Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1987 May;47(3):319–333. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.47-319

Topographical variations in behavior during autoshaping, automaintenance, and omission training

Gloria D Eldridge, Joseph J Pear
PMCID: PMC1348315  PMID: 16812484

Abstract

Three pigeons were exposed to an autoshaping and automaintenance procedure while a computer-controlled tracking system continuously recorded the position of the bird's head as it moved freely in the experimental chamber. Although only 2 birds pecked the key during the conditional stimulus (red keylight), all 3 birds exhibited stable patterns of approaching the conditional stimulus and withdrawing from the intertrial stimulus (white keylight). Subsequent exposure to an omission procedure, in which pecks on the red key cancelled the presentation of food upon the termination of the red keylight, greatly reduced key pecking, but approaching and pecking in the vicinity of the conditional stimulus were maintained at high levels. When the omission contingency was removed key pecking increased. During all phases the birds withdrew from the area of the white key and engaged in repetitive back-and-forth or circuiting movements during this intertrial stimulus. The data document (a) the strong control the conditional stimulus in autoshaping and automaintenance exerts over approach to the key and pecking motions whether or not the conditional stimulus elicits key pecking at a high level; and (b) withdrawal from the vicinity of the key and the occurrence of stereotypic behavior during the intertrial interval.

Keywords: automaintenance, autoshaping, omission training, response reinforcer, stimulus reinforcer, key peck, pigeons

Full text

PDF
319

Selected References

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

  1. Atnip G. W. Stimulus- and response-reinforcer contingencies in autoshaping, operant, classical, and omission training procedures in rats. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jul;28(1):59–69. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.28-59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. Innis N. K., Simmelhag-Grant V. L., Staddon J. E. Behavior induced by periodic food delivery: The effects of interfood interval. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Mar;39(2):309–322. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-309. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. O'connell M. F. Temporal distributions of responding during discrete-trial omission training in rats. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jan;31(1):31–40. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Pear J. J., Eldridge G. D. The operant-respondent distinction: Future directions. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Nov;42(3):453–467. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.42-453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Pear J. J. Spatiotemporal patterns of behavior produced by variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Sep;44(2):217–231. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.44-217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. Stiers M., Silberberg A. Lever-contact responses in rats: automaintenance with and without a negative response-reinforcer dependency. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Nov;22(3):497–506. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-497. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Timberlake W., Lucas G. A. The basis of superstitious behavior: chance contingency, stimulus substitution, or appetitive behavior? J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Nov;44(3):279–299. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.44-279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Wessells M. G. The effects of reinforcement upon the prepecking behaviors of pigeons in the autoshaping experiment. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jan;21(1):125–144. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-125. [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. Woodard W. T., Ballinger J. C., Bitterman M. E. Autoshaping: further study of "negative automaintenance". J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jul;22(1):47–51. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Woodruff G., Conner N., Gamzu E., Williams D. R. Associative interaction: joint control of key pecking by stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relationships. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Sep;28(2):133–144. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.28-133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Woodruff G., Williams D. R. The associative relation underlying autoshaping in the pigeon. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Jul;26(1):1–13. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-1. [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