Literature DB >> 17725051

Discriminated timeout avoidance in pigeons: the roles of added stimuli.

Anthony DeFulio1, Timothy D Hackenberg.   

Abstract

Two experiments examined pigeons' postponement of a signaled extinction period, or timeout (TO), from an ongoing schedule of response-dependent food delivery. A concurrent-operant procedure was used in which responses on one (food) key produced food according to a variable-interval schedule and responses on a second (postponement) key delayed the next scheduled TO according to a response-TO (R-TO) interval. A series of response-independent stimulus changes on the food key temporally partitioned the R-TO into three equal segments (S1, S2, and S3). Postponement responses, in addition to postponing TO, also reinstated S1, the stimulus correlated with the greatest temporal distance from TO. In Experiment 1, the R-TO interval was manipulated systematically across blocks of sessions (conditions) at a given ratio of R-TO:TO duration. This R-TO:TO ratio was manipulated across blocks of conditions (phases). Postponement response rates varied inversely with R-TO interval in each phase. Changes in the R-TO:TO ratio did not produce consistent differences except at the 1:10 ratio for some pigeons, where it disrupted postponement responding in some conditions. Most of the postponement responses occurred in the presence of S2 and S3, the stimuli most proximal to TO, whereas most of the food-key responses occurred in S1. In Experiment 2, the R-TO contingencies were systematically manipulated in the presence of the time-correlated stimuli. In one set of conditions, the R-TO contingencies were made either ineffective or less effective in the presence of one or more stimuli. Postponement responses typically shifted to stimuli in the presence of which responses were relatively more effective. Postponement responses decreased markedly when the added stimuli were removed, and then recovered when the stimuli were reinstated. Results from both experiments indicate that the added stimuli in a discriminated TO-avoidance procedure serve predominately discriminative functions, delineating periods during which behavior is maximally effective. The results parallel those obtained in shock-avoidance procedures, providing further evidence that TO functions as an aversive stimulus.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17725051      PMCID: PMC1918084          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2007.59-06

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


  19 in total

1.  Timeout postponement without increased reinforcement frequency.

Authors:  C J Pietras; T D Hackenberg
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Conjoint schedules of timeout deletion in pigeons.

Authors:  T D Hackenberg
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  STIMULUS CONTROL OF AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR.

Authors:  R E ULRICH; W C HOLZ; N H AZRIN
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1964-03       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  DISCRIMINATED TIME-OUT AVOIDANCE IN PIGEONS.

Authors:  J R THOMAS
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1965-09       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Avoidance, escape, and extinction as functions of shock intensity.

Authors:  J J BOREN; M SIDMAN; R J HERRNSTEIN
Journal:  J Comp Physiol Psychol       Date:  1959-08

6.  The relative aversiveness of warning signal and shock in an avoidance situation.

Authors:  M SIDMAN; J J BOREN
Journal:  J Abnorm Psychol       Date:  1957-11

7.  Some properties of the warning stimulus in avoidance behavior.

Authors:  M SIDMAN
Journal:  J Comp Physiol Psychol       Date:  1955-12

8.  A comparison of two types of warning stimulus in an avoidance situation.

Authors:  M SIDMAN; J J BOREN
Journal:  J Comp Physiol Psychol       Date:  1957-06

9.  Avoidance conditioning with brief shock and no exteroceptive warning signal.

Authors:  M SIDMAN
Journal:  Science       Date:  1953-08-07       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  AN ADJUSTING AVOIDANCE PROCEDURE WITH MULTIPLE AUDITORY AND VISUAL WARNING STIMULI.

Authors:  G E FIELD; J J BOREN
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1963-10       Impact factor: 2.468

View more
  2 in total

1.  On distinguishing progressively increasing response requirements for reinforcement.

Authors:  David P Jarmolowicz; Kennon A Lattal
Journal:  Behav Anal       Date:  2010

Review 2.  Avian Emotions: Comparative Perspectives on Fear and Frustration.

Authors:  Mauricio R Papini; Julio C Penagos-Corzo; Andrés M Pérez-Acosta
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-01-17
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.