Biomedical subjects

E T Gardner

Publications and source records attributed to E T Gardner.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1978

Matching with a key-peck response in concurrent negative reinforcement schedules.

In the absence of responding, pigeons were shocked under a variable-time schedule. Responses on either of two keys occasionally produced one minute of shock-free time. That is, pigeons' key pecks were reinforced with shock-free time under concurrent variable-interval schedules. The relative frequency of access to the one-minute shock-free periods was systematically manipulated. Pigeons tended to match both relative response rate and proportion of time spent on each key to the relative frequency of the shock-free periods. A best-fit linear regression equation accounted for over 95% of the variance in both relative response rate and time allocation. The data paralleled closely the results of concurrent schedules of positive reinforcement. These findings are consistent with a description of reinforcement as a transition to a higher-valued situation and suggest that common laws govern choice for both positive and negative reinforcement.

Journal Article↗

PubMed1977

Parameters affecting the maintenance of negatively reinforced key pecking.

Three negative reinforcement experiments employing a key-peck response are described. In Experiment I, pigeons shocked on the average of twice per minute (imposed condition) could produce, by pecking a key, an alternate condition with correlated stimuli. Delayed shocks were added, across sessions, to the alternate condition until pecking stopped. Two of three pigeons continued to peck despite a 100% increase in shock frequency. In Experiment II, pigeons were shocked in the imposed condition four times per minute. The postresponse delay to shock was held constant by delivering, in the alternate condition, the next shock, or the next two, three, or four shocks from the imposed-condition shock schedule. All three subjects continued to peck with no change in delay to the first two postresponse shocks but with a 75% reduction in shock frequency. In Experiment III, a response produced an immediate shock followed by a shock-free period. Three of four subjects continued to respond despite reduced delay to shock. Delay-to-shock or shock-frequency reduction was sufficient to maintain key pecking, but neither was necessary. The conditions that negatively reinforce the pigeon's key peck were similar to conditions that negatively reinforce the rat's bar press.

Journal Article↗

PubMed1976

Negative reinforcement with shock-frequency increase.

Two avoidance-conditioning experiments in which responding delayed shocks are reported. Rats receiving an average of two shocks per minute (imposed condition) could produce, by pressing a bar, a 3-min alternate condition. Six (Experiment I) or more (Experiment II) shocks occurred in the alternate condition. All shocks in the alternate condition were delayed and delivered at 1-sec intervals. With long delays, all subjects produced the alternate condition and spent a large percentage of each session in the alternate condition. The first experiment demonstrated that the longer the delay from onset of the alternate condition to onset of the shocks, the more session time spent in the alternate condition. The second experiment indicated that despite increased shock frequency, behavior is acquired and maintained when responding leads to sufficient delay. Individual subjects produced the alternate condition by bar pressing in essentially one of two patterns. One pattern, termed postshock, involved bar pressing immediately after shock; the other, termed posttransition, involved responding immediately after the transition from the alternate to the imposed condition. These results indicate that shock-frequency reduction is not necessary for avoidance conditioning; delay to shock onset is sufficient.

Journal Article↗

PubMed1976

Integrated delays to shock as negative reinforcement.

Rats were shocked at the rate of two per minute until they pressed a lever. In Experiment I, shocks were delivered at variable-time intervals averaging 30 sec; in Experiment II, shocks were delivered at fixed-time intervals of 30 sec. A response produced an alternate condition for a fixed-time period. The shock frequency following a response, calculated over the whole alternate condition, was two per minute. The pattern of shocks in the alternate condition was controlled so that the first shock occurred at the same time as it would have occurred had the response not been emitted; the remaining shocks were delayed until near the end of the alternate condition. Bar pressing was acquired in both experiments. This finding is not explained by two-factor theories of avoidance and is inconsistent with the notion that overall shock-frequency reduction is necessary for negative reinforcement. The data imply that responding is determined by the integrated delays to each shock following a response versus the integrated delays to shock in the absence of a response.

Journal Article↗