The influence of "preparedness" on autoshaping, schedule performance, and choice

Six clarifications for behaviour systems

The precursors of contemporary behaviour systems theory were hotly debated, and yet a similar critical fervour has not followed the second generation of behaviour systems research. I raise six items of potential or extant misunderstanding concerning behaviour systems perspectives, and attempt to set straight some of the assumptions and what motivated them, with attention to historical and theoretical context. The six challenges in focus are: 1) variety of conceptualisation of consummation; 2) potential misapprehensions about the role of general search; 3) ambiguity of predictions concerning response form; 4) ambiguity concerning what aspects are modelled as hierarchical; 5) assumptions of directedness; and 6) the relevance of spontaneous activity. For each of these six issues, some clarification is offered.

Complex dynamic processes in sign tracking with an omission contingency (negative automaintenance)

Hungry pigeons received food periodically, signaled by the onset of a keylight. Key pecks aborted the feeding. Subjects responded for thousands of trials, despite the contingent nonreinforcement, with varying probability as the intertrial interval was varied. Hazard functions showed the dominant tendency to be perseveration in responding and not responding. Once perseveration was accounted for, a linear operator model of associative conditioning further improved predictions. Response rates during trials were correlated with the prior probabilities of a response. Rescaled range analyses showed that the behavioral trajectories were a kind of fractional Brownian motion.

Human d-amphetamine drug discrimination: methamphetamine and hydromorphone

Standard measures of subjective and discriminative effects of drugs were compared in 5 human volunteers. Subjects responded on a second-order color-tracking procedure, where 30 mg of d-amphetamine served as a discriminative stimulus for one response and its absence as the discriminative stimulus for another response. Self-reported subjective effects were assessed concurrently using the single-dose questionnaire, subscales of the Addiction Research Center Inventory, and several analogue rating scales. On different days following discrimination acquisition, varying doses of d-amphetamine, methamphetamine, and hydromorphone were administered. In these test sessions, either response was reinforced. Methamphetamine and d-amphetamine occasioned dose-related increases in d-amphetamine appropriate responding; hydromorphone did not. Methamphetamine and d-amphetamine occasioned dose-related increases in reports of the drug received being most like "speed"; hydromorphone occasioned dose-related increases in reports of the drug received being most like "dope." All three drugs occasioned dose-related increases in reports of drug liking, and increases in the morphine-benzedrine group, amphetamine, and benzedrine group scales of the Addiction Research Center Inventory. This experiment demonstrated that although explicit discriminative control of behavior by a drug may covary with drug identification, it does not necessarily covary with other self-reported subjective effects. Thus, the complementary nature of the data provided by drug discrimination and standard subjective-effects measures provides quantitative and qualitative data useful in studying both relatively novel compounds and the behavioral biology of psychoactive drugs in general.