Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1978 Jan;29(1):27–36. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-27

Effect of varying the duration of grain presentation on automaintenance1

Peter D Balsam, Aaron J Brownstein, Richard L Shull
PMCID: PMC1332806  PMID: 16812036

Abstract

In a series of three experiments the effects of variation in grain duration on automaintenance were evaluated. In the first experiment, key illumination was followed by grain only when pigeons did not peck the key. Each subject was exposed to 2-, 4-, and 8-second feeder durations in blocks of 10 sessions. Subjects pecked on a high percentage of trials at all feeder durations. The mean peck latency was shorter in the 8-second condition than in the two other conditions in five of six subjects. The conditional probability of pecking given successive keylight-grain pairings did not increase as the number of pairings increased. The second experiment was identical to the first, except that key pecking had no scheduled consequence. Under these conditions, all three subjects showed substantial responding. The recorded measures showed no systematic relationship to feeder duration in this study. In the third experiment, two different stimuli were followed by feeder presentations of either identical (2- or 8-second) or different (2- and 8-second) durations within each session. Subjects tended to respond sooner and with a higher overall rate in the presence of the stimulus associated with the longer feeder duration only when different feeder durations were presented within the same session. This result was confirmed by direct observation of the pigeons. The results of these experiments suggest that the effects of varying grain duration may be small, compared to the effects of varying other variables. The results also suggest that the location as well as the frequency of pecking may be an important measure in the analysis of factors controlling the pigeon's key peck.

Keywords: automaintenance, autoshaping, omission, reinforcer duration, key peck, pigeons

Full text

PDF
27

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Barrera F. J. Centrifugal selection of signal-directed pecking. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Sep;22(2):341–355. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Catania A. C., Reynolds G. S. A quantitative analysis of the responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 May;11(3 Suppl):327–383. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-s327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Downing K., Neuringer A. Autoshaping as a function of prior food presentations. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Nov;26(3):463–469. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gamzu E. R., Williams D. R. Associative factors underlying the pigeon's key pecking in auto-shaping procedures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Mar;19(2):225–232. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gamzu E., Schwartz B. The maintenance of key pecking by stimulus-contingent and response-independent food presentation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jan;19(1):65–72. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gamzu E., Williams D. R. Classical conditioning of a complex skeletal response. Science. 1971 Mar 5;171(3974):923–925. doi: 10.1126/science.171.3974.923. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Jenkins H. M., Moore B. R. The form of the auto-shaped response with food or water reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Sep;20(2):163–181. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Peterson G. B., Ackilt J. E., Frommer G. P., Hearst E. S. Conditioned Approach and Contact Behavior toward Signals for Food or Brain-Stimulation Reinforcement. Science. 1972 Sep 15;177(4053):1009–1011. doi: 10.1126/science.177.4053.1009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. SHETTLEWORTH S., NEVIN J. A. RELATIVE RATE OF RESPONSE AND RELATIVE MAGNITUDE OF REINFORCEMENT IN MULTIPLE SCHEDULES. J Exp Anal Behav. 1965 Jul;8:199–202. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1965.8-199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Schwartz B. Maintenance of key pecking by response-independent food presentation: the role of the modality of the signal for food. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jul;20(1):17–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Schwartz B., Williams D. R. The role of the response-reinforcer contingency in negative automaintenance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 May;17(3):351–357. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.17-351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Todorov J. C. Interaction of frequency and magnitude of reinforcement on concurrent performances. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 May;19(3):451–458. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-451. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Wasserman E. A., Franklin S. R., Hearst E. Pavlovian appetitive contingencies and approach versus withdrawal to conditioned stimuli in pigeons. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1974 Apr;86(4):616–627. doi: 10.1037/h0036171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Wasserman E. A., McCracken S. B. The disruption of autoshaped key pecking in the pigeon by food-tray illumination. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jul;22(1):39–45. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Wasserman E. A. Pavlovian conditioning with heat reinforcement produces stimulus-directed pecking in chicks. Science. 1973 Aug 31;181(4102):875–877. doi: 10.1126/science.181.4102.875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Williams D. R., Williams H. Auto-maintenance in the pigeon: sustained pecking despite contingent non-reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Jul;12(4):511–520. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES