Effects of the Intensity of Electric Shock on Response Suppression During Multiple and Mixed Schedules of Signalled and Unsignallei Electric-Shock Delivery

1977 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 425-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman Hymowitz
Keyword(s):  
Electric Shock ◽  
Response Suppression ◽  
Shock Delivery

Effects of Pairing Electric Shock with Reinforcement Delivered on a Variable-Interval Schedule

1976 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 483-489
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Doleys ◽  
Robert S. Davidson
Keyword(s):  
Linear Relationship ◽  
Shock Intensity ◽  
Electric Shock ◽  
Variable Interval ◽  
Variable Interval Schedule ◽  
Response Suppression ◽  
Interval Schedule ◽  
Total Response ◽  
Schedule Of Reinforcement ◽  
Response Facilitation

Gradually increased electric shock was superimposed on responding maintained on a VI 60-sec. schedule of reinforcement. Shock was contingent upon the reinforcement producing response and preceded reinforcement delivery. Following total response suppression, shock was removed and then reintroduced at selected intensities. The previously observed monotonic linear relationship between rate of responding and shock intensity was not recorded. Rather, post-reinforcement response bursts and two distinct patterns of response facilitation emerged.

Variability of Response Duration during Punishment

1967 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas P. Ferraro ◽  
Kathleen M. Hayes
Keyword(s):  
Electric Shock ◽  
Response Duration ◽  
Press Release ◽  
Response Suppression ◽  
Response Recovery

Three rats were first trained to make a bar-press-release response for regular reinforcement and then exposed to 22 sessions of concurrent reinforcement-electric shock punishment. The variability of response durations increased with response suppression and decreased with response recovery. Distributions of response durations indicated that their variability is a sensitive dependent variable for assessing the effects of punishment.

Effects of CS Presence and Duration on Suppression of Positively Reinforced Responding in the Rat

1969 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. H. Shimoff ◽  
W. N. Schoenfeld ◽  
A. G. Snapper
Keyword(s):  
Electric Shock ◽  
Stimulus Presentation ◽  
Separate Group ◽  
Response Suppression ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Difference

The variable of CS duration preceding unavoidable electric shock was investigated with rats as Ss. For the 6 durations examined from 3.75 to 60 sec, suppression of positively reinforced bar-pressing in the presence of CS was complete. While response suppression between CS presentations was initially severe, it gradually dissipated as the experiment progressed. A separate group of rats received unavoidable shocks not preceded by a stimulus. General suppression of responding throughout the session was more severe than with the cued-shock groups, and recovery was slower. The difference in the effects of uncued shock and cued shock was confirmed when stimulus presentation conditions were reversed between the subject groups.

Discrimination of Response-Contingent and Response-Independent Shock by Rats: Effects of Chlordiazepoxide HCL and Sodium Amylobarbitone

1980 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. N. P. Rawlins ◽  
J. Feldon ◽  
Jeffrey A. Gray
Keyword(s):  
Response Rates ◽  
Response Suppression ◽  
Random Interval ◽  
Sucrose Reward ◽  
Shock Delivery ◽  
Response Contingent ◽  
Group Data ◽  
Lever Pressing ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Different Response

Rats, trained to press a lever for sucrose reward on a random interval (RI) schedule, were presented while lever-pressing with two stimuli, each associated with a different schedule of shock delivery: in the presence of one stimulus (Se), shock occurred on an RI schedule irrespective of the rat's behaviour; in the presence of the other (Sp) shocks were programmed by the same schedule but delivered only when the rat pressed the lever. Both stimuli suppressed lever-pressing. In addition, the rats developed significantly different response rates in the two stimuli, thus demonstrating a discrimination between response-contingent and response-independent shock. Group data showed faster responding in Se than in Sp, supporting the view that response-contingent shock produces greater suppression than response-independent shock. Individual animal analyses, however, demonstrated that this was the case in the majority of animals, but not in all. Response suppression was alleviated by amylobarbitone sodium (15 mg/kg) or chlordiazepoxide HCI (5 mg/kg); the latter drug alleviated suppression significantly more in Sp than Se and eliminated the difference between the response rates controlled by the two stimuli.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document