Contiguous Approach Conditioning: A Model for Negative Reinforcement

1975 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 851-856 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernest G. Maples ◽  
Phillip D. Tomporowski ◽  
Maury M. Haraway
Keyword(s):  
Test Trial ◽  
Negative Reinforcement ◽  
Shock Termination ◽  
Single Test ◽  
Empirical Basis ◽  
Equivalent Number ◽  
The Difference

The study was designed to provide an empirical basis for Denny's account of negative reinforcement by showing that stimuli contiguously paired with shock termination can become conditioned elicitors of approach. 20 experimental Ss received 15 trials in which the onset of a 6-w light was paired with the termination of a 30-sec., 1-ma. scrambled shock, independently of Ss' behavior. 20 control Ss received an equivalent number of light and shock presentations, but these were unpaired. On a single test trial, S was exposed to a 6 w light in one arm (randomly selected) of a modified T-maze. 17 of 20 experimental Ss approached the light whereas only 11 of 20 control Ss approached the light. The difference between proportions was significant ( p = .05).

Escape Behavior as a Function of Delay of Negative Reinforcement

1973 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-70
Author(s):  
Frank C. Leeming ◽  
Joel E. Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Negative Reinforcement ◽  
Escape Behavior ◽  
Escape Latency ◽  
Shock Termination ◽  
Shuttle Box ◽  
Group 4 ◽  
Delay Of Reinforcement ◽  
Group 16 ◽  
The Moment

Rats in a shuttle box were reinforced by shock termination after delays of 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 sec. All Ss received 100 training trials and Ss in Groups 0, 1, and 4 received an additional 30 test trials on which shock termination was delayed for 20 sec. During training and testing, escape latency, and Ss' location in the compartment at the moment of shock termination were recorded. Number of trials required to reach criterion was directly related to length of delay. The differences between asymptotic response levels were small and, with the exception of Group 16, nonsignificant. Ss in Groups 2, 4, and 8 showed a significant increase in location consistency during training. During resting Groups 0 and 1 showed marked decrements in performance while Group 4 showed no increase in escape latency. Group 4 also showed significantly higher location consistency than Groups 0 and 1. These findings were discussed in relation to Spence's theories of delay of reinforcement and extinction.

Delay of Shock-Escape with and without Stimulus Change

1971 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 315-318
Author(s):  
Jesse B. Milby
Keyword(s):  
Negative Reinforcement ◽  
Stimulus Change ◽  
Secondary Reinforcement ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Shock Termination ◽  
Control Procedure ◽  
Escape Conditioning ◽  
Background Stimulus ◽  
Shock Escape ◽  
Secondary Reinforcing

Effects of a stimulus change presented with delay of shock-escape were examined in escape conditioning. Where a stimulus change occurred with the delay, greater response rates were found before delay and lower rates during the delay. Results are interpreted as providing evidence for the efficacy of a stimulus change in maintaining behavior with delay of negative reinforcement. Results are consistent with an information account of secondary reinforcement. Data from a control procedure suggest the possibility that stimuli paired with shock termination might have two opposite properties, secondary reinforcing and conditioced aversive, depending upon the background stimulus conditions prevailing at testing.

scholarly journals Seuren/Rullmann ambiguities as plural comparisons

2015 ◽  
pp. 428
Author(s):  
Sigrid Beck
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Basis ◽  
Fine Grained ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Data Points ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Plural Predication ◽  
Questionnaire Studies

This paper reexamines ambiguous comparatives of a kind made famous in Rullmann's (1995) dissertation, e.g. The helicopter was flying less high than a plane can fly. There is some disagreement in the semantic literature regarding whether the ambiguity is limited to less or also shows up in more-comparatives. Accordingly, the analyses suggested differ substantially, ranging from structural to pragmatic. My primary goal is to provide a more solid empirical basis for building semantic theories of the phenomenon. I report the results from a series of questionnaire studies that show (i) that the difference between more- and less-comparatives is not clear cut, and (ii) that we need to make more fine-grained distinctions among less-comparatives. I propose an analysis in terms of plural predication that captures the major effects found in the studies, and I begin to approach the more subtle data points.

Pavlovian and Instrumental Conditioning

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Sanabria
Keyword(s):  
Conditional Probability ◽  
Positive Reinforcement ◽  
Negative Reinforcement ◽  
Instrumental Conditioning ◽  
Prior Experience ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Inhibitory Conditioning ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Contextual Stimuli ◽  
Societal Problems

Conditioning is the change in the response to a stimulus either because of the relation of that stimulus to other stimuli (Pavlovian conditioning), or because of the relation between the response and other stimuli (instrumental conditioning). These relations are formulated in terms of differences in conditional probability known as contingencies. Pavlovian contingencies refer to the difference in the conditional probability of one stimulus (the outcome, or O) given the presence vs. the absence of another stimulus (the conditioned stimulus, or CS). A conditioned response (CR) may be strengthened by a positive Pavlovian contingency (excitatory conditioning) or it may be weakened by a negative Pavlovian contingency (inhibitory conditioning). CRs are anticipatory or modified responses to the O, so their topography depends on the nature of the O (appetitive vs. aversive); the proximity between and congruency of O and CS; prior experience with the CS, O, and their contingency; the magnitude of their contingency; and the characteristics of other stimuli in the environment. Instrumental contingencies refer to the relation between one stimulus (the discriminative stimulus, or SD), a response (or operant, R), and the outcome of that response (O). The nature of the O and of its contingency with the R determines whether the O strengthens or weakens the R: Os that introduce an appetitive stimulus (positive reinforcement) or remove an aversive stimulus (negative reinforcement) strengthen the R. Positive reinforcement is typically arranged on a subset of one or more Rs following a set of rules known as a schedule of reinforcement. The probability that an R is reinforced may depend on the number of Rs (ratio schedules) or the amount of time (interval schedules) since the last reinforcer. The topography and strength of instrumental Rs depend on variables that are analogous to those that affect Pavlovian CRs: the amount and nature of prior experience with the O; the proximity, congruency, and contingency of R and O; and characteristics of other stimuli in past and present environments. Contemporary quantitative models of Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning recognize the importance of contextual stimuli that compete for cognitive and behavioral resources, constraining and shaping the expression of target responses. These models have guided the bulk of recent empirical research and conceptual developments, leading to a progressively unified view of learning and motivation processes. Along the way, Pavlovian and instrumental research have demonstrated their utility in addressing a broad range of consequential societal problems.

Reaction Time of Pre-Adolescent Chimpanzee under Conditions of Negative Reinforcement

1965 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 791-797 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert H. Reynolds ◽  
Donald L. Hay ◽  
G. Vernon Pegram
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Negative Reinforcement ◽  
Experimental Situation ◽  
Performance Testing ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Routine Laboratory ◽  
Laboratory Performance ◽  
Optimal Response ◽  
Empirical Basis ◽  
Discrete Response

An “allowable interval” for responding has been arbitrarily used in animal reaction time studies, having no empirical basis in systematic investigations of an animal's optimal response capability. The results of this research, in which negative reinforcement (low amperage shock) was used, indicate that the reaction time of the pre-adolescent chimpanzee in an experimental situation approximating that of routine laboratory performance testing is highly similar to that of man. In programming tasks, which involve single or multiple stimuli to which a discrete response must be made, suggestions are made concerning the allowable time interval for responding.

scholarly journals The effects of test trial and processing level on immediate and delayed retention

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sau Hou Chang
Keyword(s):  
Free Recall ◽  
Test Trial ◽  
Stimulus Word ◽  
Recall Test ◽  
Free Recall Test ◽  
Deep Processing ◽  
Single Test ◽  
Processing Level ◽  
Shallow Processing ◽  
Repeated Test

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of test trial and processing level on immediate and delayed retention. A 2 × 2 × 2 mixed ANOVAs was used with two between-subject factors of test trial (single test, repeated test) and processing level (shallow, deep), and one within-subject factor of final recall (immediate, delayed). Seventy-six college students were randomly assigned first to the single test (studied the stimulus words three times and took one free-recall test) and the repeated test trials (studied the stimulus words once and took three consecutive free-recall tests), and then to the shallow processing level (asked whether each stimulus word was presented in capital letter or in small letter) and the deep processing level (whether each stimulus word belonged to a particular category) to study forty stimulus words. The immediate test was administered five minutes after the trials, whereas the delayed test was administered one week later. Results showed that single test trial recalled more words than repeated test trial in immediate final free-recall test, participants in deep processing performed better than those in shallow processing in both immediate and delayed retention. However, the dominance of single test trial and deep processing did not happen in delayed retention. Additional study trials did not further enhance the delayed retention of words encoded in deep processing, but did enhance the delayed retention of words encoded in shallow processing.

scholarly journals Emotional State and Feedback-Related Negativity Induced by Positive, Negative, and Combined Reinforcement

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuyuan Xu ◽  
Yuyan Sun ◽  
Min Huang ◽  
Yanhong Huang ◽  
Jing Han ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Positive Reinforcement ◽  
Negative Reinforcement ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Dopamine System ◽  
Feedback Processing ◽  
Difference Wave ◽  
Avoidance Motivation ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Midbrain Dopamine

Reinforcement learning relies on the reward prediction error (RPE) signals conveyed by the midbrain dopamine system. Previous studies showed that dopamine plays an important role in both positive and negative reinforcement. However, whether various reinforcement processes will induce distinct learning signals is still unclear. In a probabilistic learning task, we examined RPE signals in different reinforcement types using an electrophysiology index, namely, the feedback-related negativity (FRN). Ninety-four participants were randomly assigned into four groups: base (no money incentive), positive reinforcement (presentation of money rewards), negative reinforcement (removal of money losses), and combined reinforcement (money rewards and removal of money losses) groups. In addition, in order to evaluate the engagement of emotional activity in the different reinforcement processes, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Expanded Form (PANAS-X) scales were applied before and after the experiment to detect the emotional changes. The results showed that there was no difference between groups in the dopamine-related learning bias. However, compared to the other three groups, negative reinforcement elicited smaller FRN (the difference-wave measure) during the learning, stronger positive affect and joviality, and less fatigue after the learning, in which the difference between the negative and positive reinforcement groups was smaller. The results indicated that pure avoidance motivation may induce distinct emotional fluctuations, which influence the feedback processing.

Negation and Verb-initial Order in Old English Main Clauses

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 355-381
Author(s):  
Anna Cichosz
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
Strong Interaction ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Main Clause ◽  
Direct Speech ◽  
Text Type ◽  
Empirical Basis ◽  
The Difference

This study investigates two Old English (OE) constructions: “negative inversion” (a negated main clause with a clause-initial verb), and “narrative inversion” (a non-negated main clause with a clause-initial verb). The aim is to determine whether the two patterns may be treated as related “constructions” in Construction Grammar terms, and to identify the factors which promote the use of negative inversion in OE prose. The study shows that in both cases there is a strong interaction between syntax and lexicon: the choice between negative inversion and other patterns in negated main clauses as well as the difference between negative and narrative inversion is to a great extent lexically-based. The analysis also points to other variables underlying this variation such as text type and the use of direct speech. The corpus-based analysis provides a solid empirical basis for the claim that negative inversion and narrative inversion represent two separate constructions, functioning independently in the OE system.

scholarly journals Seuren/Rullmann ambiguities as plural comparisons

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 428
Author(s):  
Sigrid Beck
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Basis ◽  
Fine Grained ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Data Points ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Plural Predication ◽  
Questionnaire Studies

This paper reexamines ambiguous comparatives of a kind made famous in Rullmann's (1995) dissertation, e.g. The helicopter was flying less high than a plane can fly. There is some disagreement in the semantic literature regarding whether the ambiguity is limited to less or also shows up in more-comparatives. Accordingly, the analyses suggested differ substantially, ranging from structural to pragmatic. My primary goal is to provide a more solid empirical basis for building semantic theories of the phenomenon. I report the results from a series of questionnaire studies that show (i) that the difference between more- and less-comparatives is not clear cut, and (ii) that we need to make more fine-grained distinctions among less-comparatives. I propose an analysis in terms of plural predication that captures the major effects found in the studies, and I begin to approach the more subtle data points.

Deprivation as a Learning Variable: Effects of Maintenance Schedule and Current Deprivation

1974 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 955-962 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernest G. Maples ◽  
Maury M. Haraway ◽  
Terry R. Freeman
Keyword(s):  
Test Trial ◽  
Training Trial ◽  
Choice Point ◽  
Correct Choice ◽  
Male Rats ◽  
Single Test ◽  
Maintenance Schedule ◽  
Accuracy Measures ◽  
Speed And Accuracy ◽  
Post Shift

The study investigated two aspects of food deprivation—maintenance schedule and current deprivation—in their effects on both speed and accuracy measures of learning. Male rats were assigned to 3 groups. High-High Ss were maintained at 22 hr. deprivation and trained 22 hr. after food removal. High-Low Ss were maintained at 22 hr. deprivation and trained 6 hr. after food removal. Low-Low Ss were maintained at 6 hr. deprivation and trained 6 hr. after food removal. The apparatus was a four-choice-point elevated T-maze. Food was presented following the final correct choice on each trial. After 10 training trials, all Ss were shifted to a 14-hr. maintenance schedule and 10 days later were given a single test trial. On both speed and accuracy measures for both the last training trial and the post-shift test-trial, the performance of the Low-Low group was significantly inferior to that of the two High groups while those groups did not differ from one another.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document