Effects of differing response-force requirements on food-maintained responding in C57Bl/6J mice

A review of the behavioral effects of response force: Perspectives on measurement and functions

Response force is a fundamental dimension of behavior. Yet, little is known about its functional significance for learning. The present review examines the behavioral effects of force across several domains. Along the way, advantages of different measurement strategies that have been used to study force are evaluated. The behavioral functions of force are also considered in light of two commonly expressed notions about behavior. First, the Law of Least Effort predicts that animals and humans will act in ways that minimize the costs of behaving. Second, it is widely held that work requirements and effortful responding are aversive. A review of the literature, especially regarding behavioral adaptations to force, is consistent with the Law of Least Effort on many points. Empirical data are less clear on the aversive properties of force requirements. For much of the literature, there is little in coherent findings. Many disagreements and inconsistencies pertain to measurement strategies that fail to record the full range of response variants. Consistent support for aversive functions of force requirements have been obtained only when studied as a negative reinforcer.

The isolation of motivational, motoric, and schedule effects on operant performance: a modeling approach

Dissociating motoric and motivational effects of pharmacological manipulations on operant behavior is a substantial challenge. To address this problem, we applied a response-bout analysis to data from rats trained to lever press for sucrose on variable-interval (VI) schedules of reinforcement. Motoric, motivational, and schedule factors (effort requirement, deprivation level, and schedule requirements, respectively) were manipulated. Bout analysis found that interresponse times (IRTs) were described by a mixture of two exponential distributions, one characterizing IRTs within response bouts, another characterizing intervals between bouts. Increasing effort requirement lengthened the shortest IRT (the refractory period between responses). Adding a ratio requirement increased the length and density of response bouts. Both manipulations also decreased the bout-initiation rate. In contrast, food deprivation only increased the bout-initiation rate. Changes in the distribution of IRTs over time showed that responses during extinction were also emitted in bouts, and that the decrease in response rate was primarily due to progressively longer intervals between bouts. Taken together, these results suggest that changes in the refractory period indicate motoric effects, whereas selective alterations in bout initiation rate indicate incentive-motivational effects. These findings support the use of response-bout analyses to identify the influence of pharmacological manipulations on processes underlying operant performance.