Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1982 May;37(3):393–406. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-393

Choice as a dependent measure in autoshaping: sensitivity to frequency and duration of food presentation.

M Picker, A Poling
PMCID: PMC1333155  PMID: 7097152

Abstract

Previous investigations have shown that rate, latency, and percentage of trials with at least one response are somewhat insensitive measures of the strength of autoshaped responding. In the present studies, these measures were contrasted with the allocation of responding during simultaneous choice tests, a measure of response strength frequently used in operant paradigms. In two experiments, nine pigeons were exposed to a forward pairing autoshaping procedure. Training sessions consisted of the successive presentation of three stimuli, each followed by food on either 100%, 50%, or 0% of the trials. Choice testing involved the simultaneous presentation of the three stimuli. In Experiment I, all pigeons consistently directed their initial choice responses and the majority of subsequent responses to the stimulus always followed by food, despite the fact that during training sessions the response rates of most birds were highest in the presence of the stimulus followed by food on 50% of the trials. In Experiment II, rate, latency, and percentage of trials with at least one response did not change appreciably as a function of duration of feeder presentations. However, choice responding was lawfully affected by duration of feeder presentations. These data suggest that choice is perhaps a more sensitive measure of the strength of autoshaped responding than other, more commonly employed, indices.

Full text

PDF
399

Selected References

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

  1. Balsam P. D., Brownstein A. J., Shull R. L. Effect of varying the duration of grain presentation on automaintenance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Jan;29(1):27–36. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown P. L., Jenkins H. M. Auto-shaping of the pigeon's key-peck. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Jan;11(1):1–8. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gonzalez F. A. Effects of varying the percentage of key illuminations paired with food in a positive automaintenance procedure. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Nov;22(3):483–489. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. HERRNSTEIN R. J. Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jul;4:267–272. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hursh S. R., Navarick D. J., Fantino E. "Automaintenance": the role of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jan;21(1):117–124. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Nevin J. A. Response strength in multiple schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 May;21(3):389–408. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Perkins C. C., Beavers W. O., Hancock R. A., Hemmendinger P. C., Hemmendinger D., Ricci J. A. Some variables affecting rate of key pecking during response-independent procedures (autoshaping). J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Jul;24(1):59–72. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Poling A., Thompson T. The effects of d-amphetamine on the automaintained key pecking of pigeons. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1977 Mar 16;51(3):285–288. doi: 10.1007/BF00431637. [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. Studies of operant and reflexive key pecks in the pigeon. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Mar;27(2):301–313. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-301. [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. 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]
  14. Young J. S. Discrete-trial choice in pigeons: Effects of reinforcer magnitude. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Jan;35(1):23–29. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.35-23. [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