medigraphic.com

2016, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Elec Psic Izt 2016; 19 (2)

Effects of response-signal temporal separation in chained schedules, on operant conditioning in rats

Pulido RMA, Gallardo RL

Language: Spanish
References: 38
Page: 680-705
PDF size: 944.54 Kb.


ABSTRACT

This paper presents two studies designed to assess the effects of the temporal separation between the response and an exteroceptive cue, in chained programs of delayed reinforcement. The first study assessed the effects of the appetitive component duration of the chain (CRF, VI 60-s, VI 120-s), on lever pressing maintenance by rats. In all three experimental conditions, the final link of the chain consisted of a FT 15-s schedule, within which a 5- s cue could occur in different temporal locations. In a second study the same schedules were used to study response acquisition by naïve rats. Results from the first study showed that response rates were a decreasing function of response cue temporal separation, in VI experimental conditions. The second study showed that response rate was a decreasing function of response-cue temporal separation, in those conditions where reinforce-cue pairing was more frequent. Results are discussed in terms of the importance of the parametric exploration of procedures designed to produce conditioned reinforcement; they are also discussed in terms of the empirical problems that arise when studies that use different dependent variables are compared in equal terms.


REFERENCES

  1. Avila, R., y Bruner, C. (1995). Response acquisition under long delays of signaled and unsignaled reinforcement. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 21, 117- 127. Recuperado de http://www.rmac-mx.org/

  2. Blazis, D.E. y Moore, J.W. (1991). Conditioned stimulus duration in classical trace conditioning: Test of a real-time neural network model. Behavioural Brain Research, 43, 73-78. doi: 10.1016%2FS0166-4328%2805%2980054-3

  3. Bouton, M.E. (2007). Learning and behavior: A contemporary synthesis. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.

  4. Catania, Ch. A. y Reynolds, G.S. (1968). A quantitative analysis of the responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 327-383. doi:10.1901%2Fjeab.1968.11-s327

  5. Davidson, M., y Baum, W. (2006). Do conditional reinforcers count? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 86, 269-283. doi:10.1901%2Fjeab.2006.56- 05

  6. Dinsmoor, J.A. (2001). Stimuli inevitably generated by behavior that avoids electric shock, are inherently reinforcing. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 75, 311-333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2001.75-311

  7. Egger, M.D. y Miller, N.E. (1962). Secondary reinforcement in rats as a function of information value and reliability of the stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 97-104. doi:10.1037%2Fh0040364

  8. Egger, M.D. y Miller, N.E. (1963). When is reward reinforcing? An experimental study of the information hypothesis. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 56, 132-137. doi:10.1037%2Fh0040744

  9. Fantino, E. y Romanowich, P. (2007). The effect of conditioned reinforcement rate on choice. A review. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 409- 421.doi: 10.1901%2Fjeab.2007.44-06

  10. Jwaideh, A.R. (1973). Responding under chained and tandem fixed-ratio schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 19, 259- 267.doi:10.1901%2Fjeab.1973.19-259

  11. Kelleher, R.T. y Fry, W.T. (1962). Stimulus functions in chained fixed-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 167-173. doi:10.1901%2Fjeab.1962.5-167

  12. Kelleher, R.T., y Gollub, L.R. (1962) A review of positive conditioned reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5 543-597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1962.5-s543

  13. Lattal, K.A. (1984). Signal functions in delayed reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 232-253. doi: 10.1901%2Fjeab.1984.42- 239

  14. Lattal, K.A. (1987). The effect of delay and intervening events on reinforcement value. In Commons, M.L., Mazur, J.E., Nevin, J.A. y Rachlin, H. (Eds.) Quantitative Analysis of Behavior ( Vol. 5). New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher.

  15. Lieberman, D.A., Davidson, F.H. y Thomas, G.V. (1985). Marking in pigeons: The role of memory in delayed reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 11, 611-624. doi:10.1037%2F%2F0097- 7403.11.4.61

  16. Lieving, G.A., Reilly, M.P. y Lattal, K.A. (2006). Disruption of responding maintained by conditioned reinforcement: Alterations in response-conditioned-reinforcer relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 86, 197- 209.doi:10.1901%2Fjeab.2006.12-05

  17. Malagodi, E.F. , De Weese, J. y Johnston, J.M. (1973) Second order schedules: A comparison of chained, brief stimulus, and tandem procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20, 447-460. doi:10.1901%2Fjeab.1973.20- 447

  18. Meltzer, D., y Brahlek, J.A. (1970). Conditioned suppression and conditioned enhancement with the same positive UCS: An effect of CS duration. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 67-73. doi:10.1901%2Fjeab.1970.13-67

  19. Pulido, M.A. y López, L. (2006). Delay of reinforcement effects under temporally defined schedules of reinforcement. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 32, 39-53. Retrieved from http://www.rmac-mx.org/

  20. Pulido, M. A., y Martínez, G. (2010). Effects of response-signal temporal separation on behavior maintained under temporally defined schedules of delayed signaled reinforcement. The Psychological Record, 60, 115-136. Recuperado de http://thepsychologicalrecord.siuc.edu/

  21. Pulido, M. A., Paz, M., y Sosa, R. (2008). The effects of behavioral history on response acquisition with delayed reinforcement: A parametric analysis. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 34, 43-56. Retrieved from http://www.rmac-mx.org/

  22. Pulido, M.A., Sosa, R. y Valadez, L. (2006). Adquisición de la operante libre bajo condiciones de reforzamiento demorado: Una revisión. Acta Comportamentalia, 14, 5- 21.

  23. Prokasy, W.F. y Whaley, F.L. (1963). Intertrial interval range shift in classical eyelid conditioning. Psychological Reports, 12, 55-58. doi:10.2466%2Fpr0.1963.12.1.55

  24. Rescorla, R.A. (1968b) Probability of schock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 66, 1- 5.doi:10.1037%2Fh0025984

  25. Royalty, P., Williams, B.A. y Fantino, E. (1987). Effects of delayed conditioned reinforcement in chain schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 41-56. doi: 10.1901%2Fjeab.1987.47-41

  26. Salafia, W.R., Mis, F.W., Terry, W.S., Bartosiak, R.S. y Daston, A.P. (1973). Conditioning of the nictitating membrane response of the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) as a function of the length and degree of variation of the intertrial interval. Animal Learning and Behavior, 8, 85-91. doi:10.3758%2FBF03209734

  27. Schaal, D.W. y Branch, M.N. (1988). Responding of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of unsignaled, briefly signaled and completely signaled delays to reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 33- 54.doi:10.1901%2Fjeab.1988.50-33

  28. Schaal, D.W. y Branch, M.N. (1990). Responding of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of signaled-delayed reinforcement: Effects of delay-signal duration.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 103-121. doi:10.1901%2Fjeab.1990.53-103

  29. Schaal, D.W., Odum, A.L. y Shahan, T.A. (2000). Pigeons may not remember the stimuli that reinforced their recent behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 73, 125-139. doi:10.1901%2Fjeab.2000.73-125 Schaal, D.W., Schuh, K.J. y Branch, M.N. (1992). Key pecking of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of briefly signaled delayed reinforcement: Effects of variable-interval value. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 277-286. doi:10.1901%2Fjeab.1992.58-277

  30. Schoenfeld, W.N. y Cole, B.K. (1972). Stimulus Schedules: The t-T systems. New York. Harper Row.

  31. Sosa, R. (2014). Paradigmas para el estudio del reforzamiento condicionado. En C. Torres y C. Flores (Eds.). Tópicos selectos de investigación: Paradigmas experimentales en conducta animal. México, CEIC.

  32. Squires, N. (1972). Preference for conjoint schedules of primary reinforcement and brief stimulus presentation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, San Diego.

  33. Staddon, J.E.R. y Cerutti, D.T. (2003). Operant conditioning. Annual Review of Psychology,54,115-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145124 Tombaugh, J.W. y Tombaugh, T.N. (1971) Effects on performance of placing a visual cue at different temporal locations within a constant delay interval. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87, 220-224. doi:10.1037%2Fh0030583

  34. Wallace, F. Osborne, S. y Fantino, E. (1982). Conditioned reinforcement in two-link chain schedules. Behaviour Analysis Letters, 2, 335-344.Recuperado de http://www.periodicals.com/html/ihp_e.html?eb51648

  35. Williams, B.A. (1982). Blocking the response-reinforcer association. In: Commons, M., Herrnstein, R. and Wagner, A. (Eds.) Quantitative Analyses of Behavior: Acquisition 3, Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA, 427-445.

  36. Williams, B. A. (1994). Conditioned reinforcement: Experimental and theoretical issues. The Behavior Analyst, 17, 261-285. Recuperado de: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/557/

  37. Williams, B.A. (1999). Blocking the response-reinforcer association: Theoretical implications. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 6, 618-623.doi: 10.3758%2FBF03212970

  38. Zeiler, M. (1977). Schedules of reinforcement: The controlling variables: In W.K. Honig y J.E.R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of Operant Behavior (201-232). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com