Literature DB >> 7097152

Choice as a dependent measure in autoshaping: sensitivity to frequency and duration of food presentation.

M Picker, A Poling.   

Abstract

Previous investigations have shown that rate, latency, and percentage of trials with at least one response are somewhat insensitive measures of the strength of autoshaped responding. In the present studies, these measures were contrasted with the allocation of responding during simultaneous choice tests, a measure of response strength frequently used in operant paradigms. In two experiments, nine pigeons were exposed to a forward pairing autoshaping procedure. Training sessions consisted of the successive presentation of three stimuli, each followed by food on either 100%, 50%, or 0% of the trials. Choice testing involved the simultaneous presentation of the three stimuli. In Experiment I, all pigeons consistently directed their initial choice responses and the majority of subsequent responses to the stimulus always followed by food, despite the fact that during training sessions the response rates of most birds were highest in the presence of the stimulus followed by food on 50% of the trials. In Experiment II, rate, latency, and percentage of trials with at least one response did not change appreciably as a function of duration of feeder presentations. However, choice responding was lawfully affected by duration of feeder presentations. These data suggest that choice is perhaps a more sensitive measure of the strength of autoshaped responding than other, more commonly employed, indices.

Mesh:

Year:  1982        PMID: 7097152      PMCID: PMC1333155          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-393

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


  14 in total

1.  Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement.

Authors:  R J HERRNSTEIN
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1961-07       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Response strength in multiple schedules.

Authors:  J A Nevin
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1974-05       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Studies of operant and reflexive key pecks in the pigeon.

Authors:  B Schwartz
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Discrete-trial choice in pigeons: Effects of reinforcer magnitude.

Authors:  J S Young
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1981-01       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Some variables affecting rate of key pecking during response-independent procedures (autoshaping).

Authors:  C C Perkins; W O Beavers; R A Hancock; P C Hemmendinger; D Hemmendinger; J A Ricci
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1975-07       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  "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

7.  Effect of varying the duration of grain presentation on automaintenance.

Authors:  P D Balsam; A J Brownstein; R L Shull
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1978-01       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  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

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.  The effects of d-amphetamine on the automaintained key pecking of pigeons.

Authors:  A Poling; T Thompson
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  1977-03-16       Impact factor: 4.530

View more
  6 in total

1.  Inverse relations between preference and contrast.

Authors:  B A Williams
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Preference in pigeons given a choice between sequences of fixed-ratio schedules: Effects of ratio values and duration of food delivery.

Authors:  E Hall-Johnson; A Poling
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1984-07       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Graded differential reinforcement: Response-dependent reinforcer amount.

Authors:  G D Gentry; R T Eskew
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1984-01       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Translations in Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing: Autoshaping of Learner Vocalizations.

Authors:  Stephanie P da Silva; April Michele Williams
Journal:  Perspect Behav Sci       Date:  2019-11-25

5.  Suboptimal choice in rats: Incentive salience attribution promotes maladaptive decision-making.

Authors:  Jonathan J Chow; Aaron P Smith; A George Wilson; Thomas R Zentall; Joshua S Beckmann
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  The role of 'jackpot' stimuli in maladaptive decision-making: dissociable effects of D1/D2 receptor agonists and antagonists.

Authors:  Aaron P Smith; Rebecca S Hofford; Thomas R Zentall; Joshua S Beckmann
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2018-02-18       Impact factor: 4.530

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.