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1967-01       Impact factor: 8.934

9.  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

10.  Classical conditioning of a complex skeletal response.

Authors:  E Gamzu; D R Williams
Journal:  Science       Date:  1971-03-05       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  26 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.  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

Review 7.  Individual differences in the attribution of incentive salience to reward-related cues: Implications for addiction.

Authors:  Shelly B Flagel; Huda Akil; Terry E Robinson
Journal:  Neuropharmacology       Date:  2008-06-21       Impact factor: 5.250

8.  Signaled avoidance in the eye withdrawal reflex of the green crab.

Authors:  C I Abramson; P M Armstrong; R A Feinman; R D Feinman
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  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

10.  Autoshaping in the rat: The effects of localizable visual and auditory signals for food.

Authors:  G G Cleland; G C Davey
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1983-07       Impact factor: 2.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.