Cargando…

Delay of Reinforcement Versus Rate of Reinforcement in Pavlovian Conditioning

Conditioned stimulus (CS) duration is a determinant of conditioned responding, with increases in duration leading to reductions in response rates. The CS duration effect has been proposed to reflect sensitivity to the reinforcement rate across cumulative exposure to the CS, suggesting that the delay...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Austen, Joseph M., Sanderson, David J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Psychological Association 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6448483/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30843717
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xan0000199
_version_ 1783408704972914688
author Austen, Joseph M.
Sanderson, David J.
author_facet Austen, Joseph M.
Sanderson, David J.
author_sort Austen, Joseph M.
collection PubMed
description Conditioned stimulus (CS) duration is a determinant of conditioned responding, with increases in duration leading to reductions in response rates. The CS duration effect has been proposed to reflect sensitivity to the reinforcement rate across cumulative exposure to the CS, suggesting that the delay of reinforcement from the onset of the cue is not crucial. Here, we compared the effects of delay and rate of reinforcement on Pavlovian appetitive conditioning in mice. In Experiment 1, the influence of reinforcement delay on the timing of responding was removed by making the duration of cues variable across trials. Mice trained with variable duration cues were sensitive to differences in the rate of reinforcement to a similar extent as mice trained with fixed duration cues. Experiments 2 and 3 tested the independent effects of delay and reinforcement rate. In Experiment 2, food was presented at either the termination of the CS or during the CS. In Experiment 3, food occurred during the CS for all cues. The latter experiment demonstrated an effect of delay, but not reinforcement rate. Experiment 4 ruled out the possibility that the lack of effect of reinforcement rate in Experiment 3 was due to mice failing to learn about the nonreinforced CS exposure after the presentation of food within a trial. These results demonstrate that although the CS duration effect is not simply a consequence of timing of conditioned responses, it is dependent on the delay of reinforcement. The results provide a challenge to current associative and nonassociative, time-accumulation models of learning.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6448483
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher American Psychological Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64484832019-04-12 Delay of Reinforcement Versus Rate of Reinforcement in Pavlovian Conditioning Austen, Joseph M. Sanderson, David J. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn Articles Conditioned stimulus (CS) duration is a determinant of conditioned responding, with increases in duration leading to reductions in response rates. The CS duration effect has been proposed to reflect sensitivity to the reinforcement rate across cumulative exposure to the CS, suggesting that the delay of reinforcement from the onset of the cue is not crucial. Here, we compared the effects of delay and rate of reinforcement on Pavlovian appetitive conditioning in mice. In Experiment 1, the influence of reinforcement delay on the timing of responding was removed by making the duration of cues variable across trials. Mice trained with variable duration cues were sensitive to differences in the rate of reinforcement to a similar extent as mice trained with fixed duration cues. Experiments 2 and 3 tested the independent effects of delay and reinforcement rate. In Experiment 2, food was presented at either the termination of the CS or during the CS. In Experiment 3, food occurred during the CS for all cues. The latter experiment demonstrated an effect of delay, but not reinforcement rate. Experiment 4 ruled out the possibility that the lack of effect of reinforcement rate in Experiment 3 was due to mice failing to learn about the nonreinforced CS exposure after the presentation of food within a trial. These results demonstrate that although the CS duration effect is not simply a consequence of timing of conditioned responses, it is dependent on the delay of reinforcement. The results provide a challenge to current associative and nonassociative, time-accumulation models of learning. American Psychological Association 2019-03-07 2019-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6448483/ /pubmed/30843717 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xan0000199 Text en © 2019 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This article has been published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s). Author(s) grant(s) the American Psychological Association the exclusive right to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher.
spellingShingle Articles
Austen, Joseph M.
Sanderson, David J.
Delay of Reinforcement Versus Rate of Reinforcement in Pavlovian Conditioning
title Delay of Reinforcement Versus Rate of Reinforcement in Pavlovian Conditioning
title_full Delay of Reinforcement Versus Rate of Reinforcement in Pavlovian Conditioning
title_fullStr Delay of Reinforcement Versus Rate of Reinforcement in Pavlovian Conditioning
title_full_unstemmed Delay of Reinforcement Versus Rate of Reinforcement in Pavlovian Conditioning
title_short Delay of Reinforcement Versus Rate of Reinforcement in Pavlovian Conditioning
title_sort delay of reinforcement versus rate of reinforcement in pavlovian conditioning
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6448483/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30843717
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xan0000199
work_keys_str_mv AT austenjosephm delayofreinforcementversusrateofreinforcementinpavlovianconditioning
AT sandersondavidj delayofreinforcementversusrateofreinforcementinpavlovianconditioning