Stimulus- and response-reinforcer contingencies in autoshaping, operant, classical, and omission training procedures in rats.
Separate groups of rats received 500 trials of lever-press training under autoshaping (food delivery followed 10-second lever presentations, or occurred immediately following a response); operant conditioning (responding was necessary for food delivery); and classical conditioning (food followed lever presentations regardless of responding). Each group then received 500 trials on an omission procedure in which food was omitted on trials with a response. Another group received 1000 trials on the omission procedure, and a fifth group, random control, received 1000 uncorrelated presentations of lever and food. The autoshaping, operant, and classical groups reached high response levels by the end of initial training. Acquisition was fastest in the autoshaping group. Responding remained consistently low in the control group. The omission group responded at a level between the control group and the other three groups. During omission training, responding in these three groups declined to the omission-group level. During omission training, the rats continued contacting the lever frequently after lever pressing had declined. Response maintenance under omission training seems not to require topographic similarity between the response and reinforcer-elicited consummatory behaviors.
Atnip
G W
GW