Response-dependent and response-independent timeout from an avoidance schedule

Assessing the role of effort reduction in the reinforcing efficacy of timeout from avoidance

Rats responded on concurrent schedules of shock-postponement or deletion (avoidance) and timeout from avoidance. In Experiment 1, 3 rats' responses on one lever postponed shocks for 20 s and responses on a second lever produced a 1-min timeout according to a variable-interval 45-s schedule. Across conditions, a warning signal (white noise) was presented 19.5 s, 16 s, 12 s, 8 s, or 4 s before an impending shock. Raising the duration of the warning signal increased both avoidance and timeout response rates. Timeout responding, although positively correlated with avoidance responding, was not correlated with the prevailing shock rate. In Experiment 2, 3 rats' responses on one lever deleted scheduled shocks according to a variable-cycle 30-s schedule and responses on a second lever produced a 2-min timeout as described above. After this baseline condition, the avoidance lever was removed and noncontingent shocks were delivered at intervals yoked to the receipt of shocks in the baseline sessions. Timeout responding decreased when the avoidance lever was removed, even though the shock-frequency reduction afforded by the timeout remained constant. These results suggest that a key factor in the reinforcing efficacy of timeout is suspension of the requirement to work to avoid shock, rather than the reduction in shock frequency associated with timeout.

Increased reinforcement when timeout from avoidance includes access to a safe place

Three experiments investigated the reinforcing value of access to a safe place during timeout from an avoidance schedule. Rats were trained on conjoint schedules in which responding both postponed shock on a free-operant avoidance schedule and produced periods of timeout on fixed-ratio schedules. In some conditions, a shelf was inserted into the operant chamber during timeout, enabling subjects to get off the grid floor. The combination of timeout and shelf maintained substantially higher response rates than the baseline avoidance schedule with ratio requirements as high as 90 (Experiment I). Adding the shelf to timeouts in one component of multiple fixed-ratio schedules of timeout resulted in higher response rates in the component where the shelf was included (Experiment II). When timeouts with and without the shelf were arranged on concurrent schedules, the shelf-timeout combination was preferred, even when of shorter duration than timeout alone (Experiment III). In all three experiments, subjects climbed on the shelf, although all shocks were cancelled during timeout periods. The results could not be accounted for solely in terms of the reinforcing properties of changes in shock rates, but required an interpretation that ascribed conditioned reinforcing value to stimuli associated with such changes.

Chained schedules of avoidance: Reinforcement within and by avoidance situations

Four rats were exposed to chained schedules with variable-cycle avoidance in both links. Responding in the initial link cancelled shocks scheduled once per minute and, according to a conjoint fixed-ratio schedule, produced a terminal link where scheduled shock rates varied from 0 to 8 shocks per minute in different conditions of the experiment. Response rates in the terminal link increased as a function of the scheduled shock rate. Response rates in the initial link, on the other hand, decreased as a function of the shock rate actually received (rather than scheduled) in the terminal link. While consistent with other studies of aversive control, these results differ from those obtained in chained schedules of positive reinforcement in that increases in reinforcement within the terminal link of the chain did not systematically increase the reinforcing value of that link.

Variable-interval schedules of timeout from avoidance

Rats were trained on concurrent schedules in which pressing one lever postponed shock and pressing the other occasionally produced a 2-min timeout during which the shock-postponement schedule was suspended and its correlated stimuli were removed. Throughout, the shock-postponement schedule maintained proficient levels of avoidance. Nevertheless, in Experiment 1 responding on the timeout lever was established rapidly, was maintained at stable levels on variable-interval schedules, was extinguished by withholding timeout, was reestablished when timeout was reintroduced, and was brought under discriminative control with a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule of timeout. These results are in contrast with Verhave's (1962) conclusion that timeout is an ineffective reinforcer when presented to rats on intermittent schedules. In Experiment 2 the consequence of responding on the timeout lever was altered so that the shock-postponement schedule remained in effect even though the stimulus conditions associated with timeout were produced for 2 min. Responding extinguished, indicating that suspension of the shock-postponement schedule, not stimulus change, was the source of reinforcement. By establishing the reinforcing efficacy of timeout with standard variable-interval schedules, these experiments illustrate a procedure for studying negative reinforcement in the same way as positive reinforcement.

Variable-interval schedules of timeout from avoidance: effects of chlordiazepoxide, CGS 8216, morphine, and naltrexone

Rats were trained on concurrent schedules in which pressing one lever postponed shock and pressing the other occasionally (variable-interval schedule) produced a 2-min timeout during which the shock-postponement schedule was suspended and its correlated stimuli were removed. These procedures provided a baseline for studying the effects of drugs on behavior maintained by different sources of negative reinforcement (shock avoidance and timeout from avoidance). Experiment 1 studied a benzodiazepine agonist, chlordiazepoxide, and antagonist, CGS 8216. Chlordiazepoxide (2.5-30 mg/kg) had little effect on avoidance responding except at higher doses, when it reduced responding. By comparison, responding on the timeout lever was increased in 5 of 6 rats. These effects were reversed by CGS 8216 (2.5-5 mg/kg) in the 2 rats tested, but CGS 8216 had no effect by itself. Experiment 2 studied an opiate agonist, morphine, and antagonist, naltrexone, with 3 rats. Morphine's (2.5-20 mg/kg) effects were opposite those of chlordiazepoxide: At doses that either increased or had no effect on avoidance responding, morphine depressed timeout responding. Naltrexone (5 mg/kg) reversed these actions but had no effect by itself.

Differences in Responding under Fixed-Time and Fixed-Interval Schedules of Electric Shock Presentation

In a squirrel monkey with prior training under a shock-escape schedule, response rate increased and the pattern of positively accelerated responding sharpened when electric shocks (10 mA) were presented on a response-dependent (fixed-interval) rather than on response-independent (fixed-time) basis. The differences in responding under the two schedules were apparent over several transitions from one schedule to the other and were independent of whether or not time-out periods followed presentation of shock. These differences are the same as those seen after similar manipulations of the schedule of presentation of food. The clear differences observed are testament to the degree of control exerted by temporally close and consistent relations between the emission of an operant and presentation of the maintaining event.