The disruption of autoshaped key pecking in the pigeon by food-tray illumination

Translations in Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing: Autoshaping of Learner Vocalizations

Stimulus-stimulus pairing (SSP) is a procedure used by behavior analysis practitioners that capitalizes on respondent conditioning processes to elicit vocalizations. These procedures usually are implemented only after other, more customary methods (e.g., standard echoic training via modeling) have been exhausted. Unfortunately, SSP itself has mixed research support, probably because certain as-yet-unidentified procedural variations are more effective than others. Even when SSP produces (or increases) vocalizations, its effects can be short-lived. Although specific features of SSP differ across published accounts, fundamental characteristics include presentation of a vocal stimulus proximal with presentation of a preferred item. In the present article, we draw parallels between SSP procedures and autoshaping, review factors shown to affect autoshaping, and interpret autoshaping research for suggested SSP tests and applications. We then call for extended use and reporting of SSP in behavior-analytic treatments. Finally, three bridges created by this article are identified: basic-applied, respondent-operant, and behavior analysis with other sciences.

Effect of varying the duration of grain presentation on automaintenance

In a series of three experiments the effects of variation in grain duration on automaintenance were evaluated. In the first experiment, key illumination was followed by grain only when pigeons did not peck the key. Each subject was exposed to 2-, 4-, and 8-second feeder durations in blocks of 10 sessions. Subjects pecked on a high percentage of trials at all feeder durations. The mean peck latency was shorter in the 8-second condition than in the two other conditions in five of six subjects. The conditional probability of pecking given successive keylight-grain pairings did not increase as the number of pairings increased. The second experiment was identical to the first, except that key pecking had no scheduled consequence. Under these conditions, all three subjects showed substantial responding. The recorded measures showed no systematic relationship to feeder duration in this study. In the third experiment, two different stimuli were followed by feeder presentations of either identical (2- or 8-second) or different (2- and 8-second) durations within each session. Subjects tended to respond sooner and with a higher overall rate in the presence of the stimulus associated with the longer feeder duration only when different feeder durations were presented within the same session. This result was confirmed by direct observation of the pigeons. The results of these experiments suggest that the effects of varying grain duration may be small, compared to the effects of varying other variables. The results also suggest that the location as well as the frequency of pecking may be an important measure in the analysis of factors controlling the pigeon's key peck.

Key pecking in pigeons produced by pairing keylight with inaccessible grain

In Experiment I, keylight was paired with inaccessible grain delivery (under two conditions of keylight intensity) to determine if autoshaping would occur in the absence of primary reinforcement. In Experiment II, the procedure was repeated with accessible grain, for comparison. In Experiment III, the procedures were repeated with explicitly unpaired presentations of keylight and either inaccessible or accessible grain. The results indicated that key pecking occurred as quickly in the presence of keylight pairings with inaccessible grain as with accessible grain, though (except for one bird) key pecking was not maintained with inaccessible grain. Furthermore, compared to the dim keylight, the bright keylight greatly suppressed key pecking when paired with inaccessible grain, and reduced the rate of key pecking when paired with accessible grain. Little key pecking occurred in groups exposed to explicitly unpaired presentations of keylight (whether bright or dim) and grain (whether accessible or inaccessible). When the birds in Experiment III were retested with explicitly paired presentations of keylight and grain, little key pecking was observed, suggesting suppressive effects of prior explicitly unpaired presentations. It is suggested that the effects of key-brightness manipulation were produced by the association of grain with cues other than the response key, or by distraction produced by partial illumination of the grain hopper.

Differential autoshaping to common and distinctive elements of positive and negative discriminative stimuli

The learning by hungry pigeons of a discrimination between two successively presented compound visual stimuli was investigated using a two-key autoshaping procedure. Common and distinctive stimulus elements were simultaneously presented on separate keys and either followed by food delivery, S+, or not, S-. The subjects acquired both between-trial and within-trial discriminations. On S+ trials, pigeons pecked the distinctive stimulus more than the common stimulus; before responding ceased on S- trials, they pecked the common stimulus more than the distinctive one. Mastery of the within-display discrimination during S+ trials preceded mastery of the between-trials discrimination. These findings extend the Jenkins-Sainsbury analysis of discriminations based upon a single distinguishing feature to discriminations in which common and distinctive elements are associated with both the positive and negative discriminative stimuli. The similarity of these findings to other effects found in autoshaping-approach to signals that forecast reinforcement and withdrawal from signals that forecast nonreinforcement-is also discussed.

Effects of prior amphetamine exposure on approach strategy in appetitive Pavlovian conditioning in rats

RATIONALE

Pavlovian conditioning with a discrete reward-predictive visual cue can elicit two classes of behaviors: "sign-tracking" (approach toward and contact with the cue) and "goal-tracking" (approach toward the site of reward delivery). Sign-tracking has been proposed to be linked to behavioral disorders involving compulsive reward-seeking, such as addiction. Prior exposure to psychostimulant drugs of abuse can facilitate reward-seeking behaviors through enhancements in incentive salience attribution. Thus, it was predicted that a sensitizing regimen of amphetamine exposure would increase sign-tracking behavior.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of these experiments was to determine how a regimen of exposure to amphetamine affects subsequent sign-tracking behavior.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Male Long-Evans rats were given daily injections of d-amphetamine (2.0 mg/kg) or saline for 5 days, then given a 7-day drug-free period followed by testing in a Pavlovian conditioning task. In experiment 1, rats were presented with a visual cue (simultaneous illumination of a light and extension of a lever) located either to the left or right of a centrally located food trough. One cue (CS+) was always followed by food delivery, whereas the other (CS-) was not. In experiment 2, rats were tested in a nondiscriminative (CS+ only) version of the task.

RESULTS

In both experiments, amphetamine-exposed rats showed less sign-tracking and more goal-tracking compared to saline controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to predictions, prior amphetamine exposure decreased sign-tracking and increased goal-tracking behavior. However, these results do support the hypothesis that psychostimulant exposure and incentive sensitization enhance behavior directed toward reward-proximal cues at the expense of reward-distal cues.

The relationship between motor and secretory behaviors in classical appetitive conditioning

Three hungry dogs received pairings of food with an accessible, illuminated panel. This resulted in the dogs' approaching the lighted panel and salivating. Despite the similarity of these conditioning procedures to those used in a large body of research primarily with avians, however, the dogs did not physically contact the lighted stimulus panel. These results bear on several issues concerning the form and direction of classically conditioned behaviors.