Abstract
Food-deprived pigeons were given briei meals of grain following the presentation of a lignt on a response key. Pecking the key had no consequence Virtually all of the pigeons pecked the lignted key. The number of trials prior to the first peck varied inversely witn the value of the mean interval between light onsets. Trials to criterion was a negative power function of the value of the intertrial interval. The addition of a second stimulus, never followed by food, retarded the acquisition of the keypeck, particularly at short intertriai intervals. During steady state performance, the value of two measures of response strength, rate and probability of responding, increased as a function of the duration of the intertriai interval.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bolles, R. C. Reinforcement, expectancy, and learning. Psychological Review, 1972, 79, 394–409.
Brown, P. L., & Jenkins, H. M. Auto-shaping of the pigeon’s key-peck. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1968, 11, 18.
Catania, A. C., & Reynolds, G. S. A quantitative analysis of the responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1968, 11, 327–383.
Engberg, L. A., Hanse, G., Weiber, R., & Thomas, D. R. Acquisition of key pecking via autoshaping as a function of prior experience: “Learned laziness”? Science, 1972, 178, 1002–1004.
Farrell, L., & Terrace, H. S. The role of partial reinforcement in the acquisition of an autoshaped response. Paper presented at Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 1974.
Ferster, C., & Skinner, B. F.Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.
Gibbon, J., Berryman, R. &, Thompson, R. L. Contingency spaces and measures in classical and instrumental conditioning. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1974, 21, 42–62.
Gormezano, I., & Moore, J. W. Classical Conditioning. In M. H. Marx (Ed.),Learning: Processes. London: MacMillan, 1969. Pp. 121–203.
Gonzales, F. A. Effects of partial reinforcement (25%) in an autoshaping procedure. Bulletin Psychonomic Society, 1973, 2, 299–301.
Hearst, E., & Jenkins, H. M.Sign-tracking’ The stimulus reinforcer relation and directed action. Austin, Texas: Psychonomic Society, 1974.
Herrnstein, R., & Loveland, D. H. Food avoidance in hungry pigeons and other perplexities. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1972, 18, 366–383.
Hull, C. L.Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1943.
Humphreys, L. G. Extinction of conditioned psycho-galvanic responses following two conditions of reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1940, 27, 71–75.
Kimble, G. A.Hilgard and Marquis’ conditioning and learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1961.
Peterson, G. B., Ackil, J. E., Frommer, G. P., & Hearst, E. S. Conditioned approach and contact behavior towards signals for food or brain-stimulation reinforcement. Science, 1972 177, 1009–1011.
Prokasy, W. F., Grant, D. A., & Myers, N. A. Eyelid conditioning as a function of unconditioned stimulus intensity and intertriai interval. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 55, 242–246.
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black and W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972, 64–99.
Sadowsky, S. Behavioral contrast with timeout, blackout, or extinction as the negative condition. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1973, 19, 499–507.
Segal, E. F. In R. M. Gilbert and J. R. Millenson (Eds.),Reinforcement: Behavioral analysis. New York: Academic Press, 1972, 1–34.
Seligman, M. E. P. & Hager, J.Biological boundaries of learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972.
Spence, K. W., & Norris, E. B. Eyelid conditioning as a function of the intertriai interval. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1950, 40, 716–720.
Taus, S. E., & Hearst, E. Effects of intertrial (blackout) duration on response rate to a positive stimulus. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 19, 265–267.
Terrace, H. S. Errorless transfer of a discrimination across two continua. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1963, 6, 223–232.
Terrace, H. S. Stimulus Control. In W. K. Honig (Ed.),Operant behavior Areas of research and application. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966, 271–344.
Terrace, H. S. On the nature of non-responding in discrimination learning with and without errors. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1974, 22, 6–14.
Vieth, A., & Ruling, M. Comparison of timeout and extinction as determinants of behavioral contrast: An analysis of sequential effects. Psychonomic Science, 1972, 27, 281–282.
Wessels, M. Errorless discrimination, autoshapmg and conditioned inhibition. Science, 1973, 182, 941–943.
Wilkie, D. M. Autoshapmg and errorless discrimination. Paper presented at the Psychonomic Society Meetings, November 1973.
Williams, D. R., & Williams, H. Auto-maintenance in the pigeon: Sustained pecking despite contingent non-reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1969, 12, 511–520.
Winokur, S., & Frank, A. Automaintenance of pigeon’s keypeckmg on a variable ratio schedule of reinforcement. Paper read at the 14th annual Meeting of The Psychonomic Society, St. Louis, Missouri, November 1973.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation (GB 30781) and from the National Institutes of Health (HD 00930).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Terrace, H.S., Gibbon, J., Farrell, L. et al. Temporal factors influencing the acquisition and maintenance of an autoshaped keypeck. Animal Learning & Behavior 3, 53–62 (1975). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209099
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209099