RESPONSE ACQUISITION WITH DELAYED REINFORCEMENT: A COMPARISON OF TWO-LEVER PROCEDURES

Groups of 8 experimentally naive rats were exposed during 8‐hr sessions to resetting delay procedures in which responses on one lever (the reinforcement lever) produced water after a delay of 8, 16, 32, or 64 s. For rats in one condition, responses on a second (no‐consequences) lever had no programm...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 1998-01, Vol.69 (1), p.17-28
Hauptverfasser: Sutphin, Glen, Byrne, Tom, Poling, Alan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 28
container_issue 1
container_start_page 17
container_title Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior
container_volume 69
creator Sutphin, Glen
Byrne, Tom
Poling, Alan
description Groups of 8 experimentally naive rats were exposed during 8‐hr sessions to resetting delay procedures in which responses on one lever (the reinforcement lever) produced water after a delay of 8, 16, 32, or 64 s. For rats in one condition, responses on a second (no‐consequences) lever had no programmed consequences. For rats in another condition, responses on a second (cancellation) lever during a delay initiated by a response on the reinforcement lever prevented delivery of the scheduled reinforcer; responses on the cancellation lever at other times had no programmed consequences. Under both conditions and at all delays, most subjects emitted more responses on the reinforcement lever than did control rats that never received water emitted on either lever. At 8‐s delays, both conditions engendered substantially more responding on the reinforcement lever than on the other lever, and performance closely resembled that of immediate‐reinforcement controls. At delays of 16 and 32 s, however, there was clear differential responding on the two levers under the cancellation condition but not under the other condition. When the delay was 64 s, differential responding on the two levers did not occur consistently under either condition. These findings provide strong evidence that the behavior of rats is sensitive to consequences delayed by 8, 16, and 32 s, but only equivocal evidence of such sensitivity to consequences delayed 64 s. They also indicate that acquisition depends, in part, on the measure of performance used to index it.
doi_str_mv 10.1901/jeab.1998.69-17
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1284645</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>16415729</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5305-7ca94996b03c3126b4a91f71a6b86747a246168812bbf44a7b5ef23189a88e3d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc9v0zAUxy0EGmVw5oQUceCWLc92_IMDUkjdNVOXdGlKBRfLyRxISZuRtMD-exK1qoDLLvaTvp_3ffb7IvQavAuQHlyurcn7SooLJl3gT9AIJBEu4QBP0cjzMHb9_nyOXnTdui8k4_gMnUnKfAowQstULeZJvFBOEN4uo0WURUnsrKJs6ozVLPisxk6qoniSpKG6UXH23gmcMLmZB2m06MFk4mSrxJ2pTyp15mkSqvHg-BI9K03d2VfH-xwtJyoLp-4suYrCYOYWPvF8lxdGUilZ7pGCAGY5NRJKDoblgnHKDaYMmBCA87yk1PDctyUmIKQRwpI7co4-HHzv9_nG3hV2u2tNre_bamPaB92YSv-rbKtv-mvzUwMWlFG_N3h3NGibH3vb7fSm6gpb12Zrm32nuWQChOCPgsAo-BzLHnz7H7hu9u2234LGQAWhmNMeujxARdt0XWvL05PB00OueshVD7lqJjUM89_8_dMTfwyy1_2D_quq7cNjdvpaBR-JJ4cFuIe-qtvZ36c-037XjBPu61V8pcMpWY1vv1xrTv4A6ha2OQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>214834274</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>RESPONSE ACQUISITION WITH DELAYED REINFORCEMENT: A COMPARISON OF TWO-LEVER PROCEDURES</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Sutphin, Glen ; Byrne, Tom ; Poling, Alan</creator><creatorcontrib>Sutphin, Glen ; Byrne, Tom ; Poling, Alan</creatorcontrib><description>Groups of 8 experimentally naive rats were exposed during 8‐hr sessions to resetting delay procedures in which responses on one lever (the reinforcement lever) produced water after a delay of 8, 16, 32, or 64 s. For rats in one condition, responses on a second (no‐consequences) lever had no programmed consequences. For rats in another condition, responses on a second (cancellation) lever during a delay initiated by a response on the reinforcement lever prevented delivery of the scheduled reinforcer; responses on the cancellation lever at other times had no programmed consequences. Under both conditions and at all delays, most subjects emitted more responses on the reinforcement lever than did control rats that never received water emitted on either lever. At 8‐s delays, both conditions engendered substantially more responding on the reinforcement lever than on the other lever, and performance closely resembled that of immediate‐reinforcement controls. At delays of 16 and 32 s, however, there was clear differential responding on the two levers under the cancellation condition but not under the other condition. When the delay was 64 s, differential responding on the two levers did not occur consistently under either condition. These findings provide strong evidence that the behavior of rats is sensitive to consequences delayed by 8, 16, and 32 s, but only equivocal evidence of such sensitivity to consequences delayed 64 s. They also indicate that acquisition depends, in part, on the measure of performance used to index it.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-5002</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-3711</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1998.69-17</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9465411</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JEABAU</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Animal behavior ; Animals ; Behavior, Animal - physiology ; Conditioning, Operant - physiology ; delayed reinforcement ; Discrimination Learning - physiology ; Experiments ; Feedback (Response) ; Humans ; lever press ; Rats ; Rats, Sprague-Dawley - psychology ; Reinforcement (Psychology) ; response acquisition ; Rodents ; Time Factors ; Water</subject><ispartof>Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1998-01, Vol.69 (1), p.17-28</ispartof><rights>1998 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior</rights><rights>Copyright Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, Incorporated Jan 1998</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5305-7ca94996b03c3126b4a91f71a6b86747a246168812bbf44a7b5ef23189a88e3d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5305-7ca94996b03c3126b4a91f71a6b86747a246168812bbf44a7b5ef23189a88e3d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1284645/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1284645/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9465411$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sutphin, Glen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Byrne, Tom</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poling, Alan</creatorcontrib><title>RESPONSE ACQUISITION WITH DELAYED REINFORCEMENT: A COMPARISON OF TWO-LEVER PROCEDURES</title><title>Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior</title><addtitle>J Exp Anal Behav</addtitle><description>Groups of 8 experimentally naive rats were exposed during 8‐hr sessions to resetting delay procedures in which responses on one lever (the reinforcement lever) produced water after a delay of 8, 16, 32, or 64 s. For rats in one condition, responses on a second (no‐consequences) lever had no programmed consequences. For rats in another condition, responses on a second (cancellation) lever during a delay initiated by a response on the reinforcement lever prevented delivery of the scheduled reinforcer; responses on the cancellation lever at other times had no programmed consequences. Under both conditions and at all delays, most subjects emitted more responses on the reinforcement lever than did control rats that never received water emitted on either lever. At 8‐s delays, both conditions engendered substantially more responding on the reinforcement lever than on the other lever, and performance closely resembled that of immediate‐reinforcement controls. At delays of 16 and 32 s, however, there was clear differential responding on the two levers under the cancellation condition but not under the other condition. When the delay was 64 s, differential responding on the two levers did not occur consistently under either condition. These findings provide strong evidence that the behavior of rats is sensitive to consequences delayed by 8, 16, and 32 s, but only equivocal evidence of such sensitivity to consequences delayed 64 s. They also indicate that acquisition depends, in part, on the measure of performance used to index it.</description><subject>Animal behavior</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Behavior, Animal - physiology</subject><subject>Conditioning, Operant - physiology</subject><subject>delayed reinforcement</subject><subject>Discrimination Learning - physiology</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Feedback (Response)</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>lever press</subject><subject>Rats</subject><subject>Rats, Sprague-Dawley - psychology</subject><subject>Reinforcement (Psychology)</subject><subject>response acquisition</subject><subject>Rodents</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Water</subject><issn>0022-5002</issn><issn>1938-3711</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc9v0zAUxy0EGmVw5oQUceCWLc92_IMDUkjdNVOXdGlKBRfLyRxISZuRtMD-exK1qoDLLvaTvp_3ffb7IvQavAuQHlyurcn7SooLJl3gT9AIJBEu4QBP0cjzMHb9_nyOXnTdui8k4_gMnUnKfAowQstULeZJvFBOEN4uo0WURUnsrKJs6ozVLPisxk6qoniSpKG6UXH23gmcMLmZB2m06MFk4mSrxJ2pTyp15mkSqvHg-BI9K03d2VfH-xwtJyoLp-4suYrCYOYWPvF8lxdGUilZ7pGCAGY5NRJKDoblgnHKDaYMmBCA87yk1PDctyUmIKQRwpI7co4-HHzv9_nG3hV2u2tNre_bamPaB92YSv-rbKtv-mvzUwMWlFG_N3h3NGibH3vb7fSm6gpb12Zrm32nuWQChOCPgsAo-BzLHnz7H7hu9u2234LGQAWhmNMeujxARdt0XWvL05PB00OueshVD7lqJjUM89_8_dMTfwyy1_2D_quq7cNjdvpaBR-JJ4cFuIe-qtvZ36c-037XjBPu61V8pcMpWY1vv1xrTv4A6ha2OQ</recordid><startdate>199801</startdate><enddate>199801</enddate><creator>Sutphin, Glen</creator><creator>Byrne, Tom</creator><creator>Poling, Alan</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199801</creationdate><title>RESPONSE ACQUISITION WITH DELAYED REINFORCEMENT: A COMPARISON OF TWO-LEVER PROCEDURES</title><author>Sutphin, Glen ; Byrne, Tom ; Poling, Alan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5305-7ca94996b03c3126b4a91f71a6b86747a246168812bbf44a7b5ef23189a88e3d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Animal behavior</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Behavior, Animal - physiology</topic><topic>Conditioning, Operant - physiology</topic><topic>delayed reinforcement</topic><topic>Discrimination Learning - physiology</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Feedback (Response)</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>lever press</topic><topic>Rats</topic><topic>Rats, Sprague-Dawley - psychology</topic><topic>Reinforcement (Psychology)</topic><topic>response acquisition</topic><topic>Rodents</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Water</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sutphin, Glen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Byrne, Tom</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poling, Alan</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sutphin, Glen</au><au>Byrne, Tom</au><au>Poling, Alan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>RESPONSE ACQUISITION WITH DELAYED REINFORCEMENT: A COMPARISON OF TWO-LEVER PROCEDURES</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior</jtitle><addtitle>J Exp Anal Behav</addtitle><date>1998-01</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>69</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>17</spage><epage>28</epage><pages>17-28</pages><issn>0022-5002</issn><eissn>1938-3711</eissn><coden>JEABAU</coden><abstract>Groups of 8 experimentally naive rats were exposed during 8‐hr sessions to resetting delay procedures in which responses on one lever (the reinforcement lever) produced water after a delay of 8, 16, 32, or 64 s. For rats in one condition, responses on a second (no‐consequences) lever had no programmed consequences. For rats in another condition, responses on a second (cancellation) lever during a delay initiated by a response on the reinforcement lever prevented delivery of the scheduled reinforcer; responses on the cancellation lever at other times had no programmed consequences. Under both conditions and at all delays, most subjects emitted more responses on the reinforcement lever than did control rats that never received water emitted on either lever. At 8‐s delays, both conditions engendered substantially more responding on the reinforcement lever than on the other lever, and performance closely resembled that of immediate‐reinforcement controls. At delays of 16 and 32 s, however, there was clear differential responding on the two levers under the cancellation condition but not under the other condition. When the delay was 64 s, differential responding on the two levers did not occur consistently under either condition. These findings provide strong evidence that the behavior of rats is sensitive to consequences delayed by 8, 16, and 32 s, but only equivocal evidence of such sensitivity to consequences delayed 64 s. They also indicate that acquisition depends, in part, on the measure of performance used to index it.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>9465411</pmid><doi>10.1901/jeab.1998.69-17</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-5002
ispartof Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1998-01, Vol.69 (1), p.17-28
issn 0022-5002
1938-3711
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1284645
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Animal behavior
Animals
Behavior, Animal - physiology
Conditioning, Operant - physiology
delayed reinforcement
Discrimination Learning - physiology
Experiments
Feedback (Response)
Humans
lever press
Rats
Rats, Sprague-Dawley - psychology
Reinforcement (Psychology)
response acquisition
Rodents
Time Factors
Water
title RESPONSE ACQUISITION WITH DELAYED REINFORCEMENT: A COMPARISON OF TWO-LEVER PROCEDURES
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T20%3A44%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=RESPONSE%20ACQUISITION%20WITH%20DELAYED%20REINFORCEMENT:%20A%20COMPARISON%20OF%20TWO-LEVER%20PROCEDURES&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20experimental%20analysis%20of%20behavior&rft.au=Sutphin,%20Glen&rft.date=1998-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=17&rft.epage=28&rft.pages=17-28&rft.issn=0022-5002&rft.eissn=1938-3711&rft.coden=JEABAU&rft_id=info:doi/10.1901/jeab.1998.69-17&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E16415729%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=214834274&rft_id=info:pmid/9465411&rfr_iscdi=true