Abstract
The acquisition and maintenance of signal-directed pecking was examined in week-old Leg-Horn chicks responding to a keylight stimulus paired with heat. In contrast with previous studies using pigeons with food as the US, both speed of acquisition and asymptotic level of keypecking were a direct function of US duration. Experiment 2 examined responding using a within-subject design to isolate the effects of trial spacing on performance during the immediate trial from the effects on performance during a following trial of fixed length. These comparisons revealed a significant effect of intertriai interval (ITI), with less responding after shorter intervals. The effect of different temporal spacing was apparent in responding on the immediate trial, but not on the following trial. These local ITI effects were better predicted by a recent autoshaping model based on relative waiting time (Jenkins, Barnes, & Barrera, 1981) than by a model based on relative US expectancy (Gibbons & Balsam, 1981). However, neither model predicted the effect of US duration. A reexamination of the US-duration literature suggested that the diversity of previous findings is consistent with the assumption that conditioned responding is an inverted U-shaped function of US duration.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference Note
Allison, J.Autoshaping and polydipsia: Leverpressing and drinking as substitutes for eating. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Philadelphia, November 1981.
Lucas, G. A., & Deich, J. D. Manuscript in preparation, 1982.
References
Balsam, P. D., Brownstein, A. J., &Shull, R. L. Effects of varying the duration of grain presentation on automaintenance.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1978,29, 27–36.
Balsam, P. D., &Payne, D. Intertriai interval and unconditioned stimulus durations in autoshaping.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1979,7, 477–482.
Bitterman, M. E., Reed, P., &Krauskopf, J. The effect of the duration of the unconditioned stimulus upon conditioning and extinction.American Journal of Psychology, 1952,65, 256–262.
Brown, P. L., &Jenkins, H. M. Auto-shaping of the pigeon’s key-peck.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1968,11, 1–8.
Church, R. M., LoLordo, V., Overmier, J. B., Solomon, R. L., &Turner, L. H. Cardiac responses to shock in curarized dogs: Effects of shock intensity and duration, warning signal, and prior experience with shock.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1966,62, 1–7.
Coppock, H. W., &Chambers, R. M. GSR conditioning: An illustration of useless distinctions between “types” of conditioning.Psychological Reports, 1959,5, 171–177.
Deich, J. D. Second-order conditioning with heat as the primary reinforcer. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1982.
Frey, P., &Butler, C. Rabbit eyelid conditioning as a function of unconditioned stimulus duration.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1973,85, 289–294.
Furedy, J. J. Classical appetitive conditioning of the GSR with cool air as the UCS, and the roles of the UCS onset and offset as reinforcers of the CR.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967,75, 73–80.
Gibbon, J. Scalar expectancy theory and Weber’s Law in animal timing.Psychological Review, 1977,84, 279–325.
Gibbon, J. The contingency problem inautoshaping. In C. Locurto, H. S. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.),Autoshaping and conditioning theory. New York: Academic Press, 1981.
Gibbon, J., &Balsam, P. D. Spreading association in time. In C. Locurto, H. S. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.),Autoshaping and conditioning theory. New York: Academic Press, 1981.
Jenkins, H. M., Barnes, R. A., &Barrera, F. J. Why autoshaping depends on trial spacing. In C. Locurto, H. S. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.),Autoshaping and conditioning theory. New York: Academic Press, 1981.
Killeen, P. R. Averaging theory. In C. M. Bradshaw, E. Szabadi, & C. F. Lowe (Eds.),Quantification of steady-state operant behaviour. Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press, 1981.
Locurto, C., Terrace, H. S., &Gibbon, J. (Eds.).Autoshaping and conditioning theory. New York: Academic Press, 1981.
Mackintosh, N. J. The psychology of animal learning. New York: Academic Press, 1974.
Mowrer, O. H., &Solomon, L. N. Contiguity vs. drive-reaction in conditioned fear: The proximity and abruptness of drive-reduction.American Journal of Psychology, 1954,67, 15–25.
Overmier, J. B. Instrumental and cardiac indices of Pavlovian fear conditioning as a function of US duration.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1966,62, 15–20.
Overmier, J. B. Differential Pavlovian fear conditioning as a function of the qualitative nature of the UCS: Constant versus pulsating shock.Conditional Reflex, 1968,3, 175–180.
Riess, D., &Farrar, C. H. US duration, conditioned acceleration, multiple CR measurement and Pavlovian R-R laws in rats.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1973,82, 144–151.
Runquist, W. N., &Spence, K. W. Performance in eyelid conditioning as a function of UCS duration.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959,57, 249–252.
Salz, E., Kitai, S., &Asdourian, D. Two-factor theory: Preliminary study of relationship between drive reduction and UCS duration.Psychological Reports, 1963,12, 757–758.
Snapper, A. G., Stephens, K. R., &Lee, D. M. The SKED software system. Kalamazoo, Michigan: The SKED Users Group, 1974.
Wasserman, E. A. Pavlovian conditioning with heat reinforcement produces stimulus-directed pecking in chicks.Science, 1973,181, 875–877.
Wasserman, E. A., Deich, J. D., Hunter, N. B., &Nagamatsu, L. S. Analyzing the random control procedure: Effects of paired and unpaired CSs and USs on autoshaping the chick’s key peck with heat reinforcement.Learning and Motivation, 1977,8, 467–487.
Wasserman, E. A., Hunter, N. B., Gutowski, K. A., &Bader, S. A. Autoshaping chicks with heat reinforcement: The role of stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1975,104, 158–169.
Wegner, N., &Zeaman, D. Strength of cardiac conditioned responses with varying unconditioned stimulus durations.Psychological Review, 1958,65, 238–241.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by Grants BNS 75-15905 and 79-14160 from the National Science Foundation. During the study, the first author was supported by a Neurobehavioral Sciences postdoctoral fellowship through NIMH Training Grant 1T32MH15172.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lucas, G.A., Wasserman, E.A. US duration and local trial spacing affect autoshaped responding. Animal Learning & Behavior 10, 490–498 (1982). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212289
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212289