The effect of US signalling and the US-CS interval on backward conditioning in mice

Task parameters influence operant response variability in mice

RATIONALE

During operant conditioning, animals associate actions with outcomes. However, patterns and rates of operant responding change over learning, which makes it difficult to distinguish changes in learning from general changes in performance or movement. Thus, understanding how task parameters influence movement execution is essential.

OBJECTIVES

To understand how specific operant task parameters influenced the repetition of future operant responses, we investigated the ability of operant conditioning schedules and contingencies to promote reproducible bouts of five lever presses in mice.

METHODS

Mice were trained on one of the four operant tasks to test three distinct hypotheses: (1) whether a cue presented concurrently with sucrose delivery influenced the pattern of lever pressing; (2) whether requiring animals to collect earned sucrose promoted the organization of responses into bouts; and (3) whether only reinforcing bouts where interresponse time (IRT) variances were below a target promoted reproducible patterns of operant behavior.

RESULTS

(1) Signaling reinforcer delivery with a cue increased learning rates but resulted in mice pressing the lever in fast succession until the cue turned on, rather than executing discrete bouts. (2) Requiring mice to collect the reinforcer between bouts had little effect on behavior. (3) A training strategy that directly reinforced bouts with low variance IRTs was not more effective than a traditional fixed ratio schedule at promoting reproducible action execution.

CONCLUSIONS

Together, our findings provide insights into the parameters of behavioral training that promote reproducible actions and that should be carefully selected when designing operant conditioning experiments.

Delay of reinforcement versus rate of reinforcement in Pavlovian conditioning

Conditioned stimulus (CS) duration is a determinant of conditioned responding, with increases in duration leading to reductions in response rates. The CS duration effect has been proposed to reflect sensitivity to the reinforcement rate across cumulative exposure to the CS, suggesting that the delay of reinforcement from the onset of the cue is not crucial. Here, we compared the effects of delay and rate of reinforcement on Pavlovian appetitive conditioning in mice. In Experiment 1, the influence of reinforcement delay on the timing of responding was removed by making the duration of cues variable across trials. Mice trained with variable duration cues were sensitive to differences in the rate of reinforcement to a similar extent as mice trained with fixed duration cues. Experiments 2 and 3 tested the independent effects of delay and reinforcement rate. In Experiment 2, food was presented at either the termination of the CS or during the CS. In Experiment 3, food occurred during the CS for all cues. The latter experiment demonstrated an effect of delay, but not reinforcement rate. Experiment 4 ruled out the possibility that the lack of effect of reinforcement rate in Experiment 3 was due to mice failing to learn about the nonreinforced CS exposure after the presentation of food within a trial. These results demonstrate that although the CS duration effect is not simply a consequence of timing of conditioned responses, it is dependent on the delay of reinforcement. The results provide a challenge to current associative and nonassociative, time-accumulation models of learning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).