Abstract
Five groups of pigeons were studied in an auto-shaping procedure which programmed two types of trials represented by hues on the response key. Each signal was separated by a brief intertriai interval. Three groups were studied with a positive correlation between one of the signals and food (contingent groups). They differed with respect to the frequency with which the positive signal appeared. Two noncontingent groups were studied in which the correlation between the signals and food was eliminated by programming food with the same probability following either signal. One noncontingent group had a high density of reinforcement produced by adding reinforcement in the other signal, at the same rate as programmed in the positive signal for the contingent groups. The other noncontingent group experienced the same number of reinforcements in the session as the contingent group with the least frequent positive trial, but these reinforcements were distributed with equal probability across the signals. Birds in the contingent groups with intermediate or infrequent positive signals all acquired reliable pecking, with acquisition most rapid for the infrequent signal. Maintained responding covaried with the speed of acquisition. No birds in the noncontingent groups showed reliable responding. Birds in the contingent group with a frequent positive signal (approximately 3/4 of the session), also showed no reliable pecking. This result suggests that more than one noncontingent group is informative for assessing the role of differential reinforcement probability in the acquisition of auto-shaped keypecking. In particular, a noncontingent group which controls for the frequency of reinforced trials is an appropriate reference group.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Baldock, M. D., & Gibbon, J. Trial and intertrial interval durations in the acquisition of auto-shaped key pecking. Paper delivered at the Eastern Psychological Association, 45th Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, Pa., 1974.
Barrera, F. J. Centrigual selection of signal directed pecking. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1974, 22, 341–355.
Brown, P., & Jenkins, H. M. Auto-shaping of the pigeon’s key-peck. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1968, 11, 1–8.
Farrell, L., & Terrace, H. S. Auto-shaping as a function of probability of reinforcement. Paper delivered at the Eastern Psychological Association, 45th Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, Pa., 1974.
Gamzu, E., & Williams, D. R. Classical conditioning of a complex skeletal response. Science, 1971, 171, 923–925.
Gamzu, E., & Williams, D. R. Associative factors underlying the pigeon’s key pecking in auto-shaping procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1973, 19, 225–232.
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, 585–605.
Gonzalez, F. A. Effects of partial reinforcement (25%) in an autoshaping procedure. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973, 2 (5A), 299–301.
Hearst, E., & Jenkins, H. M. Sign-tracking: The stimulus-reinforcer relation and directed action. Monographs, The Psychonomic Society, Inc., Austin, Texas, 1974.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Loveland, D. H. Food-avoidance in hungry pigeons, and other perplexities. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1972, 18, 369–383.
Jenkins, H. M. Noticing and responding in a discrimination based on a distinguishing element. Learning and Motivation, 1973, 4, 115–137.
Jenkins, H. M., & Moore, B. R. The form of the autoshaped response with food or water reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1973, 20, 163–181.
Moore, B. R. The role of directed Pavlovian reactions in simple instrumental learning in the pigeon. In R. A. Hinde & J. S. Hinde (Eds.),Constraints on learning. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Pp. 159–188.
Rescorla, R. A. Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1968, 66, 1–5.
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning II. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972. Pp. 64–99;
Scnwartz, B., & Gamzu, E. Pavlovian control of operant behavior: An analysis of autoshaping and of interactions between multiple schedules of reinforcement. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.),Handbook of operant behavior. New York: Prentice-Hall (in press).
Schwartz, B., & Williams, D. R. The role of the response-reinforcer contingency in negative automaintenance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1972, 17, 351–357. (a)
Schwartz, B., & Williams, D. R. Two kinds of key-peck in the pigeon: Some properties of responses maintained by negative and positive response-reinforcer contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1972, 18, 201–216. (b)
Terrace, H. S., Gibbon, J., Farrell, L., & Baldock, M. D. Temporal factors influencing the acquisition and maintenance of an autoshaped response. Animal Learning & Behavior, in press.
Wasserman, E. A. Stimulus-reinforcer predictiveness and selective discrimination learning in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 103, 284–297.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by NSF Grant GB34095 and NIH Grant MH25070-01 (J. Gibbon, P. I.) and NSF Grant 30781 and NIH Grant HD00930 (H. S. Terrace, P. I.).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gibbon, J., Locurto, C. & Terrace, H.S. Signal-food contingency and signal frequency in a continuous trials auto-shaping paradigm. Animal Learning & Behavior 3, 317–324 (1975). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213453
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213453