Abstract
The response rates of five groups of rats were observed during exposure to different intensities of a four kilohertz tone within a two-component multiple schedule of nondifferential reinforcement. Response rates were found to be higher during the multiple schedule component which contained the higher intensity tone. Larger differences in response rates between the two multiple schedule components occurred with greater intensity separations (30 versus 20 decibels). At the 30 decibel separation a low absolute magnitude produced larger response rate differences than a high absolute magnitude, while at the 20 decibel separation a high absolute magnitude produced larger response rate differences. Increases in reinforcement density were accompanied by decreases in response rate differences between high and low intensity components only when over-all response rates also increased.
Keywords: stimulus intensity dynamism, stimulus control, bar pressing, rats
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Blue S., Sherman J. G., Pierrel R. Differential responding as a function of auditory stimulus intensity without differential reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 May;15(3):371–377. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.15-371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fleshler M. Adequate acoustic stimulus for startle reaction in the rat. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1965 Oct;60(2):200–207. doi: 10.1037/h0022318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- GRAY J. A. STIMULUS INTENSITY DYNAMISM. Psychol Bull. 1965 Mar;63:180–196. doi: 10.1037/h0021700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hoffman H. S., Searle J. L. Acoustic and temporal factors in the evocation of startle. J Acoust Soc Am. 1968 Feb;43(2):269–282. doi: 10.1121/1.1910776. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- KIEFFER J. D. DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE RATES CORRELATED WITH THE PRESENCE OF "NEUTRAL" STIMULI. J Exp Anal Behav. 1965 Jul;8:227–229. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1965.8-227. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- MOYER K. E. STARTLE RESPONSE: HABITUATION OVER TRIALS AND DAYS, AND SEX AND STRAIN DIFFERENCES. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1963 Oct;56:863–865. doi: 10.1037/h0045861. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marsh G. D. Inverse relationship between discriminability and stimulus generalization as a function of number of test stimuli. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1967 Oct;64(2):284–289. doi: 10.1037/h0088032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pierrel-Sorrentino R., Raslear T. G. Loudness scaling in rats and chinchillas. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1980 Aug;94(4):757–766. doi: 10.1037/h0077692. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pierrel R., Sherman J. G., Blue S., Hegge F. W. Auditory discrimination: a three-variable analysis of intensity effects. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Jan;13(1):17–35. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Raslear T. G. The effects of varying the distribution of generalization stimuli within a constant range upon the bisection of a sound-intensity interval by rats. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 May;23(3):369–375. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sadowsky S. Discrimination learning as a function of stimulus location along an auditory intensity continuum. J Exp Anal Behav. 1966 May;9(3):219–225. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1966.9-219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]