共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
A barpress analog to the double-alley runway was sought by varying percentage reward in the first of two consecutive FR 18s. Groups of six rats each were given 0% 50%. or 100% reinforcement upon completion of the first FR 18: after a 5-sec midtnal imterval, the second FR 18 was administered on a separate lever and all groups received CRF reward upon its completion. Group 50 Ss performed faster after nonreward than after reward. Group 50 Ss performed faster after nonreward than did 0% Ss. A measure of midtnal behavior revealed a difference between groups in orienting to the bars. When all groups were shifted to a 50% first component schedule (Phase II), there were no statistically reliable effects of prior reinforcement history on rewarded or nonrewarded responding. The Phase 1 results were taken to demonstrate a frustration effect similar to that of the double alley 相似文献
2.
Twenty domestic Muscovy ducks were trained to traverse a runway for food reward. Subjects were then randomly assigned to treatments. In one treatment, subjects received six nonrewarded trials followed by six rewarded trials every day for 12 days; and, in the other treatment, subjects received six rewarded trials followed by six nonrewarded trials every day for 12 days. These successive acquisition and extinction (SAE) treatments were selected because different extinction rates on the nonrewarded trials are expected on the bases of previous research performed with rats. Analyses of variance revealed the former treatment yielded significantly greater resistance to extinction than did the latter treatment. It was concluded that ducklings performed similarly to rats in the above SAE situation. 相似文献
3.
Charles I. Brooks 《Learning & behavior》1980,8(1):143-151
Four experiments compared runway extinction or hurdle-jumping from nonreward performance following brief (10 trials) continuous or partial reinforcement acquisition. Some of the partial groups received all nonrewarded trials prior to any rewards. The major findings were that (l) rats receiving all nonrewarded experiences prior to rewarded ones were more persistent during extinction than continuously rewarded subjects; (2) rats receiving nonrewarded placements prior to rewarded ones in one compartment of a two-compartment box, failed to learn a hurdle-jumping response to escape nonreward, whereas rats not receiving the initial nonrewards did learn the escape response; (3) increasing the number of rewarded placements following initial nonrewarded ones offset the effect noted in (2). The results, which are discussed in the context of a frustration analysis of the small-trials partial reinforcement effect, suggest that incentive growth over rewarded trials is retarded when the rewards have been preceded by nonrewards. The similarity of these results to those investigating the phenomenon of latent inhibition is apparent, and possible mechanisms responsible for the present results are suggested in current theoretical accounts of latent inhibition. 相似文献
4.
Rats given training with double alternation of rewards and nonrewards in which the first reward or nonreward of each pair occurred in a black runway and the second in a white runway developed fast running on rewarded trials in both runways and slow running on nonrewarded trials in both runways—signaled double alternation patterning. A subsequent shift in the reinforcement schedule produced a period of reversed patterning—slow on rewarded trials and fast on nonrewarded trials. The results are consistent with a compound stimulus discrimination interpretation of signaled double-alternation patterning rather than with a selective memory-retrieval explanation. 相似文献
5.
Rats learned an ordered RNR/RNN serial pattern task in a T-maze where they were shifted to a different runway on Trial 3 only
in the RNR series (shift-win/stay-lose group) or only in the RNN series (stay-win/shift-lose group). The shift-win/stay-lose
group developed faster speeds on Trial 3 of the RNR than on Trial 3 of the RNN series more easily than the stay-win/shift-lose
group. This difference occurred whether all rats were forced onto the same runway on the first two trials (Experiment 1) or
onto a different runway on Trial 2 from that on Trial 1 in each series (Experiment 2). Posttraining probe tests revealed that
the shift-win/stay-lose group in each experiment relied on the runway shift event in Trial 3 or on the series position to
anticipate the second reward within a series. Such reward expectancies were greater when the runway shift occurred in the
same series position as during training. These probe tests revealed that the stay-win/shift-lose group relied only on the
series position in Experiment 2. Our findings do not support predictions based on an associative predictive validity model.
Rather, they reflect rats’ predisposition to spontaneously alternate choices in the T-maze, a tendency corresponding to their
inherent win-shift foraging strategy. Rats in each group also reduced their speeds less on the nonrewarded Trial 2 when it
preceded a rewarded rather than a nonrewarded Trial 3. This effect suggests that rats were able to determine which series
contained a second rewarded trial. We discuss the theoretical implications of this Trial 2 speed effect in terms of rats’
uncertainty about where this second rewarded trial might occur in the RNR series. 相似文献
6.
In Experiment 1, rats received single-alternation training with 32% or 4% sucrose reward (Phase 1) followed by a shift in reward from 32% to 4%, and vice versa (Phase 2). In Phase 1, high reward facilitated alternation performance over low reward. In Phase 2, performance on rewarded trials increased as reward increased but was unchanged as reward decreased. Performance on nonrewarded trials showed negligible effects of shifts in reward. In Experiment 2, rats received goalbox placements with 32% or 4% sucrose alternated with nonreward in Phase 1; and in Phase 2, they received alternation runway training with the same or the opposite reward from that of placements. Performance on rewarded trials was faster, the higher the reward in runway training; performance on nonrewarded trials was slower, the higher the reward in placements. In Experiment 3, Phase 1 provided placements with 64%, 32%, 16%, or 4% sucrose or dry mash alternated with nonreward; Phase 2 provided alternation runway training with dry mash reward. Alternation prerformance developed more rapidly, the higher the sucrose concentration in placements. Only 64% sucrose produced performance superior to that for dry-mash placements. 相似文献
7.
A total of 46 rats, distributed across two experiments, received differential instrumental conditioning trials in a nonchoice brightness-discrimination apparatus. In each experiment, groups differed with respect to the pattern of rewarded and nonrewarded S+ trials. Response in S? was never reinforced. The results of both experiments indicated that the pattern of S+ reward events influences S? response levels in a fashion consistent with expectations derived from stimulus-specificity theory. 相似文献
8.
The effects of food reward on rats’ behavior in radial and Dashiell tunnel mazes were examined in two experiments. In the first, with animals at ad-lib body weights, food reward reduced speed of movement at the food locations, but did not affect the patterns of movement in either maze. Exploratory efficiency in the Dashiell maze was unaffected by food reward, and spontaneous patrolling of the radial maze by the nonrewarded animals was comparable to the behavior, reported by others, of rats running for food reward on elevated eight-arm mazes. In the second experiment, with subjects maintained at 80% of ad-lib body weights, there was some evidence for “winstay” learning: food-rewarded rats in the Dashiell maze were relatively more active near the food locations than were the nonrewarded animals, and more rewarded than nonrewarded rats revisited all food locations in the radial maze. Nonetheless, exploratory efficiency in the Dashiell maze was unaffected by food reward, as was patrolling efficiency in the radial maze, which was again comparable to that of rats on elevated mazes. The similarity in behavior of rewarded and nonrewarded animals in these mazes implies that the major determinant of their behavior, whether or not food reward is provided, is a spontaneous tendency to avoid places recently visited. 相似文献
9.
Many characteristics of a series of discrete independent hedonic events may be remembered by rats in terms of, for example, how many events were rewarded and how many were nonre-warded. Such memory for multiple hedonic events, which has been shown to be a potent factor controlling instrumental responding, was examined here in five investigations employing serial anticipation learning in a runway. It was found that the ability of rats to remember the hedonic events reward and nonreward is highly developed, accurate, and quite resistant to forgetting and interference. Rats not only remembered a rewarded event and a nonrewarded event, but they also remembered the order in which the two events occurred. Rats remembered how many nonrewarded events there had been accurately enough to suggest that they were using some form of a counting mechanism. Rats exhibited little forgetting of eight prior discrete hedonic events, one rewarded followed by seven nonrewarded, even when these occurred over an interval of 20 min and involved considerable potential interference. In the serial learning situation employed here, marked primacy effects were obtained, earlier nonrewarded trials in a series being better anticipated than later ones. The primacy effect was found to depend upon the type of series employed. By assuming that stimulus generalizations occur between the multiple hedonic events remembered by rats, all anticipatory learning obtained here could be explained in considerable detail. 相似文献
10.
One of two schedules of rewarded (R) and nonrewarded (N) trials (RNR vs. RRN) was combined factorially with intertrial interval (ITI) in acquisition (1 vs. 45 min), with extinction occurring at a 45-min ITI. The RNR schedule produced greater resistance to extinction than the RRN schedule regardless of acquisition ITI. The shift in ITI from acquisition to extinction reduced resistance to extinction slightly in the RNR group but not in the RRN group. These findings suggest that there are cues common to 1-min and 45-min ITIs. It was suggested that these ITI-associated cues enter into compound with memories to control instrumental responding. 相似文献
11.
Previous experiments have shown the partial reinforcement effect in honeybees under conditions which permit an interpretation in terms of sensory carryover. In the five experiments reported here, the effect was sought under conditions which would require an interpretation in terms of associative reinstatement. Since it is not feasible to train honeybees in widely spaced trials, several different interpolated-trials procedures were employed which had in common the feature that nonrewarded response to a stimulus never was followed by rewarded response to the same stimulus. Implications of the negative results for the interpretation of the overlearning-extinction effect and successive negative contrast in honeybees are considered. 相似文献
12.
In Experiment 1, a group of rats were runway trained on each of two reward series for 32 days. The two series consisted of three runs, the first two of which were, respectively, rewarded and nonrewarded; the third run was rewarded in one series but nonrewarded in the other. A 40-min interval separated the two series; the first and second runs within the series were separated by a 10-min interval, whereas the second and third runs were separated by a 30-sec interval. The reward (and nonreward) events and temporal cues of the two series are designated R-NR/R-NN. A second group was similarly trained, with the exception that the 10-min interval separated the second and third runs (RN-R/RN-N). Both groups developed appropriate differential running on the third run of the two series, and the RN-R/RN-N animals ran appropriately (slowly) on the second run of both series. Appropriate Run 2 performance appeared in one half of the R-NR/R-NN animals (depending upon order of series presentation); the remaining half ran faster on Run 2 of the R-NR series than on the same run of the R-NN series, an effect currently termed interevent anticipation. A cue shift phase in which all within-series intervals were 30 sec showed that the temporal intervals were controlling performance before the shift. Experiment 2 showed that interevent anticipation appears when all within-series intervals are either 10 min or 30 sec from the beginning of training, suggesting that the elimination of interevent anticipation in Experiment 1 was due to the differential cuing of runs by the temporal intervals rather than the particular interval duration. The overall findings suggest that the similarity of Run 2 and Run 3 performance termed interevent anticipation may be due to a failure to discriminate the ordinal position of runs within a series. 相似文献
13.
Steven J. Haggbloom 《Learning & behavior》1982,10(1):61-64
Three groups of 12 rats received 25 pretraining trials to each future discriminandum employed in a subsequent differential brightness conditioning problem. Groups NR and RN received partial reinforcement (PRF) pretraining either with or without, respectively, transitions from nonrewarded to rewarded trials (N-R transitions). Group CRF received consistent reinforcement during pretraining. A fourth group (n=12), Group NP, received no pretraining. During discrimination learning, one-half of the rats in each group received all their daily S+ trials preceding their daily S? trials (+? sequence); the remainder of the rats received an intermixed sequence of trials to S+ and S? (+?+ sequence). Discrimination learning was faster under the +? sequence than under the +?+ condition, and discrimination learning was retarded in Group NR relative to the other three groups, which did not differ from one another, under both the +? and +?+ discrimination sequence conditions. The results are discussed with Reference to previous experiments demonstrating N-R transition effects on discrimination learning, a theoretical extension of sequential theory to discrimination learning, and the effects of nondifferential reinforcement prior to discrimination learning on learned irrelevance. 相似文献
14.
Cebus monkeys explored a small T-maze for 5 min, and their preference for the striped or black arm of the maze was assessed. On the next day, the experimental animals were placed into the nonpreferred arm for a 1-min period (exposure to the CS), removed from the T-maze for a 30-min delay interval, and then returned to the startbox of the maze, where they received a food reward (UCS). One control group (CS only) received the placement experience but was not rewarded after the 30-min period. A second control group (noncontingent UCS) received the reward in the startbox but not the placement experience. A second preference test showed that the experimental, but not the control, animals reversed their original preference, now showing a preference for the arm associated with reward. A retention test given 4 months after three such training-test trials revealed considerable retention of the preferences exhibited by the experimental and CS-only control subjects. 相似文献
15.
Rats received pairings of two stimuli with reward noncontingently in the Skinner box. During noncontingent pairings, the bar was immobilized. For Group CC 100% of the presentations of both stimuli were rewarded (S1 ±, S2 ±), for Group PP 50% of the presentations of each stimulus were rewarded (S1, ±, S2±), and for Group PC one stimulus was followed by reward on 50% of its presentations, while the second stimulus was followed by reward on 100% of its presentations (S1 ±, S2 ±). A fourth group received the stimuli and reward nonpaired. In a subsequent rewarded test phase, the response facilitating effects of the stimuli were evaluated. In the test phase all groups that received reward paired with S1, and S2 performed better in the presence of S1 and S2 than the group for which the stimuli were not paired with reward. For groups that received the stimuli paired with reward, a difference due to schedule of reward occurred when schedule of reward was varied within Ss (Group PC), but not when varied between Ss (Group PP vs Group CC). The specific form of this finding was that Group PC’s performance in the presence of S2 ± was more vigorous than its performance in the presence of S1 ± and was more vigorous than the performance of Groups PP and CC to S2. Group PC’s performance to S1 ± did not differ from that of Groups PP and CC to S1. 相似文献
16.
Rats were runway-trained in a variety of serial discriminations that involved three different reward outcomes: Noyes pellets (R), a Kellogg’s Corn Pop (R’), and 30 sec of confinement in an unbaited goal area (N). Each of three groups experienced a series that consisted of a single non-rewarded trip down the runway, irregularly mixed with a longer series that for one group (n = 3) consisted of three trips rewarded with the pellets, followed by a terminal nonrewarded trip (RRRN/N). A second group (n = 6) had the single N series mixed with a series that included an initial trip rewarded with a Pop, and three subsequent trips rewarded with pellets, pellets, and nothing, respectively (R’RRN/N). The remaining group was trained with an RRN/N series pair. The interval between trips within a series was about 20 sec, and the interval between series was about 10 min. All rats developed strong, accurate anticipation of the terminal nonreward event of the longer series. In a 4-day transfer shift phase, a matched one-half of the rats originally trained R’RRN/N were shifted to a new series pair, RRRN/NRRRN, as were all the animals trained RRN/N. The remaining one-half of the matched rats were shifted to RRN/NRRN, as were the animals originally trained on the RRRN/N series pair. The transfer to the new series was plainly more powerful in animals initially trained with the R’RRN series than it was in either of the control groups. This shift result is taken to mean that rats classified the differing motivational events of the R’RRN series into at least three numerical categories: (1) one R’, (2) two Rs, and (3) three rewards. 相似文献
17.
In Experiment 1, goldfish trained with alternation of reward (R) and nonreward (N) for responding to a single color gave clear evidence of patterning (more rapid responding on R than on N trials). In Experiment 2, patterning was found for each of two colors alternately rewarded and nonrewarded in the sequence blue R, yellow R, blue N, yellow N, …. Changes in performance with subsequent changes in the sequence of the two colors suggested that the patterning was based on carryover rather than on associative memory of R and N. 相似文献
18.
Rats were runway trained on each of two, three-trial series consisting of different varieties of reward (X, Y, and Z) and nonreward (N) serving as trial outcomes. The two series are represented as XNY and ZNN. Distinguishing the two series were different brightness and texture cues on the runway floor. Transfer tests, conducted after the rats had developed faster running for rewarded trials than for nonrewarded trials and slower running on Trial 2 of ZNN than on Trial 2 of XNY, provided evidence that trial position, rather than item memories, was controlling the discriminations. In Experiment 1, reversing the floor cues completely reversed the discriminations. In Experiment 2, transfer to NNN did not change the routine patterns of approach that had been established. 相似文献
19.
Performance was studied during extinction after training on a homogeneous chain FR 7-FR 7, with a tandem FR 7-FR 7 as control, eight pigeons per group. During extinction, disruption of the chain was considerably greater in the first than in the second component, while tandem controls showed no differential disruption. 相似文献
20.
In Experiment 1, hungry rats received 30 rewarded runway trials and then either extinction trials followed by retention tests or just retention tests. Different groups were tested after retention intervals of 1 min, 1, 3, or 24 h, or 30 days. Retention of extinction training was a nonmonotonic, cubic function of time for the early portion of the response chain, with good retention at 1 min and 3 h and little retention at 1 h, 24 h, or 30 days. In the latter portions of the response chain, retention of extinction decreased monotonically with time. Retention following reward-only training varied little in time, though slight losses occurred after 30 days. Experiments 2–3 differed from Experiment 1 in imposing nonchoice discrimination training (reward vs. nonreward) instead of extinction following 30 rewarded trials. After different time intervals (.017, .75, 1.25, 3, and 24 h in Experiment 1; and .017, 1, and 3 h in Experiment 2), retention tests revealed poorest discrimination at intermediate intervals in the initial portion of the response chain, i.e., a Kamin effect appeared. The deficit seemed the result of a loss of response suppression to the cue that signaled nonreward. In latter segments of the response chain, a Kamin effect tended not to appear. Implications for a number of observations and theoretical views are noted. 相似文献