Reinforcement Schedule and the Durability of A Secondary Reinforcer

1965 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilyn E. Miller ◽  
Jack Weidner
Keyword(s):  
Reinforcement Schedule ◽  
Secondary Reinforcer

scholarly journals Two failures to demonstrate superiority of a generalized secondary reinforcer

1966 ◽  
Vol 5 (9) ◽  
pp. 321-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Myers ◽  
Milton A. Trapold
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Reinforcer

Selective Action of Pentobarbital on Component Behaviors of a Reinforcement Schedule

Science ◽  
1956 ◽  
Vol 124 (3217) ◽  
pp. 367-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. J. HERRNSTEIN ◽  
W. H. MORSE
Keyword(s):  
Reinforcement Schedule ◽  
Selective Action

“Freeloading” in a Runway as a Function of Amount of Training and Type of Reinforcement Schedule

1968 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 211-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Calvin M. Leung ◽  
Glen D. Jensen ◽  
Richard P. Tapley
Keyword(s):  
Reinforcement Schedule ◽  
Schedule Of Reinforcement ◽  
Single Pellet ◽  
Skinner Box

2 groups of 60 rats received either 75 or 285 runs in a runway before being given a choice between freeloading from a dish of pellets in the start box or running the maze for a single pellet. The 285-trial Ss showed less willingness to perform the operant than the 75-trial Ss. This is opposite to what Jensen (1963) had found in the Skinner box. Schedule of reinforcement (100 vs 50%) during training did not significantly affect freeloading scores.

Noncontingent Nonreinforcement of a Response as the Aversive Event in a Cer Paradigm

1971 ◽  
Vol 29 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1196-1198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Calef ◽  
Richard A. Kaufman ◽  
Ronald N. Bone ◽  
Steven A. Werk
Keyword(s):  
Reinforcement Schedule ◽  
Present Experiment ◽  
High Density ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Aversive Event ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Facilitation Effect ◽  
Response Facilitation ◽  
Early Training ◽  
Low Rate

The present experiment investigated the effects of noncontingent nonreinforcement as the aversive event in a CER paradigm. The results showed a significant response-facilitation effect during early training, but none during later training with a high rate-producing, high-density reinforcement schedule. The present results imply that a low rate-producing, high-density reinforcement schedule is not a necessary condition for response facilitation.

scholarly journals The Importance of Trials

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Harris
Keyword(s):  
Reinforcement Schedule ◽  
Partial Reinforcement ◽  
Continuous Learning ◽  
Reinforcement History ◽  
The Us ◽  
History Information ◽  
Temporal Intervals ◽  
Learning As A Process ◽  
Stored Information ◽  
The Relationship

Many theories of conditioning describe learning as a process by which stored information about the relationship between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US) is progressively updated upon each occasion (trial) that the CS occurs with, or without, the US. These simple trial-based descriptions can provide a powerful and efficient means of extracting information about the correlation between two events, but they fail to explain how animals learn about the timing of events. This failure has motivated models of conditioning in which animals learn continuously, either by explicitly representing temporal intervals between events, or by sequentially updating an array of associations between temporally distributed elements of the CS and US. Here, I review evidence that some aspects of conditioning are not the consequence of a continuous learning process but reflect a trial-based process. In particular, the way that animals learn about the absence of a predicted US during extinction suggests that they encode and remember trials as single complete episodes rather than as a continuous experience of unfulfilled expectation of the US. These memories allow the animal to recognise repeated instances of non-reinforcement and encode these as a sequence which, in the case of a partial reinforcement schedule, can become associated with the US. The animal is thus able to remember details about the pattern of a CS’s reinforcement history, information that affects how long the animal continues to respond to the CS when all reinforcement ceases.

scholarly journals Training protocol for touchscreen-based visual discrimination in mice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuhiro Goto ◽  
Yuya Hataji
Keyword(s):  
Visual Discrimination ◽  
Reinforcement Schedule ◽  
Discrimination Performance ◽  
Magazine Training ◽  
Stimulus Position ◽  
Continuous Reinforcement Schedule ◽  
Continuous Reinforcement ◽  
Contrast Discrimination ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Training Protocol

Automated touchscreen-based tasks are increasingly being used to explore a broad range of issues in learning and behavior in mice. Researchers usually report how they train mice before acquiring the target task concisely, and shaping protocols at this stage are typically flexible. In this report, we described a training protocol, developed in our laboratory, for mice acquiring a simultaneous discrimination performance using visual stimuli. C57BL/6N mice were first given magazine training. Nosepoke responses were then authoshaped and maintained on a continuous reinforcement schedule. Self-start response was then introduced in order to measure response time to complete each trial. The stimulus position was also varied across trials. We finally examined the contrast discrimination performance. Mice were tested with four different contrast ratios. Target stimuli were white and black targets and the brightness of distractors had values between targets and background. All mice successfully went through all training stages, confirming that this training protocol is promising for shaping appropriate discriminative behaviors in mice.

scholarly journals Brief Training to Modify the Breadth of Attention Influences the Generalisation of Fear

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohith M. Varma ◽  
Riddhi J. Pitliya ◽  
Tomislav D. Zbozinek ◽  
Tomer Shechner ◽  
Tom J. Barry
Keyword(s):  
Skin Conductance ◽  
Reinforcement Schedule ◽  
Local Group ◽  
Attentional Focus ◽  
Important Process ◽  
Attentional Training ◽  
Brief Training ◽  
Skin Conductance Responses ◽  
Attentional Breadth ◽  
Breadth Of Attention

Abstract Background Generalisation of fear from dangerous to safe stimuli is an important process associated with anxiety disorders. However, factors that contribute towards fear (over)-generalisation remain poorly understood. The present investigation explored how attentional breadth (global/holistic and local/analytic) influences fear generalisation and, whether people trained to attend in a global vs. local manner show more or less generalisation. Methods Participants (N = 39) were shown stimuli which comprised of large ‘global’ letters and smaller ‘local’ letters (e.g. an F comprised of As) and they either had to identify the global or local letter. Participants were then conditioned to fear a face by pairing it with an aversive scream (75% reinforcement schedule). Perceptually similar, but safe, faces, were then shown. Self-reported fear levels and skin conductance responses were measured. Results Compared to participants in Global group, participants in Local group demonstrated greater fear for dangerous stimulus (CS +) as well as perceptually similar safe stimuli. Conclusions Participants trained to attend to stimuli in a local/analytical manner showed higher magnitude of fear acquisition and generalisation than participants trained to attend in a global/holistic way. Breadth of attentional focus can influence overall fear levels and fear generalisation and this can be manipulated via attentional training.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document