Some functional characteristics of avoidance of timeout from response-dependent food presentation in rats

Punishment and the potential for negative reinforcement with histamine injection

The present study examined punishment of responding with histamine injection, and its potential to generate avoidance of punishment. Sprague-Dawley rats were trained under concurrent schedules in which responses on one lever (the punishment lever) produced food under a variable-interval schedule, and under some conditions intermittent injections of histamine, which suppressed behavior. Responses on a second (avoidance) lever prevented histamine injections scheduled on the punishment lever. After stabilization of punished responding, a variable-interval 15-s schedule of cancellation of histamine (avoidance) was added for responding on the second/avoidance lever, without subsequent acquisition of responding on that lever. Progressive decreases in the length of the punishment variable-interval schedule increased suppression on the punishment lever without increases in response rates on the avoidance lever. Exchanging contingencies on the levers ensured that response rates on the avoidance lever were sufficiently high to decrease the histamine injection frequency; nonetheless response rates on the avoidance lever decreased over subsequent sessions. Under no condition was responding maintained on the avoidance lever despite continued punishing effectiveness of histamine throughout. The present results suggest that avoidance conditioning is not a necessary condition for effective punishment, and confirm the importance of empirical rather than presumed categorization of behavioral effects of stimulus events.

Avoidance of timeout from response-independent food: effects of delivery rate and quality

In three experiments, a rat's lever presses could postpone timeouts from food pellets delivered on response-independent schedules. In Experiment 1, the pellets were delivered at variable-time (VT) rates ranging from VT 0.5 to VT 8 min. Experiment 2 replicated the VT 1 min and VT 8 min conditions of Experiment 1 with new subjects. Finally, subjects in Experiment 3 could postpone timeouts from delivery of pellets that differed in quality rather than quantity (unsweetened versus sweetened pellets). In general, response rates and success in avoiding increased as a function of the rate and quality of the pellets. Also, performance efficiency increased as the experiments progressed, that is, the avoidance response occurred later and later in the response-timeout interval. The results support the conclusion that timeout from reinforcement has functional properties similar to those of more commonly studied aversive stimuli (e.g., shock).

Discriminated timeout avoidance in pigeons: the roles of added stimuli

Two experiments examined pigeons' postponement of a signaled extinction period, or timeout (TO), from an ongoing schedule of response-dependent food delivery. A concurrent-operant procedure was used in which responses on one (food) key produced food according to a variable-interval schedule and responses on a second (postponement) key delayed the next scheduled TO according to a response-TO (R-TO) interval. A series of response-independent stimulus changes on the food key temporally partitioned the R-TO into three equal segments (S1, S2, and S3). Postponement responses, in addition to postponing TO, also reinstated S1, the stimulus correlated with the greatest temporal distance from TO. In Experiment 1, the R-TO interval was manipulated systematically across blocks of sessions (conditions) at a given ratio of R-TO:TO duration. This R-TO:TO ratio was manipulated across blocks of conditions (phases). Postponement response rates varied inversely with R-TO interval in each phase. Changes in the R-TO:TO ratio did not produce consistent differences except at the 1:10 ratio for some pigeons, where it disrupted postponement responding in some conditions. Most of the postponement responses occurred in the presence of S2 and S3, the stimuli most proximal to TO, whereas most of the food-key responses occurred in S1. In Experiment 2, the R-TO contingencies were systematically manipulated in the presence of the time-correlated stimuli. In one set of conditions, the R-TO contingencies were made either ineffective or less effective in the presence of one or more stimuli. Postponement responses typically shifted to stimuli in the presence of which responses were relatively more effective. Postponement responses decreased markedly when the added stimuli were removed, and then recovered when the stimuli were reinstated. Results from both experiments indicate that the added stimuli in a discriminated TO-avoidance procedure serve predominately discriminative functions, delineating periods during which behavior is maximally effective. The results parallel those obtained in shock-avoidance procedures, providing further evidence that TO functions as an aversive stimulus.