scholarly journals Effect of response-contingent vs. noncontingent shock on ducklings’ preference for novel imprinting stimuli

1978 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 458-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter DePaulo ◽  
Howard S. Hoffman ◽  
Sandra Klein ◽  
Stephen Gaioni
Keyword(s):  
Response Contingent ◽  
Noncontingent Shock

Preserving and Restoring Behavioral Potential Within the Spinal Cord Using an Instrumental Training Paradigm

2001 ◽  
Vol 86 (2) ◽  
pp. 845-855 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric D. Crown ◽  
James W. Grau
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Instrumental Learning ◽  
Nociceptive Stimulation ◽  
Response Contingent ◽  
Instrumental Training ◽  
Typical Experiment ◽  
Cord Injury ◽  
Noncontingent Shock ◽  
Spinal Cord Function ◽  
Shock Exposure

We have shown that spinal cord neurons can support a simple form of instrumental learning. In a typical experiment, rats are spinalized at the second thoracic vertebra (T2) and given shock to one hindleg. One group (master) receives shock whenever the leg is extended. This response-contingent shock causes an increase in response duration that decreases net shock exposure. This instrumental learning is not observed in yoked controls that receive the same amount of shock independent of leg position (noncontingent shock). Interestingly, rats that have received noncontingent shock also fail to learn when they are subsequently exposed to response-contingent shock on either the ipsilateral or contralateral leg. Just 6 min of noncontingent nociceptive stimulation, applied to the leg or tail, undermines behavioral potential for up to 48 h. The present experiments explore whether a behavioral therapy can prevent and/or reverse this deficit. In experiment 1, spinalized rats received 30 min of training with contingent shock, noncontingent shock, or nothing prior to noncontingent tailshock. They were then tested with contingent shock to the contralateral hindleg. Rats that had received noncontingent shock alone failed to learn. Prior exposure to contingent shock had an immunizing effect that prevented the deficit. Experiment 2examined whether training with contingent shock after noncontingent shock exposure would restore behavioral potential. To facilitate performance during contingent shock training, subjects were given an intrathecal injection of the opioid antagonist naltrexone, a drug treatment that temporarily blocks the expression of the behavioral deficit. Twenty-four hours later subjects were tested with contingent shock on either the ipsilateral or contralateral leg. We found that naltrexone combined with contingent shock therapy restored spinal cord function. Naltrexone alone had no effect. The results suggest that noncontingent nociceptive stimulation can undermine behavioral potential after spinal cord injury and that instrumental training can help preserve, and protect, spinal cord function.

Response contingent illumination change as a reinforcer in the rat

1972 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.I. Williams ◽  
G. Lowe
Keyword(s):  
Illumination Change ◽  
Response Contingent

The Effect of Response Contingent Verbal Punishment on Stuttering

1967 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 795-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond W. Quist ◽  
Richard R. Martin
Keyword(s):  
Adult Male ◽  
Dramatic Reduction ◽  
Response Contingent

The effects of response contingent “wrong” on stuttering were studied in three adult male stutterers. Each subject’s stuttering baserate was obtained, then “wrong” was made contingent on each stuttering. For two subjects, “wrong” occasioned a 30% to 40% reduction in stuttering frequency. For a third subject, response contingent “wrong” produced almost total suppression of stuttering, removal of “wrong” was followed by a return to baserate frequency, and reintroduction of “wrong” resulted in an immediate and dramatic reduction in stuttering.

scholarly journals Efficacy Trial of Contrasting Approaches to the Response-Contingent Learning of Young Children with Significant Developmental Delays and Multiple Disabilities

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda Raab ◽  
Carl J. Dunst ◽  
Deborah W. Hamby
Keyword(s):  
Young Children ◽  
Developmental Delays ◽  
Primary Caregivers ◽  
Multiple Disabilities ◽  
Learning Opportunities ◽  
Efficacy Trial ◽  
Response Contingent ◽  
Very Young Children ◽  
Randomized Control ◽  
Efficient Learning

Findings from a randomized control design efficacy trial of an asset-based vs. needs-based approach to the response-contingent learning of infants and toddlers with significant developmental delays and disabilities who did not use instrumental behavior to produce or elicit reinforcing consequences are reported. The investigation included 71 children randomly assigned to the two contrasting types of interventions. The asset-based intervention and needs-based intervention differed in terms of how child behavior were identified and used to elicit reinforcing consequences as part of response-contingent learning games implemented by the children’s parents or other primary caregivers. Children in the asset-based group were provided more learning opportunities, acquired more response-contingent behavior, and demonstrated more efficient learning compared to children in the needs-based group. Implications for improving practices for very young children with significant developmental delays and multiple disabilities are described.

scholarly journals Response-contingent and non-contingent informative and redundant secondary reinforcers

1967 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 293-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald F. McCausland ◽  
George W. Menzer ◽  
Thomas K. Dempsey ◽  
John C. Birkimer
Keyword(s):  
Response Contingent
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document