Operant and Pavlovian factors in cross-response transfer of inhibitory stimulus control

Learning to stop responding

Learning to stop responding is an important process that allows behavior to adapt to a changing and variable environment. This article reviews recent research in this laboratory and others that has studied how animals learn to stop responding in operant extinction, punishment, and feature-negative learning. Extinction and punishment are shown to be similar in two fundamental ways. First, the response-suppressing effects of both are highly context-specific. Second, the response-suppressing effects of both can be remarkably response-specific: Inhibition of one response transfers little to other responses. Learning to inhibit the response so specifically may result from the correction of "response error," the difference between the level of responding and what the current reinforcer supports. In contrast, the inhibition of responding that develops in feature-negative learning, where the response is reinforced during one discriminative stimulus (A) but not in a compound of A and stimulus B, is less response-specific: The inhibition of responding by stimulus B transfers and inhibits a second response, especially if the second response has itself been inhibited before. The results thus indicate both response-specific and response-general forms of behavioral inhibition. One possibility is that response-specific inhibition is learned when the circumstances encourage the organism to pay attention to the response-to what it is actually doing-as behavioral suppression is learned.

Three versions of the additive theories of behavioral contrast

The additive theories of behavioral contrast state that contrast will occur only when two types of responses interact during multiple schedules. Three more specific versions of the theories may be defined according to how they distinguish these two types of responses. A strong version physically distinguishes them. A second version distinguishes them according to the theoretical processes which control them. A weak version distinguishes them on the basis of the environmental relations which control them. Only the weak version of the theories is currently testable. The weak theory should be tested by establishing each of the two environmental relations independently and then combining them to assess their effect on behavior. Because this test is not usually performed, many of the results which have been taken to support or contradict the additive theories are actually ambiguous.

Some parameters of behavioral contrast and allocation of interim behavior in rats

Two experiments examined the effects of baseline reinforcement rate and component duration on behavioral contrast and on re-allocation of interim behavior in rats. Positive behavioral contrast occurred during multiple variable-interval 10-second extinction (VI 10 EXT) after a multiple VI 10 VI 10 baseline condition, but not during multiple VI 60 EXT following multiple VI 60 VI 60 baseline. Component duration had no significant effect on contrast. These results differed from those found in studies of pigeons' key pecking. Contrast was accompanied by an increased rate of drinking in the changed component, but drinking in the constant component did not decrease. These results are not consistent with the competition theory of contrast, but are consistent with the predictions based on the matching law. However, no current theory seems to account for all instances of behavioral contrast.

Another look at contrast in multiple schedules

Recent research on multiple schedule interactions is reviewed. Contrary to formulations that view contrast as the result of elicited behavior controlled by the stimulus-reinforcer contingency (e.g., additivity theory), the major controlling variable is the relative rate of reinforcement, which cannot be reduced to some combination of stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer effects. Other recent theoretical formulations are also reviewed and all are found to face serious counterevidence. The best description of the available data continues to be in terms of the "context of reinforcement," but Herrnstein's (1970) formulation of the basis of such context effects appears to be inadequate. An alternative conception is provided by Catania's concept of "inhibition by reinforcement," by which rate of responding is inversely related to the average rate of reinforcement in the situation. Such a conception is related to Gibbon's recent scalar-expectancy account of autoshaping and Fantino's delay-reduction model of conditioned reinforcement, suggesting that a common set of principles determines several diverse conditioning phenomena. However, the empirical status of such a description remains uncertain, because recent evidence shows that schedule interactions are temporally asymmetric, depending primarily upon the conditions of reinforcement that follow a schedule component.

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF A FOOD-BASED CONDITIONED INHIBITOR ON FOOD- OR COCAINE-SEEKING BEHAVIOR

The present experiment compared the effects of a food-based conditioned inhibitor on food seeking vs. cocaine seeking behavior. In two groups of rats, the A+/AB- Pavlovian conditioned inhibition procedure was used to create a conditioned inhibitor for food. Then, for one group of rats (Food-Food Group), a click stimulus was established as an operant discriminative stimulus (S(D)) for food-reinforced lever pressing. In the other group (Food-Cocaine Group), the click was established as an S(D) for cocaine self-administration. In testing, the putative inhibitor for food was simultaneously presented with the click for the first time in both groups. In the Food-Food Group, the food-based inhibitor suppressed responding occasioned by the click significantly more than did a neutral control stimulus. In contrast, in the Food-Cocaine Group, there was no difference in the amount of suppression produced by the food-based inhibitor and the control stimulus. These results suggest that the effects of food-based Pavlovian conditioned inhibitors are specific for food-motivated behavior and do not easily transfer to cocaine-motivated behavior.

Behavioral contrast in fixed-interval components: effects of extinction-component duration

Seven albino rats were exposed to a multiple schedule of reinforcement in which the two components (fixed interval and extinction) alternated such that a presentation of the extinction component followed each fixed-interval reinforcement. In baseline sessions, the duration of the extinction component was constant and always one-third of the fixed-interval value. Probe sessions contained a probe segment in which the duration of the extinction component was increased; the response rate in fixed-interval components during the probe segment was compared with the response rate in the segments preceding and following the probe. The effect of increasing the duration of the extinction component was studied under three values of fixed interval: 30 s, 120 s, and 18 s, in three successive conditions. Response rate within fixed intervals was a direct function of duration of the extinction component. Pausing at the beginning of the fixed interval decreased as extinction duration increased. These effects were larger and more consistent for the shorter fixed-interval values (18 s and 30 s). These results indicate a functional relation between relative component duration and responding. For the component providing more frequent reinforcement, this could be stated as an inverse relationship between relative component duration and response rate. This relation is similar to findings regarding the ratio of trial and intertrial duration in Pavlovian conditioning procedures, and suggests that behavioral contrast may be related to Pavlovian contingencies underlying the multiple schedule.