共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Robert St. Claire-Smith 《Learning & behavior》1979,7(2):224-228
In an experiment designed to demonstrate the overshadowing of appetitive instrumental conditioning, three groups of rats were given 10 sessions of RI (random interval) training in which reinforcement was delivered 450 msec following the response. The correlated group experienced a stimulus during the response-reinforcer delay interval, while an uncorrelated control group experienced a similar brief stimulus occasionally following responses, but these were not responses that typically produced reinforcement. A no-stimulus control group did not experience the brief response-produced stimulus. The experiment was run in two replications. The first employed a light as the critical stimulus, the second a tone. Over the 10 RI sessions, subjects in the two control conditions increased their rate of responding significantly faster than subjects in the correlated condition in both replications. This finding was interpreted as an instance of the overshadowing of the acquisition of signal value by a response because of the presence of the stimulus, which, in the correlated condition, was a more reliable predictor of reinforcement than the response. A subsequent conditioned reinforcement test confirmed that, in the correlated condition, the stimulus had, indeed, become a signal for reinforcement as a function of RI training. 相似文献
2.
Two experiments with goldfish were performed to investigate the role of stimulus-reinforcer vs. response-reinforcer relationships in omission training and the role of stimulus localizability in a positive behavioral contrast paradigm. The directed behavior of fish, like that of pigeons and rats in other studies, was greatly influenced by positive stimulus-reinforcer correlations, as evidenced by maintained contacts of a signal for food, even though such responses terminated the signal and cancelled reinforcement delivery. Goldfish exhibited positive behavioral contrast when the signals for reinforcement and nonreinforcement were displayed directly on the response key, but no contrast was observed when variations in a diffuse houselight stimulus were used as signals for reinforcement or nonreinforcement. Analysis of sequential-trial data yielded effects analogous to Pavlovian positive and negative induction. Theoretical and methodological problems were briefly considered. 相似文献
3.
Pigeons learned to peck a keylight (S2) when it was paired with a stimulus (S1) that already evoked keypecking. Control procedures showed that S2 acquired control over responding because it was paired with S1 and because S1 had a conditioning history, thereby supporting the claim that S2 was a second-order conditioned stimulus. Second-order conditioning occurred as rapidly when S1 was a keylight as when it was a tone. Test procedures showed that after second-order conditioning, responding to S2 was markedly debilitated by the extinction of responding to S1, indicating that the ability of S2 to evoke a response importantly depends upon the continued ability of S1 to do so. Our demonstration that directed motor action in the pigeon is susceptible to second-order conditioning suggests a new interpretation of conditioned reinforcement in instrumental learning. Our demonstration that the effectiveness of S2 depends upon the continued effectiveness of S1 indicates that S-S associations are formed in this version of the second-order conditioning experiment. 相似文献
4.
Stanley J. Weiss 《Learning & behavior》1977,5(4):421-429
Multiple schedules established stimulus-reinforcer (S-SR) associations on baselines in which equal response rates and patterning were maintained in all components. Subsequently, stimuli associated with an increase in reinforcement but no change in ongoing response rate were compounded. For one experimental group, free-operant avoidance (FOA) was programmed in tone and in light while variable-interval (VI) food reinforcement was effective in their simultaneous absence (T + L). The opposite stimulus-schedule combinations were programmed for the other. Both groups remained in their VI components 85% of the session on schedule preference tests, and on a stimulus compounding test emitted approximately 1.5 times as many responses to tone-plus-light (T + L) as to tone or light alone. This is the first report of additive summation to combined discriminative stimuli associated with only an increase in reinforcement. Nondifferentially trained controls who had the same contingency effective in tone, light, and T + L-VI or FOA—showed neither preference among schedule components or summation during stimulus compounding, indicating that nonassociative stimulus factors made no contribution to either resultant in the experimental animals. Evidence supporting an algebraic combination of response and reinforcement associations is presented, and functional similarities between transfer-of-control studies and the stimulus compounding tests of the experimental groups in the present experiment are discussed. 相似文献
5.
Two experiments were performed to determine whether the location of the discriminative stimuli affects the amount of positive behavioral contrast exhibited during discrimination learning by pigeons. When signals for reinforcement and nonreinforcement of keypecking were situated directly on the response key (different line tilts), pecking rates during the positive stimulus were higher than when the source of the signals was located elsewhere (changes in chamber illumination or auditory click frequency). These results are in general agreement with the additivity theory of behavioral contrast, which attributes contrast to the combined effects of stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer correlations on behavior directed at signals of reinforcement. Some shortcomings of the theory were discussed, and the notion that behavioral contrast is a basic, unitary phenomenon was criticized. 相似文献
6.
Pigeons’ responses on an operant key were reinforced according to either multiple variable-interval variable-interval or multiple variable-interval extinction schedules. The multiple-schedule components were signaled by line-tilt stimuli on a second key (signal key). Signal-key responses never produced reinforcement, and operant-key responses were not reinforced if they followed within 1 sec of a signal-key response. Behavioral contrast was not observed on the operant key, although there was a small, but reliable, increase in signal-key responding in the variable-interval component of the multiple variable-interval extinction condition. Generalization tests were interspersed between sessions of multiple variable-interval extinction training. Generalization gradients along the line-tilt dimension exhibited peak shift for both operant-key and signal-key responding following intradimensional (line tilt) discrimination training. Line-tilt generalization gradients following interdimensional discrimination did not exhibit peak shift. Gradients following intradimensional discrimination were sharper than gradients following interdimensional discrimination for both operant-key and signal-key responding. It was concluded that dimensional stimulus control of topographically tagged responding maintained by the stimulusreinforcer relation parallels that maintained by the response-reinforcer relation. 相似文献
7.
In Experiment 1, the development of autoshaped pecking to a keylight signaling food was blocked if the keylight was presented only in conjunction with another stimulus already established as a signal for food, even though the blocking stimulus (either an overhead light or a train of clicks) never elicited pecking itself. In Experiment 2, pigeons came to peck a white keylight which signaled the presentation of a red keylight which had earlier been established as a first-order signal for food, but this second-order autoshaping was blocked if the white keylight was presented only in conjunction with the houselight or clicker which had previously signaled the presentation of the first-order stimulus. Second-order autoshaping was thus blocked in the same way as was first-order autoshaping. 相似文献
8.
Autoshaping procedures with pigeons were used to assess the susceptibility of unconditioned response (UR) activity to Pavlovian relations between stimulus and reinforcer events. Foodpeck latency (a measure of UR activity) was investigated as a function of the interval between stimulus (keylight) and reinforcer (grain) presentations, and of the stimulus-reinforcer contingency, that is, the conditional probabilities of reinforcer delivery in the presence and absence of the stimulus. Four experiments indicated that food-peck latency was sensitive to both manipulations. Generally, conditions that led to higher keypeck rates were associated with shorter latencies. Thus, UR potentiation was demonstrated. However, when the bird’s location prior to grain delivery was fixed by imposing a keypeck-reinforcer contingency, UR potentiation vanished; it then reappeared when the location constraint was removed. Visual observations supported the conclusion that food-peck latency effects were mediated by approach/withdrawal tendencies generated by the stimulus-reinforcer relation. Implications of these results for expectancy theory are discussed. 相似文献
9.
Stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer control of target-striking in goldfish were studied in a series of discrete-trials experiments. Evidence of control by adventitious response-reinforcer contiguity was provided by the first experiment, which showed less response in animals given omission training than in yoked animals with the same stimulus-reinforcer experience. In the next three experiments, evidence of control by stimulus-reinforcer contiguity apart from response-reinforcer contiguity was sought in within-subjects comparisons of omission and extinction. Only the last of these experiments, in which the CS duration was short and the ITI long, showed greater response in omission. A subsidiary finding is that autoshaped goldfish respond very little, either to the CS target or to the feeder, when target and feeder are spatially discontiguous. 相似文献
10.
Blocking was investigated in a free-operant procedure by presenting a response-contingent signal prior to reinforcer delivery. At issue was the way in which blocking effects previously reported with this procedure are related to conditioned reinforcement effects, also previously found with similar procedures. Signal presentation decreased response rate when delay of reinforcement was 0 or .5 sec, but the signal increased response rate when the delay of reinforcement was increased to 3 sec. Thus, which effect (blocking or conditioned reinforcement) occurred depended critically on the response-reinforcer interval. 相似文献
11.
Pigeons’ choice responding on 10-sec interpolated probes was studied after baseline training on multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedules of food reinforcement. Unreinforced choice following training with three different relative reinforcement rates (Experiment 1), with a 3-ply multiple schedule (Experiment 2), and with three different relative reinforcement durations (Experiment 3) was examined. Least squares lines were fit to choice relative response rate and schedule relative response rate as functions of training relative reinforcement rate; choice slope was significantly greater than schedule slope in all three experiments. This result is counter to the prediction of Herrnstein’s (1970) theory that these slopes should not differ. Luce’s (1959) theory also failed to account for the data. It was concluded that choice responding was controlled by both approach to the stimulus associated with the smaller mean interreinforcer interval or the longer duration, and avoidance of the other stimulus. 相似文献
12.
The similarity in the discrimination training leading to behavioral contrast and that preceding tests producing response enhancement to combined discriminative stimuli suggested that the two phenomena might be related. This was investigated by determining if contrast indiscrimination training was necessary for this outcome of stimulus compounding. Responding to tone, light, and to the simultaneous absence of tone and light (T + L) was maintained during baseline training by food reinforcement in Experiment I and by shock avoidance in Experiment II. During subsequent discrimination training, responding was reduced in T + L by programming nonreinforcement in Experiment I and safety or response-punishment in Experiment II. In the first experiment, one rat exhibited positive behavioral contrast, i.e., tone and light rates increased while his T + L rate decreased. In Experiment II, rats punished in T + L showed contrast in tone and light, this being the first demonstration of punishment contrast on an avoidance baseline with rats. The discrimination acquisition data are discussed in the light of current explanations of contrast by Gamzu and Schwartz (1973) and Terrace (1972). During stimulus compounding tests, all subjects in both experiments emitted more responses to tone-plus-light than to tone or light (additive summation). An analysis of the terminal training baselines suggests that the factors producing these test results seem unrelated to whether or not contrast occurred during discrimination training. It was concluded that the stimulus compounding test reveals the operation of the terminal baseline response associations and reinforcement associations conditioned on these multicomponent free-operant schedules of reinforcement.
相似文献13.
Robert A. Rescorla 《Learning & behavior》1983,11(4):439-446
Five experiments used an autoshaping procedure with pigeon subjects to explore the consequences of separate-element presentation for within-compound associations. When a keylight compound had initially been reinforced, separate presentation of one element reduced responding to the other. This was true whether that separate-element presentation was itself reinforced or nonreinforced. That suggests that the detrimental effect of separate-element presentation results from an effect on the within-compound association, rather than one on the association of either element with the US. When the compound had initially been nonreinforced, a moderate level of reinforcement of one element resulted in responding to the other element. However, more extensive reinforcement reduced that responding. Moreover, an attempt to reverse the adverse consequences of extensive separate-element presentation by further exposure to the compound was not successful. These results comment on the associative mechanisms underlying performance in sensory preconditioning and related paradigms. 相似文献
14.
In three experiments, we examined the effects of signaling reinforcement during operant responding in order to illuminate the factors underlying instrumental overshadowing and potentiation effects. Specifically, we examined whether signaling reinforcement produces an enhancement and attentuation of responding when the response-reinforcer correlation is weak and strong, respectively. In Experiment 1, rats responded on variable-ratio (VR) or variable-interval (VI) schedules that were equated for the number of responses emitted per reinforcer. A signal correlated with reinforcement enhanced response rates on the VR schedule, but attenuated response rates were produced by the signal on the VI schedule. In Experiment 2, two groups of rats responded on a VI schedule while the two other groups received a conjoint VI, negative fixed-ratio schedule in which the subjects lost the availability of reinforcements if they emitted high response rates. A reinforcement signal attenuated responding for the simple VI groups but not for the animals given the negative fixed-ratio component, although the signal improved response efficiency in both groups. In Experiment 3, a poor correlation between responding and reinforcement was produced by a VI schedule onto which the delivery of response-independent food was superimposed. A signal for reinforcement initially elevated responding on this schedule, relative to an unsignaled condition; however, this pattern was reversed with further training. In sum, the present experiments provide little support for the view that signaling reinforcement enhances responding when the response-reinforcer correlation is weak and attenuates responding when this correlation is strong. 相似文献
15.
Gottlieb DA 《Learning & behavior》2004,32(3):321-334
Contemporary time accumulation models make the unique prediction that acquisition of a conditioned response will be equally rapid with partial and continuous reinforcement, if the time between conditioned stimuli is held constant. To investigate this, acquisition of conditioned responding was examined in pigeon autoshaping under conditions of 100% and 25% reinforcement, holding intertrial interval constant. Contrary to what was predicted, evidence for slowed acquisition in partially reinforced animals was observed with several response measures. However, asymptotic performance was superior with 25% reinforcement. A switching of reinforcement contingencies after initial acquisition did not immediately affect responding. After further sessions, partial reinforcement augmented responding, whereas continuous reinforcement did not, irrespective of an animal's reinforcement history. Subsequent training with a novel stimulus maintained the response patterns. These acquisition results generally support associative, rather than time accumulation, accounts of conditioning. 相似文献
16.
Bruce L. Brown Nancy S. Hemmes David A. Coleman Alison Hassin Eva Goldhammer 《Learning & behavior》1982,10(3):365-376
Control of pigeons’ keypecking by a stimulus-reinforcer contingency was investigated in the context of a four-component multiple schedule. In each of three experiments, pigeons were exposed to a schedule consisting of two two-component sequences. Discriminative stimuli identifying each sequence were present only in Component 1, which was 4, 6, or 8 sec in duration, while reinforcers could be earned only in Component 2 (30 sec in duration). Control by a stimulus-reinforcer contingency was sought during Component 1 by arranging a differential relation between Component 1 cues and schedule of reinforcement in Component 2. In Experiment 1, rate of keypecking during Component 1 varied with the presence and absence of a stimulus-reinforcer contingency. When a contingency was introduced, rate of keypecking increased during the Component 1 cue associated with the availability of reinforcement in Component 2. In Experiment 2, the stimulus-reinforcer contingency was manipulated parametrically by varying the correlation between Component 1 cues and Component 2 schedules of reinforcement. Responding in Component 1 varied as a function of strength of the stimulus-reinforcer contingency. The relatively high rates of Component 1 responding observed in Experiments 1 and 2 pose difficulties for conceptions of stimulus-reinforcer control based on probability of reinforcement. In these two experiments, the stimulus-associated probabilities of reinforcement in Component 1 were invariant at zero. An alternate dimension of stimulus-reinforcer control was explored in Experiment 3, in which Component 1 cues were differentially associated with delay to reinforcement in Component 2, while probability of reinforcement was held constant across components. When the stimulus-reinforcer contingency was in force, rate of responding in Component 1 varied inversely with delay to reinforcement in Component 2. In a quantitative analysis of data from Experiments 2 and 3, relative rate of responding during Component 1 was strongly correlated with two measures of relative delay to reinforcement. 相似文献
17.
Steve R. Osborne 《Learning & behavior》1977,5(3):221-235
Animals will perform an operant response to obtain food when abundant free food is available. These data have implications for current learning theories, especially in terms of the motivational variables associated with such behavior. The present paper reviews the literature and provides an analysis that suggests that responding for food in the presence of free food is importantly controlled by stimulus change attendant upon response-dependent food presentation. This apparent stimulus-reinforcer effect on behavior is compared to that observed in other areas of animal learning research that include preference between schedules of response-dependent and response-independent reinforcement, preference between schedules of signaled and unsignaled reinforcement, autoshaping and automaintenance, and self-reinforcement in animals. 相似文献
18.
Little responding develops to a conditioned stimulus (CS) that is placed in a random relation to an unconditioned stimulus (US). However, if the USs not preceded by that CS are themselves signaled by another stimulus, then the CS does come to elicit responding. This result has been attributed (e.g., by Durlach, 1983) to the signal’s blocking of conditioning to background cues that otherwise would prevent conditioning of the CS. However, Goddard and Jenkins (1987) have suggested the alternative that signaling the USs promotes responding due to the adventitious creation of periods of signaled nonreinforcement. Two experiments were conducted to assess this alternative, involving an autoshaping preparation in pigeons. In Experiment 1, little responding to a keylight CS presented in a random relation to a food US occurred, despite the explicit presentation of a discrete noise signaling periods of no food in the intertrial interval (ITI). Experiment 2 was designed to replicate the procedure of Goddard and Jenkins, in which an auditory stimulus extended throughout the ITI of a random schedule, terminating only prior to extra USs and during the CS. Contrary to their findings, little responding developed to the target CS. However, responding did develop when the sound-free period occurred only prior to the extra USs. These results offer little support for the hypothesis that signaled periods of nonreinforcement promote responding on random schedules. However, they are consistent with the view that signaling of ITI USs acts by preventing conditioning of potentially competitive background cues. 相似文献
19.
Ken Cheng 《Learning & behavior》1992,20(2):112-120
The peak procedure was used in two experiments. Pigeons in the penalty group in Experiment 1 were rewarded with food in the first phase for the first peck after 12.5 sec had elapsed since the onset of a keylight. In the second phase, reward was withheld if the pigeons pecked within 6.25 sec after keylight onset. Responses in time were tabulated on occasional unrewarded tests in which the keylight was left on for 37.5 sec. Under the penalty contingencies, the response distribution in time remained nearly symmetric about the peak, while the spread of the distribution narrowed, and the time of peak responding came slightly earlier. The yoke group underwent a schedule of rewards similar to that for the penalty group, but without the penalty contingencies. Their response distributions remained similar throughout. The results of Experiment 1 were replicated in Experiment 2, which showed further that the changes due to the penalty contingencies did not generalize to the use of another key on which the penalty contingencies were not in effect. The narrower spread under the penalty contingencies is explained in terms of a change in threshold for when to start responding, and more weight being given to timing versus responding in the presence of the signal per se. No explanation was found for the change in the time of peak responding. 相似文献
20.
A second-order autoshaping procedure was used to examine the effects of three variables on the amount of information that could be learned about the stimulus properties of a reinforcer. All three experiments paired several keylight S2s with different keylight S1s and then carried out discriminative autoshaping with those S1s. Learning about the stimulus properties of S1 was inferred from changes in the response to its paired S2 when that S1 was changed in value. The sensitivity of S2 to changes in S1 was investigated as a function of number of S2-S1 pairings (Experiment 1), partial reinforcement (Experiment 2), and temporal distance between S2 and S1 (Experiment 3). Each experiment found evidence of a selective change in responding to an S2 as a function of the treatment of its S1. However, the amount of that change was not affected by any of the three variables studied. Those results imply that, within the ranges used here, none of these variables changes the degree of learning about the stimulus properties of a reinforcer. 相似文献