PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J Harsh

Publications and source records attributed to J Harsh.

31 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1985

Behavioral responsivity during recovery sleep.

Previous research has shown that REM-deprived subjects are more likely than non-REM-deprived subjects to perform an operant response during subsequent REM sleep when punishment (full awakening) for failure to respond was used. The present study used the same punishment procedure while attempting to extend these findings to other sleep stages. Response latencies were compared for six subjects under each of two conditions: Normal sleep occurring from 2300 to 0700 and recovery sleep occurring from 0700 to 1300 after 24 hr of continuous wakefulness. Alpha activity, EMG increases, stage shifts, and body movements were assessed to determine the amount of arousal associated with behavioral responding under both conditions. In general, response latencies lengthened during recovery sleep indicating a diminished ability to respond while no differences in arousal were evident.

Arousal↗
PubMed1984

Signal modality and choice between signaled and unsignaled food.

Choice between signaled and unsignaled response-independent food schedules was assessed in three experiments using a commitment procedure. In Experiment 1, subjects tested with a 5-s visual signal consistently changed from the signaled to the unsignaled schedule. Changing from the unsignaled to the signaled schedule was observed only occasionally and only at low levels. The same outcome was observed in Experiment 2 with different types of visual signals and with different stimulus combinations identifying the signal period, the signal-absent period, and the unsignaled schedule. In Experiment 3 the visual signal was replaced with an auditory signal for four of the subjects tested in Experiment 2. The subjects then changed from the unsignaled to the signaled schedule or showed a substantial reduction in choice for the unsignaled schedule. The data were assessed using a conditioned-reinforcement interpretation of choice.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1983

Factors affecting choice of signaled or unsignaled food schedules.

Choice between signaled and unsignaled food schedules was assessed in two experiments using a shuttlebox. Experiment 1 examined preference with both a five-second signal and a thirty-second signal. Subjects preferred the unsignaled side with a five-second signal but preferred the signaled side with a thirty-second signal. Experiment 2 assessed preference using either a commitment procedure (a shuttle response resulted in exposure to the schedule for a fixed time) or a noncommitment procedure (each shuttle response changed the schedule in effect). Subjects preferred the signaled condition with the commitment procedure but the unsignaled condition with the noncommitment procedure. These results indicate that the discrepant findings of earlier studies are due to procedural differences involving signal duration and choice commitment. The data are consistent with a conditioned reinforcement interpretation of choice.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1981

Choosing schedules of signaled appetitive events over schedules of unsignaled ones.

Two experiments were completed allowing albino rats to choose between signaled and unsignaled reward conditions. These experiments examined the effects on preference of (1) response dependent versus response-independent reward and, (2) food pellets versus chocolate milk as the reward. All subjects preferred the signaled condition over the unsignaled condition, whether exposed to response-dependent, or to response-independent delivery of rewards. Preference was controlled most effectively by presenting both the signal itself and the correlated stimulus identifying the signaled condition. The signal presented alone (Extinction 3) controlled preference more effectively than did the stimulus correlated with the signaled condition (Extinction 2). The second experiment showed that the quality of the reinforcer (pellets and chocolate milk) did not affect preference for signaled reward since all subjects preferred the signaled condition at levels comparable to those observed in Experiment 1, with food pellets. These results, along with others, argue against species differences, response-dependency, and reinforcer quality as variables affecting the direction of preference.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1976

A temporal parameter influencing choice between signalled and unsignalled shock schedules.

The present study investigated whether choice of a signalled variable-time shock schedule over an unsignalled one was influenced by the average intershock interval. Eight rats were given a choice between signalled and unsignalled shock schedules in a series of conditions with average intershock intervals of 510, 270, 150, 90, 60, and 45 sec. Each test condition was preceded by a training-baseline condition, and schedule values were arranged in an ascending (four subjects) or descending (four subjects) order. Choice of the signalled conditions was directly related to the average intershock interval of the variable-time schedule for six of the eight subjects. The per cent of time in the signalled condition was highest when the average intershock interval was 150 sec or longer and lowest when the average intershock interval was 45 sec. The findings were interpreted as being due to changes in the safety features of the signalled schedule, rather than to changes in the average intershock interval per se.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1976

Choice and the dependability of stimuli that predict shock and safety.

This study assessed whether choosing a signalled shock condition over an unsignalled one is controlled by a stimulus that predicts the presence of shock (Experiment I), or by a stimulus that predicts the absence of shock (Experiment II). The dependability of these stimuli as predictors of either the presence or the absence of shock was parametrically varied over a wide range, and subjects (rats) were given an option to change from an unsignalled to a signalled condition. In the first experiment, all shocks were preceded by signals; however, the probability of a signal being followed by shock varied from 1.0 to 0.02. The data obtained indicate that the dependability of the signal as a predictor of shock is unimportant. Rats changed to the signalled condition when the signal was completely dependable (all signals followed by shock) and when the dependability of the signal was systematically degraded. In the second experiment, all signals were followed by shock; however, some shocks were not preceded by a signal. The data show that the dependability of a stimulus predicting the absence of shock is important in that, as dependability decreases, changing to the signalled condition also decreases.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1975

Choice for signalled over unsignalled shock as a function of shock intensity.

Choice between a signalled shock schedule and an unsignalled one was examined at various shock intensities. Three rats were given the opportunity to change from the unsignalled schedule to the signalled one at intensity values between 0.15 mA and 1.0 mA. Steps were usually 0.15 mA and both ascending and descending series were given. For two other rats, shock intensity increased from 0.20 mA to 1.0 mA in 0.20-mA increments; for two additional rats, shock intensity was first 3.0 mA and was then reduced to 1.0 mA. Subjects tended to remain in the unsignalled schedule at the lower shock intensities, but spent most of each session under the signalled schedule at the higher intensities (1.0 mA and 3.0 mA). In addition, the time spent in the signalled schedule tended to vary systematically with shock intensity over at least part of the range of intensity values. It was concluded that the relationship between shock intensity and choice behavior is similar to the relationship between intensity and behavior in procedures involving avoidance, escape, and punishment.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1973

Choice of longer or stronger signalled shock over shorter or weaker unsignalled shock.

Unsignalled, inescapable shocks were presented to four albino rats in one study and to six rats in a second study. By pressing a lever, subjects could change the condition to signalled shock for 3 min after which unsignalled shock was automatically reinstated. All subjects changed frequently to the signalled shock schedule. After a minimum of three 6-hr sessions or after changeover responding stabilized at the previous values, higher values of signalled shock intensity or duration were introduced. In the first study, the duration of signalled shock was increased in increments of 0.5 sec. In the second study, the intensity of signalled shock was increased in increments of either 0.2 or 0.4 mA. Duration subjects chose signalled shock four (2.0 sec) to nine times (4.5 sec) longer than unsignalled shock (0.5 sec). Intensity subjects chose signalled shock two (2.0 mA) to three times (3.0 mA) more intense than unsignalled shock (1.0 mA).

Journal Article↗
PubMed1973

Choice of higher density signalled shock over lower density unsignalled shock.

Unsignalled, inescapable shocks were presented to four albino rats in Experiment 1. By pressing a lever subjects could change the condition to signalled shock for 3-min periods after which unsignalled shock was automatically reinstated. All subjects changed from unsignalled to signalled shock when shock density was the same or when the density of signalled shock was two times greater than unsignalled shock. When the density of signalled shock was four times that of unsignalled shock, three subjects changed to the higher density schedule. One subject changed to a density of signalled shock eight times that of unsignalled shock. The second study showed that the two shock schedules most similar in Experiment 1 were discriminably different because subjects chose lower over higher shock densities when both densities were unsignalled. An analysis stressing safe (signal absent) and unsafe (signal present) periods was discussed.

Journal Article↗