Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 68, Issue 2, pp 151–162 | Cite as

Delay Gradients for Spout-Licking and Magazine-Entering Induced by a Periodic Food Schedule

  • Ricardo Pellón
  • Javier Íbias
  • Peter R. Killeen
Original Article
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

The present experiments studied impulsivity by manipulating the delay between target responses and presentation of a reinforcer. Food-deprived SHR, WKY, and Wistar rats were exposed to a fixed-time 30-s schedule of food pellet presentation until they developed stable patterns of water spout-licking and magazine-entering. In successive phases of the study, a resetting delay contingency postponed food delivery if target responses (licks or entries) occurred within the last 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 25, or 28 s of the inter-food interval. Response-food delays were applied independently for the two behaviors during separate experimental phases, and order of presentation and the behavior that was punished first were counterbalanced. Licking was induced in the order of Wistar > SHR > WKY, and magazine entries were in the order of SHR > WKY > Wistar. Magazine entries showed steeper delay gradients than licking in SHR and Wistar rats but were of similar great inclination in the WKY rats. The different responses were differentially sensitive to delays. This suggests a different ordering of them in the interval between reinforcers. It also has implications for attempts to change impulsive behavior, both in terms of the nature of the response and its removal from reinforcing consequences.

Keywords

Schedule-induced behavior Licks Magazine entries Response-food delays Strain differences Rats 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interests

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.

References

  1. Ainslie, G. (1974). Impulse control in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 485–489.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Alsop, B. (2007). Problems with spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) as a model of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD). Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162, 42–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Álvarez, B., Íbias, J., & Pellón, R. (2016). Reinforcement of schedule-induced drinking in rats by lick-contingent shortening of food delivery. Learning and Behavior, 44, 329–339.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ardoy, J., & Pellón, R. (2004). Effects of withholding the opportunity to press the operant lever on the maintenance of schedule-induced drinking in rats. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 30, 79–91.Google Scholar
  5. Atnip, G. W. (1977). Stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer contingencies in autoshaping, operant, classical, and omission training procedures in rats. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 28, 59–69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Azrin, N. H. (1960). Sequential effects of punishment. Science, 131, 605–606.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Blough, D. S. (1972). Recognition by the pigeon of stimuli varying in two dimensions. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 18, 345–367.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Boakes, R. A. (1977). Performance on learning to associate a stimulus with positive reinforcement. In H. Davis & H. M. B. Hurwitz (Eds.), Operant-Pavlovian interactions (pp. 67–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Brackney, R. J., Cheung, T. H., Herbst, K., Hill, J. C., & Sanabria, F. (2012). Extinction learning deficit in a rodent model of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 8, 59.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Catania, A. C. (2005a). The nonmaintenance of behavior by noncontingent reinforcement. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 6, 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Catania, A. C. (2005b). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Delay-of-reinforcement gradients and other behavioral mechanisms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 419–424.Google Scholar
  12. Chelonis, J. J., & Logue, A. W. (1996). Effects of response type on pigeons’ sensitivity to variation in reinforcer amount and reinforcer delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66, 297–309.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Chelonis, J. J., & Logue, A. (1997). Effects of reinforcer type on rats’ sensitivity to variation in reinforcer amount and reinforcer delay. Behavioural Processes, 39, 187–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Chelonis, J. J., Logue, A. W., Sheehy, R., & Mao, J. (1998). Effects of response effort on self-control in rats. Animal Learning & Behavior, 26, 408–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Costa, D. S. J., & Boakes, R. A. (2009). Context blocking in rat autoshaping: Sign-tracking versus goal-tracking. Learning and Motivation, 40, 178–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drolet, G., Proulx, K., Pearson, D., Rochford, J., & Deschepper, C. (2002). Comparisons of behavioral and neurochemical characteristics between WKY, WKHA, and Wistar rat strains. Neuropsychopharmacology, 27, 400–409.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Falk, J. L. (1964). Studies on schedule-induced polydipsia. In M. J. Wayner (Ed.), Thirst: First international symposium on thirst in the regulation of body water (pp. 95–116). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  18. Farwell, B. J., & Ayres, J. J. B. (1979). Stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relations in the control of conditioned appetitive headpoking (“goal tracking”) in rats. Learning and Motivation, 10, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fox, A. T., Hand, D. J., & Reilly, M. P. (2008). Impulsive choice in a rodent model of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Behavioural Brain Research, 187, 146–152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibbon, J., Baldock, M. D., Locurto, C. M., Gold, L., & Terrace, H. S. (1977). Trial and intertrial durations in autoshaping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 3, 264–284.Google Scholar
  21. Gottlieb, D. A., & Begej, E. L. (2014). Principles of Pavlovian conditioning: Description, content, function. In F. K. McSweeney & E. S. Murphy (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of operant and classical conditioning (pp. 3–25). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Green, L., Myerson, J., Holt, D. D., Slevin, J. R., & Estle, S. J. (2004). Discounting of delayed food rewards in pigeons and rats: Is there a magnitude effect? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 81, 39–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Green, L., Myerson, J., & Ostaszewski, P. (1999). Amount of reward has opposite effects on the discounting of delayed and probabilistic outcomes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 418-427.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hand, D. J., Fox, A. T., & Reilly, M. P. (2006). Response acquisition with delayed reinforcement in a rodent model of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Behavioural Brain Research, 175, 337–342.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hand, D. J., Fox, A. T., & Reilly, M. P. (2009). Differential effects of d-amphetamine on impulsive choice in spontaneously hypertensive and Wistar-Kyoto rats. Behavioural Pharmacology, 20, 549–553.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Harris, J. A., Andrew, B. J., & Kwok, D. W. (2013). Magazine approach during a signal for food depends on Pavlovian, not instrumental, conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 39, 107.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hill, J. C., Covarrubias, P., Terry, J., & Sanabria, F. (2012). The effect of methylphenidate and rearing environment on behavioral inhibition in adult male rats. Psychopharmacology, 219, 353–362.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Holt, D. D., Carlson, J. D., Follett, V. L., Jerdee, N. J., Kelley III, D. P., Muhich, K. M., Tiry, A. M., & Reetz, N. K. (2013). Response factors in delay discounting: Evidence for Pavlovian influences on delay discounting in pigeons. Behavioural Processes, 98, 37–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hsieh, Y. L., & Chang, C. C. (2008). Age-series characteristics of locomotor activities in spontaneously hypertensive rats: A comparison with the Wistar-Kyoto strain. Physiology & Behavior, 93, 777–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Íbias, J., Miguéns, M., & Pellón, R. (2016). Effects of dopamine agents on a schedule-induced polydipsia procedure in the spontaneously hypertensive rat and in Wistar control rats. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 30, 856–866.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Íbias, J., & Pellón, R. (2011). Schedule-induced polydipsia in the spontaneously hypertensive rat and its relation to impulsive behaviour. Behavioural Brain Research, 223, 58–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Íbias, J., & Pellón, R. (2014). Different relations between schedule-induced polydipsia and impulsive behaviour in the spontaneously hypertensive rat and in high impulsive Wistar rats: Questioning the role of impulsivity in adjunctive behaviour. Behavioural Brain Research, 271, 184–194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Íbias, J., Pellón, R., & Sanabria, F. (2015). A microstructural analysis of schedule-induced polydipsia reveals incentive-induced hyperactivity in an animal model of ADHD. Behavioural Brain Research, 278, 417–423.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Johansen, E. B., Aase, H., Meyer, A., & Sagvolden, T. (2002). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) behaviour explained by dysfunctioning reinforcement and extinction processes. Behavioral Brain Research, 130, 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johansen, E. B., Killeen, P. R., & Sagvolden, T. (2007). Behavioral variability, elimination of responses, and delay-of-reinforcement gradients in SHR and WKY rats. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 3, 60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Johansen, E. B., Sagvolden, T., & Kvande, G. (2005). Effects of delayed reinforcers on the behavior of an animal model of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Behavioural Brain Research, 162, 47–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Kearns, D. N., Gomez-Serrano, M. A., Weiss, S. J., & Riley, A. L. (2006). A comparison of Lewis and Fischer rat strains on autoshaping (sign-tracking), discrimination reversal learning and negative automaintenance. Behavioural Brain Research, 169, 193–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Keehn, J. D., & Stoyanov, E. (1983). Disruption of adjunctive drinking by lick-dependent delays in feeding. The Psychological Record, 33, 391–400.Google Scholar
  39. Killeen, P. R. (2005). Gradus and parnassum: Ascending strength gradients or descending memory traces? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 432–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Killeen, P. R. (2011). Models of trace decay, eligibility for reinforcement, and delay of reinforcement gradients, from exponential to hyperboloid. Behavioural Processes, 8, 57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Killeen, P. R. (2014). Pavlov + Skinner = Premack. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 27, 544–568.Google Scholar
  42. Killeen, P. R. (2015a). Models of ADHD: Five ways smaller sooner is better. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 252, 2–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Killeen, P. R. (2015b). Signal detection theory. In H. L. Miller (Ed.), Encyclopedia of theory in psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 855–859). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Killeen, P. R., & Pellón, R. (2013). Adjunctive behaviors are operants. Learning & Behavior, 41, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Killeen, P. R., Sanabria, F., & Dolgov, I. (2009). The dynamics of conditioning and extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 35, 447–472.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Killeen, P. R., Tannock, R., & Sagvolden, T. (2012). The four causes of ADHD: A framework. In S. C. Stanford & R. Tannock (Eds.), Behavioral neuroscience of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and its treatment (Vol. 9, pp. 391–425). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Killeen, P. R., Taylor, T. J., & Treviño, M. (2018). Subjects adjust criterion on errors in perceptual decision tasks. Psychological Review, 125, 117-130.Google Scholar
  48. Lajoie, J., & Bindra, D. (1976). An interpretation of autoshaping and related phenomena in terms of stimulus-incentive contingencies alone. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 30, 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maier, N., & Schneirla, T. (1935). Principles of animal psychology (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  50. Marshall, A. T., Smith, A. P., & Kirkpatrick, K. (2014). Mechanisms of impulsive choice: I. Individual differences in interval timing and reward processing. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 102, 86–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Marston, H. M. (1996). Analysis of cognitive function in animals, the value of SDT. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 269–277.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Mazur, J. E., & Logue, A. W. (1978). Choice in a “self-control” paradigm: Effects of a fading procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 30, 11–17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. McAuley, J. D., Stewart, A. L., Webber, E. S., Cromwell, H. C., Servatius, R. J., & Pang, K. C. H. (2009). Wistar–Kyoto rats as an animal model of anxiety vulnerability: Support for a hypervigilance hypothesis. Behavioural Brain Research, 204, 162–168.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Murre, J. M. J., & Chessa, A. G. (2011). Power laws from individual differences in learning and forgetting: Mathematical analyses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 592–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Myerson, J., Green, L., & Warusawitharana, M. (2001). Area under the curve as a measure of discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76, 235–243.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Ong, E. L., & White, K. G. (2004). Amount-dependent temporal discounting? Behavioural Processes, 66, 201–212.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Orduña, V. (2015). Impulsivity and sensitivity to amount and delay of reinforcement in an animal model of ADHD. Behavioural Brain Research, 296, 62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Orduña, V., Valencia-Torres, L., & Bouzas, A. (2009). DRL performance of spontaneously hypertensive rats: Dissociation of timing and inhibition of responses. Behavioural Brain Research, 201, 158–165.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Patterson, A. E., & Boakes, R. A. (2012). Interval, blocking and marking effects during the development of schedule-induced drinking in rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 38, 303–314.Google Scholar
  60. Pellón, R., & Killeen, P. R. (2015). Responses compete and collaborate, shaping each-other’s distributions: Commentary on Boakes, Patterson, Kendig, and Harris (2015). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 41, 444–451.Google Scholar
  61. Pellón, R., & Pérez-Padilla, Á. (2013). Response-food delay gradients for lever pressing and schedule-induced licking in rats. Learning & Behavior, 41, 218–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rachlin, H., & Green, L. (1972). Commitment, choice and self-control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 15–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Reid, A. K., Bachá, G., & Morán, C. (1993). The temporal organization of behavior on periodic food schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 1–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Ruiz, J. A., López-Tolsa, G. E., & Pellón, R. (2016). Reinforcing and timing properties of water in the schedule-induced drinking situation. Behavioural Processes, 127, 86–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Sanabria, F., & Killeen, P. R. (2008). Evidence for impulsivity in the spontaneously hypertensive rat drawn from complementary response-withholding tasks. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 4, 7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Sanabria, F., Sitomer, M. T., & Killeen, P. R. (2006). Negative automaintenance omission training is effective. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 86, 1–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Segal, E. F. (1972). Induction and the provenance of operants. In R. M. Gilbert & J. R. Millenson (Eds.), Reinforcement: Behavioral analyses (pp. 1–34). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  68. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  69. Staddon, J. E. R., & Ayres, S. L. (1975). Sequential and temporal properties of behavior induced by a schedule of periodic food delivery. Behavior, 54, 26–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stiers, M., & Silberberg, A. (1974). Lever-contact responses in rats: Automaintenance with and without a negative response-reinforcer dependency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 497–506.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Toplak, M. E., & Tannock, R. (2005). Time perception: Modality and duration effects in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 639–654.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. van Haaren, F. (2015). Automatic negative reinforcement: Its possible role in problem behavior with treatment implications. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 15, 161–170.Google Scholar
  73. Will, C. C., Aird, F., & Redei, E. E. (2003). Selectively bred Wistar-Kyoto rats: An animal model of depression and hyper-responsiveness to antidepressants. Molecular Psychiatry, 8, 925–932.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Williams, D. R., & Williams, H. (1969). Auto-maintenance in the pigeon: Sustained pecking despite contingent non-reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 511–520.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Psicología Básica I, Facultad de PsicologíaUniversidad Nacional de Educación a DistanciaMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations