Generalization peak shift for autoshaped and operant key pecks
- PMID: 1573370
- PMCID: PMC1323117
- DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1992.57-127
Generalization peak shift for autoshaped and operant key pecks
Abstract
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.
Similar articles
-
An investigation of peak shift and behavioral contrast for autoshaped and operant behavior.J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Jan;33(1):101-18. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.33-101. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980. PMID: 7365398 Free PMC article.
-
Acquisition and maintenance of autoshaped key pecking as a function of food stimulus and key stimulus similarity.J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Nov;38(3):281-9. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.38-281. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982. PMID: 7175429 Free PMC article.
-
Discriminated interresponse times: role of autoshaped responses.J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Nov;44(3):301-13. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.44-301. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985. PMID: 4086973 Free PMC article.
-
The role of observing and attention in establishing stimulus control.J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 May;43(3):365-81. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-365. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985. PMID: 3894561 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Animal timing: a synthetic approach.Anim Cogn. 2016 Jul;19(4):707-32. doi: 10.1007/s10071-016-0977-2. Epub 2016 Mar 21. Anim Cogn. 2016. PMID: 27000781 Review.
Cited by
-
The nature of sexual reinforcement.J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Jul;60(1):55-66. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.60-55. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993. PMID: 8354970 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Selective associations produced solely with appetitive contingencies: the stimulus-reinforcer interaction revisited.J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Mar;59(2):309-22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.59-309. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993. PMID: 8454957 Free PMC article.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources