Abstract
Attenuation of conditioned suppression during intracranial stimulation was compared with that during food reinforcement. Response rates controlled by food and by brain stimulation were equalized on a multiple schedule by adjusting the stimulating current. When foot shock was delivered during timeout periods separating response components, responding for food was significantly more suppressed than responding for brain stimulation. When components were shortened from 10 to 2 minutes, responding maintained by either food or brain stimulation showed a similar temporal pattern of suppression preceding each shock, but responding in the component involving food remained significantly more suppressed. Explanations for the attenuated suppression during brain stimulation based on neural disruption, stimulus blocking, and analgesic properties were questioned. The increased responding during brain stimulation seemed to reflect greater response strength relative to food reinforced responding.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- BRADY J. V., CONRAD D. G. Some effects of limbic system selfstimulation upon conditioned emotional behavior. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1960 Apr;53:128–137. doi: 10.1037/h0040827. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Blackman D. Response rate, reinforcement frequency, and conditioned suppression. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Sep;11(5):503–516. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Breglio V., Anderson D. C., Merrill H. K. Alteration in footschock threshold by low-level septal brain stimulation. Physiol Behav. 1970 Jul;5(7):715–719. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(70)90268-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Cox V. C., Valenstein E. S. Attenuation of Aversive Properties of Peripheral Shock by Hypothalamic Stimulation. Science. 1965 Jul 16;149(3681):323–325. doi: 10.1126/science.149.3681.323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Geller I. Effect of punishment on lever pressing maintained by food reward or brain stimulation. Physiol Behav. 1970 Feb;5(2):203–206. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(70)90065-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Goldstein R. Effects of noncontingent septal stimulation on the CER in the rat. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1966 Feb;61(1):132–135. doi: 10.1037/h0022877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Merrill H. K., Lott W. J., Bergen B. J. Attenuation of a conditioned emotional response via reinforcing intracranial stimulation in rats. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1970 Jun;71(3):426–434. doi: 10.1037/h0029125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Rose M. D. Pain-reducing properties of rewarding electrical brain stimulation in the rat. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1974 Oct;87(4):607–617. doi: 10.1037/h0036975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Russell P. J. Conditioned suppression of behavior maintained by intracranial stimulation as a function of stimulation intensity. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Mar;23(2):277–283. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]