Advertisement

Animal Learning & Behavior

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 257–262 | Cite as

Applying Konorski’s model of classical conditioning to signal-centered behavior in the rat: Some functional similarities between hunger CRs and sign-tracking

  • Graham C. L. Davey
  • Gary G. Cleland
  • David A. Oakley
Article

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to investigate functional similarities between “hunger CRs” of Konorski’s (1967) model of appetitive classical conditioning and sign-tracking behavior in rats. Konorski’s model predicts that hunger CRs will be facilitated (1) when a nonrein-forced stimulus similar to the reinforced CS is introduced, and (2) when some CS presentations are unexpectedly nonreinforced. In Experiment 1, hungry rats acquired a leverpress response to a retractable lever that was paired with response-independent food. Following this training, a second lever was introduced whose presentation was not followed by food. The effect of the presence of this second lever was to facilitate responding to the original lever. In Experiment 2, single-lever autoshaping training was followed by a shift from 100% pairing of the lever with food to only 50% of the lever presentations being followed by food. The introduction of partial reinforcement produced an immediate and durable increase in leverpressing. The findings of both experiments are consistent with predictions from Konorski’s model of classical conditioning if sign-tracking is considered as a “hunger CR.”

Keywords

Conditioned Stimulus Classical Conditioning Food Delivery Behavioral Contrast Food Tray 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Reference Notes

  1. Davey, G. C. L.Autoshaping in the rat: CS and US approach in three autoshaping procedures. Unpublished manuscript, 1977.Google Scholar

References

  1. Boakes, R. A. Performance on learning to associate a stimulus with positive reinforcement. In H. Davies & H. M. B. Hurwitz (Eds.),Operant-Pavlovian interactions. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1977.Google Scholar
  2. Boakes, B. A. Interaction between Type I and Type II processes involving positive reinforcement. In A. Dickinson & R. A. Boakes (Eds.),Mechanisms of learning and motivation: A memorial volume to Jerzy Konorski. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, A., &Jenkins, H. M. Autoshaping of the pigeon’s key peck.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1968,11, 1–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cleland, G. G., &Davey, G. C. L. The effect of satiation on sign-tracking and goal-tracking in the rat.IRCS Medical Science, 1981,9, 994–995. (Abstract)Google Scholar
  5. Davey, G. C. L. Animal learning and conditioning. London: Macmillan, 1981.Google Scholar
  6. Davey, G. C. L., Oakley, D., &Cleland, G. G. Autoshaping in the rat: Effects of omission on the form of the response.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1981,36, 75–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Davey, G. C. L., Phillips, S., &Cleland, G. G. The topography of signal-centred behaviour in the rat: The effects of solid and liquid food reinforcers.Behaviour Analysis Letters, 1981,1, 331–337.Google Scholar
  8. Dickinson, A., &Boakes, R. A. (Eds.).Mechanisms of learning and motivation: A memorial volume to Jerzy Konorski. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1979.Google Scholar
  9. Farwell, B. J., &Ayres, J. J. B. Stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relations in the control of conditioned appetitive headpoking (“goal-tracking”) in rats.Learning and Motivation, 1979,10, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gamzu, E., &Williams, D. R. Classical conditioning of a complex skeletal response.Science, 1971,171, 923–925.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibbon, J., Farrell, L., Locurto, C. M., Duncan, H. J., &Terrace, H. S. Partial reinforcement in autoshaping with pigeons.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1980,8, 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hearst, E. Classical conditioning as the formation of interstimulus associations: Stimulus substitution, parasitic reinforcement and autoshaping. In A. Dickinson & R. A. Boakes (Eds.),Mechanisms of learning and motivation: A memorial volume to Jerzy Konorski. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1979.Google Scholar
  13. Hearst, E., &Gormley, D. Some tests of the additivity (autoshaping) theory of behavioral contrast.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1976,4, 145–150.Google Scholar
  14. Hearst, E., &Jenkins, H. M. Sign-tracking: The stimulus-reinforcer relation and directed action. Austin, Tex: Psychonomic Society, 1974.Google Scholar
  15. Hogan, J. A. Responses in Pavlovian conditioning studies.Science, 1974,186, 156–157.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Holland, P. C. Influence of visual conditioned stimulus characteristics on the form of Pavlovian appetitive conditioned responses in rats.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1980,6, 81–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Holland, P. C., &Rescorla, R. A. The effect of two ways of devaluing the unconditioned stimulus after first- and second-order appetitive conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1975,1, 355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holland, P. C., &Straub, J. J. Differential effects of two ways of devaluing the unconditioned stimulus after Pavlovian appetitive conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1979,5, 65–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Jenkins, H. M., Barrera, F. J., Ireland, C., &Woodside, B. Signal-centered action patterns in dogs in appetitive classical conditioning.Learning and Motivation, 1978,9, 272–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Konorski, J. Integrative activity of the brain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.Google Scholar
  21. Konorski, J. Classical and instrumental conditioning: The general laws of connections between “centers.”Acta Neurobiologicae Experimentalis, 1974,1, 5–14.Google Scholar
  22. Page, E. B. Ordered hypotheses for multiple treatments: A significance test for linear ranks.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1963,58, 216–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pavlov, I. P. Conditioned reflexes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1927.Google Scholar
  24. Reynolds, G. S. Behavioral contrast.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1961,4, 57–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Schwartz, B., &Gamzu, E. Pavlovian control of operant behavior: An analysis of autoshaping and its implications for operant conditioning. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.),Handbook of operant behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
  26. Timberlake, W., &Grant, D. L. Autoshaping in rats to the presentation of another rat predicting food.Science, 1975,190, 690–692.Google Scholar
  27. Wasserman, E. A. The effect of redundant contextual stimuli on autoshaping the pigeon’s key peck.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1973,1, 198–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Williams, D. R. Biconditional behavior: Conditioning without constraint. In C. M. Locurto, H. S. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.),Autoshaping and conditioning theory. New York: Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graham C. L. Davey
    • 1
  • Gary G. Cleland
    • 1
  • David A. Oakley
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social Science and HumanitiesThe City UniversityLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations