Literature DB >> 7964365

Autoshaping the pigeon's gape response: acquisition and topography as a function of reinforcer type and magnitude.

R W Allan1, H P Zeigler.   

Abstract

The pigeon's key-pecking response is experimentally dissociable into transport (head movement) and gape (jaw movement) components. During conditioning of the key-pecking response, both components come under the control of the conditioned stimulus. To study the acquisition of gape conditioned responses and to clarify the contribution of unconditioned stimulus (reinforcer) variables to the form of the response, gape and key-contact responses were recorded during an autoshaping procedure and reinforcer properties were systematically varied. One group of 8 pigeons was food deprived and subgroups of 2 birds each were exposed to four different pellet sizes as reinforcers, each reinforcer signaled by a keylight conditioned stimulus. A second group was water deprived and received water reinforcers paired with the conditioned stimulus. Water- or food-deprived control groups received appropriate water or food reinforcers that were randomly delivered with respect to the keylight stimulus. Acquisition of the conditioned gape response frequently preceded key-contact responses, and gape conditioned responses were generally elicited at higher rates than were key contacts. The form of the conditioned gape was similar to, but not identical with, the form of the unconditioned gape. The gape component is a critical topographical feature of the conditioned key peck, a sensitive measure of conditioning during autoshaping, and an important source of the observed similarities in the form of conditioned and consummatory responses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7964365      PMCID: PMC1334458          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1994.62-201

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


  7 in total

1.  Dynamics in the fine structure of schedule-controlled behavior.

Authors:  W L Palya
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Interresponse time as a function of continuous variables: a new method and some data.

Authors:  D S Blough
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1963-04       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Behavioral spectral sensitivities of different retinal areas in pigeons.

Authors:  M Remy; J Emmerton
Journal:  Behav Neurosci       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 1.912

4.  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

5.  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

6.  "On-line" monitoring of jaw movements in the pigeon.

Authors:  J D Deich; D Houben; R W Allan; H P Zeigler
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  1985-08

7.  Prehension in the pigeon. I. Descriptive analysis.

Authors:  R Bermejo; R W Allan; A D Houben; J D Deich; H P Zeigler
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 1.972

  7 in total
  6 in total

1.  Effects of primary reinforcement on pigeons' initial-link responding under a concurrent chains schedule with nondifferntial terminal links.

Authors:  B O Ploog
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Key-peck probability and topography in a concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedule with food and water reinforcers.

Authors:  B O Ploog; H P Zeigler
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  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

4.  Effects of food-pellet size on rate, latency, and topography of autoshaped key pecks and gapes in pigeons.

Authors:  B O Ploog; H P Zeigler
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 2.468

Review 5.  From prediction error to incentive salience: mesolimbic computation of reward motivation.

Authors:  Kent C Berridge
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.386

Review 6.  Delay discounting: Pigeon, rat, human--does it matter?

Authors:  Ariana Vanderveldt; Luís Oliveira; Leonard Green
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn       Date:  2016-02-15       Impact factor: 2.478

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.