The effects of stimulus pairings on autistic children's vocalizations: Comparing forward and backward pairings

In a procedure known as stimulus-stimulus pairing (Yoon and Bennett, 2000), the experimenter pairs a target sound (e.g., "bah") with a child's preferred item (e.g., a toy). Even though the stimulus pairings proceed independently of the child's behavior, this procedure has proved capable of increasing imitation of the target sound in developmentally delayed children (Shillingsburg et al., 2015). The underlying behavioral processes remain poorly known, however, and few systematic variations of the basic procedure have been published. In the present experiment, with autistic children as participants, (a) we compared the effects of forward versus backward pairings on the imitation of target sounds, and (b) we evaluated formally the relation between the children's preexisting verbal repertoires and the efficacy of the pairing procedure. As is often reported in the Pavlovian literature, backward pairings promoted lower levels of conditional responding than forward pairings. Also, we found a negative relation between a child's verbal level and pairing efficacy: children with the lower scores on the Behavioral Language Assessment Form (Sundberg and Partington, 1998) exhibited more conditioning. These findings confirm in a single study what has been so far only suspected informally.

Causal reasoning in rats' behaviour systems

Conceiving of stimuli and responses as causes and effects, and assuming that rats acquire representational models of causal relations from Pavlovian procedures, previous work by causal model theory proponents attempted to train rat subjects to represent stimulus A as a cause of both stimulus B and food. By these assumptions, with formal help from Bayesian networks, self-production of stimulus B should reduce expectation of alternative causes, including stimulus A, and their effects, including food. Reduced feeder-directed responding to stimulus B when self-produced has been taken as evidence for a general causal reasoning capacity among rats involving mental maps of causal relations. Critics have rejoined that response competition can explain these effects. The present research replicates the key effect, but uses continuous and finer-grained measurement of a broader range of behaviours. Behaviours not recorded in previous studies contradict both prior explanations. Even results cited in support of these explanations, when measured in finer detail and continuously over longer periods, show patterns not expected by either view, but supportive of a specific-process approach with attention to motivational factors. Still, the abstract prediction from Bayesian networks holds, providing a potentially complementary normative analysis. Behaviour systems theory provides firmer framing for such theories than representational-map alternatives.

Systems-level integration of interval timing and reaction time

Reaction time (RT) procedures are a prominent tool for the study of information processing by humans and other animals. The interpretation of how RT changes after manipulating the appropriate experimental variables has contributed to the contemporary understanding of a variety of cognitive constructs, including attention and memory. With the use of properly designed tasks, evaluating how RT is modified in response to various neural perturbations has become common within the realms of behavioral and cognitive neuroscience. One interesting observation made during both human and animal RT experiments is that the RT to a signal often speeds-up as more time is allotted to prepare for the signal's onset-referred to as the preparatory interval (PI) effect. In the human RT literature, the PI effect has been used as evidence for time estimation playing a fundamental role in the determination of RT. On the other hand, our theoretical understanding of time estimation remains largely divorced from the RT findings in the animal cognition literature. In order to bridge these different perspectives, we provide here a review of the behavioral parallels between RT and interval-timing experiments. Moreover, both the PI effect and interval timing are shown to be jointly influenced by neuropathologies such as Parkinson's disease in humans or dopamine-depleting brain lesions in experimental animals. The primary goal of this review is to consider human and animal RT experiments within the broader context of interval timing. This is accomplished by first integrating human RT theory with scalar timing theory-the leading model of interval timing. Following this, both RT and interval timing are discussed at a brain systems level insofar as these two processes share common neural substrates. Our conclusion is that interval timing and RT processes are in fact two sides of the same coin.

A behavior systems view of the organization of multiple responses during a partially or continuously reinforced interfood clock

We examined how a 50% Pavlovian partial reinforcement (PRF) schedule, versus a 100% continuous reinforcement (CRF) schedule, altered the asymptotic amount and distribution of focal and general search behavior in rats during 48-sec trials with and without a four-segment interfood clock (S1-S2-S3-S4-US). Under CRF, but not PRF, average asymptotic focal search (nosing in the feeder) increased across the last two clock segments (S3 and S4), and more for the clock group than the no-clock group. Locomotor general search peaked in the second clock segment (S2) for the CRF-clock and CRF-no-clock groups and in S3 for the PRF-clock groups. Furthermore, the ratio of general search to maximum focal search was higher for the PRF-clock group than for the CRF-clock group. This pattern of results supports the view that predictable reward presentations temporally organize search states and related responses between food presentations. The relative expression of these responses varies with the predictability and proximity of reward and is more sharply defined in the presence of a clock.

Excitatory backward conditioning in an appetitive conditioned reinforcement preparation with rats

Four experiments were conducted to examine appetitive backward conditioning in a conditioned reinforcement preparation. In all experiments, off-line classical conditioning was conducted following lever-press training on two levers. Presentations of a sucrose solution by a liquid dipper served as an unconditioned stimulus (US) and two auditory stimuli served as conditioned stimuli (CSs); one was paired with the US in either a forward (Experiment 1a) or a backward (Experiments 1b, 2, and 3) relationship, and the other served as a control CS, which was not paired with the US. In testing, each lever-press response produced a presentation of one of the CSs instead of appetitive reinforcers. The response to a lever was facilitated, compared to the response to another lever, when the response produced the backward CS presentation as well as when it produced the forward CS presentation; that is, the backward CS served as an excitatory conditioned reinforcer.

Outcome-specific conditioned inhibition in Pavlovian backward conditioning

In the present experiments, the outcome specificity of learning was explored in an appetitive Pavlovian backward conditioning procedure with rats. The rats initially were administered Pavlovian backward training with two qualitatively different unconditioned stimulus conditioned-stimulus (US-CS) pairs of stimuli (e.g., pellet --> noise or sucrose --> light), and then the effects of this training were assessed in Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (Experiment 1) and retardation-of-learning (Experiment 2) tests. In the transfer test, it was shown that during the last 10-sec interval, the CSs selectively reduced the rate of the instrumental responses with which they shared a US, relative to the instrumental responses with which they did not share a US. The opposite result was obtained when the USs (in the absence of the CSs) were presented noncontingently. In the retardation test, conditioned magazine approach, responding to the CSs was acquired more slowly when the stimulus-outcome combinations in the backward and the forward conditioning phases were the same, as compared with when they were reversed. These results are collectively in accord with the view that Pavlovian backward conditioning can result in the formation of outcome-specific inhibitory associations. Alternative views of backward conditioning are also examined.