Inter-Effector Influences in Operant Autonomic Control

  • H. D. Kimmel
  • R. A. Burns
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 2)


Almost from the very beginning of research on operant reinforcement of autonomically mediated responses, the possibility has been considered that contingencies explicitly introduced in relation to a particular autonomic response might influence other autonomically mediated behaviors. For example, Shapiro, Crider, and Tursky (1964) examined skin potential levels and heart rates in conjunction with the administration of positive reinforcement contingent upon the frequency of skin potential responses. They concluded that their observed operant conditioning effect on skin potential response frequency was independent of changes in the other autonomic measures. Subsequently, Crider, Shapiro, and Tursky (1966) obtained quite similar results in a replication of their first study. In both of these studies, basal skin potential levels and heart rates actually declined during training in both experimental and control groups and skin potential levels tended to be slightly higher and heart rates slightly lower (the latter increasingly so) in the group reinforced for emitting spontaneous skin potential responses than in the control group. But these consistent differences were not statistically significant.


Conditioned Stimulus Discriminative Stimulus Skin Conductance Skin Conductance Response Autonomic Response 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Asratyan, E. A. Compensatory adaptation, reflex activity, and the brain. New York: Oxford, 1965.Google Scholar
  2. Crider, A., Shapiro, D., & Tursky, B. Reinforcement of spontaneous electrodermal activity. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1966, 61, 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gavalas, R. J. Operant reinforcement of an autonomic response: Two studies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1967, 10, 119–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Greene, W. A., & Sutor, L. T. Stimulus control of skin resistance responses on an escape-avoidance schedule. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1971, 16, 269–274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Haman, K., & Miyake, S. Studies on modification of spontaneous auto-nomic activity: III. The relation of strength of reinforcer to instrumental modifiability of autonomic response. Japanese Psychological Research, 1972, 14, 38–42.Google Scholar
  6. Kimmel, H. D., & Kimmel, E. Inter-effector influences in operant auto- nomic conditioning. Psychonomic Science, 1967, 9, 191–192.Google Scholar
  7. Miller, N. E., & Banuazizi, A. Instrumental learning by curarized rats of a specific visceral response, intestinal or cardiac. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1968, 65, 1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Schell, A. M., & Grings, W. W. Avoidance conditioning of the GSR: Na- ture of the response. Psychophysiology, 1971, 7, 402–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Schwartz, G. E. Voluntary control of human cardiovascular integration and differentiation through feedback and reward. Science, 1972, 175, 90–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shapiro, D., Tursky, B., & Crider, A. Differentiation of an autonomic response through operant reinforcement. Psychonomic Science, 1964, 1, 147–148.Google Scholar
  11. Snyder, C. W., & Noble, M. E. Operant conditioning of vasoconstriction. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis, 1966.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. D. Kimmel
    • 1
  • R. A. Burns
    • 1
  1. 1.University of South FloridaUSA

Personalised recommendations