Stimulus control of topographically tagged responding

Determinants of contrast in the signal-key procedure: Evidence against additivity theory

Two experiments are reported that challenge the interpretation of previous results with the signal-key procedure, in which the discriminative stimuli are located on a response key different from the key associated with the operant response requirement. Experiment 1 replicated the procedure of Keller (1974), and found that contrast effects on the operant key occurred reliably for only one of four subjects. High rates to the signal key initially occurred for only one subject, but modifications of the procedure produced substantial rates to the signal key for all subjects. In all cases, however, signal-key behavior was greatly reduced by the addition of a changeover delay which prevented reinforcement within 2 seconds of the last peck to the signal key, suggesting that signal-key pecking was maintained primarily by adventitious reinforcement. Experiment 2 modified the signal-key procedure by using three response keys, so that the discriminative stimuli on the signal key controlled different responses during all phases of training. With this modification, reliable contrast effects on the operant key occurred for all subjects, suggesting that the failure to find contrast in previous studies has been due to the confounding of changes in the discrimination requirements with changes in relative rate of reinforcement. The results challenge the additivity theory of contrast, and suggest that "elicited" behavior plays a minor role, if any, in the determination of contrast effects in multiple schedules.

Three versions of the additive theories of behavioral contrast

The additive theories of behavioral contrast state that contrast will occur only when two types of responses interact during multiple schedules. Three more specific versions of the theories may be defined according to how they distinguish these two types of responses. A strong version physically distinguishes them. A second version distinguishes them according to the theoretical processes which control them. A weak version distinguishes them on the basis of the environmental relations which control them. Only the weak version of the theories is currently testable. The weak theory should be tested by establishing each of the two environmental relations independently and then combining them to assess their effect on behavior. Because this test is not usually performed, many of the results which have been taken to support or contradict the additive theories are actually ambiguous.

Locating reward cue at response manipulandum (CAM) induces symptoms of drug abuse

Appetitive instrumental discrimination learning procedures provide for CAM (cue and manipulandum) when the reward cue (discriminative stimulus positively correlated with positive reinforcement) is located at the response manipulandum (object that when contacted or manipulated defines the performance of the instrumental response). Evidence reviewed shows that CAM induces excessive and compulsive instrumental responding relative to otherwise comparable non-CAM control procedures. In humans, symptoms of drug abuse are particularly likely when the drug-taking implement (response manipulandum at which instrumental drug-taking is directed) is also predictive of the drug's rewarding effects (reward cue). Evidence that the predictive relationship between a drug-taking implement and drug reward relates to drug abuse is reviewed, and implications for treatment and prevention are considered. CAM is related to neurobiological models of drug abuse that emphasize the role of the neurotransmitter dopamine (DA). CAM produces convergence of DA-mediated responding for conditioned reinforcement with DA mediation of psychomotor activation and incentive-motivational processes to yield reflexive cue-directed responding not observed in non-CAM controls.

Generalization peak shift for autoshaped and operant key pecks

Pigeons acquired discriminated key pecking between 528- and 540-nm stimuli by either a response-reinforcer (operant group) or a stimulus-reinforcer (autoshaped group) contingency, with other training-schedule parameters comparable over groups. For the birds in the operant group, key pecks intermittently produced grain in the presence of one hue on the key (positive stimulus) but not in the other (negative stimulus). For the birds in the autoshaped group, pecking emerged when grain was intermittently presented independently of key pecking during one key color but was not presented during the other key color. Two independent contingency assays, peck-location comparisons and elimination of differences in reinforcement rate, confirmed the effectiveness of the two training procedures in establishing operant or respondent control of key pecking. After reaching a 10:1, or better, discrimination ratio between key pecks during the two key colors, the birds received a wavelength generalization test. Criterion baseline key-peck rates were comparable for operant and autoshaped groups prior to testing. On the generalization test, performed in extinction, all birds pecked most at a stimulus removed from the positive training stimulus in the direction away from the negative stimulus. In testing, autoshaped "peak" rates (24.5 to 64.9 pecks per minute) were from 33% to 80% higher than rates in the presence of the training stimuli. Respondent peak shift rarely has been reported heretofore, and never this consistently and robustly. These results further confirm the similarity of perceptual processing in classical and operant learning. They are discussed in terms of Spence's gradient-interaction theory and Weiss' (1978) two-process model of stimulus control.

Stimulus control of Pavlovian facilitation

Two experiments were conducted using an autoshaping procedure with pigeons to examine whether dimensional stimulus control by a Pavlovian facilitator parallels the control established following operant discrimination training. Facilitation training consisted of the presentation of a black vertical line on a white background as the B stimulus in a feature-positive discrimination in which the A stimulus (white keylight) was followed by grain presentation only if preceded by B. In this way, B facilitates or sets the occasion for pecking at A. Subsequent testing for generalization along the line-orientation dimension produced decremental gradients when the facilitation paradigm incorporated an explicit feature-negative stimulus (B-). These results parallel the decremental control obtained following operant discrimination training and suggest that Pavlovian facilitators and instrumental discriminative stimuli are functionally equivalent.

Changeover delay effects on topographically tagged discriminative behavior

In a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule, pigeons' responses on an operant key were differentially reinforced in the presence of discriminative stimuli located on a signal key. Changeover delays of zero, one, two, or four seconds specified the time following a signal-key response within which an operant-key response was not reinforced. Systematic reduction of signal-key response rates with increasing changeover-delay duration indicated that signal-key responding was largely maintained by reinforcement of adventitious signal-key/operant-key response chains.