|
| Delayed Reinforcement, Behavioral History and Resurgence |
| Tuesday, October 8, 2013 |
| 2:00 PM–2:20 PM |
| Gran Salon II (Presidente Intercontinental) |
| Area: EAB |
| Chair: Josele Abreu-Rodrigues (Universidade de Brasilia) |
| |
CANCELED: The Effects of Behavioral History on Response Acquisition with Delayed Reinforcement: A Parametric Analysis |
| Domain: Experimental Analysis |
| MARCO PULIDO (Universidad Intercontinental) |
| |
| Abstract: The present study systematically assessed the effects of two independent variables on response acquisition, delay duration and the number of sessions of non-contingent food delivery. Sixty nave, male Wistar rats were exposed to an FT 60-s schedule for a different number of sessions (0, 1, 5, 15 or 30). Once exposure to non-contingent food delivery was over, subjects were exposed to one of four different Tandem FR 1, FT x-s schedule, for 10 sessions, where FT duration could be programmed at 10, 20, 40 or 60-s. Results showed evidence of response acquisition was more apparent in those groups where subjects were exposed to 1, 5 or 15 sessions of non-contingent food delivery; response acquisition was less evident in those groups exposed to 0 or 30 sessions of the FT 60-s schedule. In general, obtained reinforcement rate decreased as delay duration increased. Results were discussed in terms of how history effects may make it difficult to compare experimental findings; the discussion also centered on variables that could probably explain why reinforcement history affects response acquisition with delayed reinforcement. |
| |
| Resurgence of Response Sequence |
| Domain: Experimental Analysis |
| JOSELE ABREU-RODRIGUES (Universidade de Brasilia), Thaissa Pontes (Universidade de Brasília - UnB), Amanda Miranda (Universidade de Brasília), Lucas Tonhá (Universidade de Brasília) |
| |
| Abstract: The purpose of the present study was two-fold: (1) to produce instructional control of different patterns of behavioral variability, and (2) to investigate the resurgence of response sequences. College students were assigned to one of two groups and were required to emit sequences of five-key presses. The Systematic Group was instructed to emit sequences according to some systematic pattern; the Random Group, to emit sequences randomly. In the Reinforcement phase, a continuous reinforcement schedule (CRF) was in effect for target sequence 1, and a variation contingency for non-target sequences. In the Elimination phase, the target sequence 1 was under extinction while a CRF schedule was in effect for target sequence 2; the variation contingency was also in effect for non-target sequences. In the Resurgence phase, all possible sequences were under extinction. During the Reinforcement and Elimination phases, both groups followed the instructions and learned the difficult sequence. In the Resurgence phase, all participants emitted the target sequence 1, but because its occurrence was no greater than that of the other sequences, it is questioned whether resurgence was demonstrated. |
| |
CANCELED: Effects of Response-Signal Temporal Separation on Behavior Maintained by Delayed Reinforcement: A Parametric Analysis |
| Domain: Experimental Analysis |
| MARCO PULIDO (Universidad Intercontinental) |
| |
| Abstract: The present study assessed the effects of response-signal temporal separation under schedules with different interreinforcer intervals. Groups of 3 rats each were exposed to one of 3 different chained reinforcement schedules, CRF FT 15-s, VI 60-s FT 15-s or VI 120-s FT 15-s. Within each schedule, the response that produced component transition produced a 5-s signal that could occur, immediately, 5-s after the response, or 10-s after the response. Results showed that response rates during the schedules first component were a decreasing function response-signal temporal separation, in both VI schedules; signal placement had no consistent effect on first component response rates in the CRF schedule. Response-signal temporal separation had no consistent effects on global or local response rates during the FT; however, response rates during the FT were a decreasing function of interreinforcer interval. Results suggest that signal functions on responding under delayed reinforcement, depend on interreinforcer interval duration. Results also suggest that the ongoing debate regarding the empirical validity of the conditioned reinforcement concept may be the result of an unsystematic research agenda that fails to explore the phenomenon using a parametric approach. |
| |
|
| |