PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R E ULRICH

Publications and source records attributed to R E ULRICH.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1965

A FORTY-THREE DAY AVOIDANCE SESSION.

A single Sprague-Dawley rat was subjected to an extended discriminated avoidance session in effect continuously for over 1000 hr (43 days). The longest possible shock-free interval that the subject could obtain without responding was 5 min. Since the subject did not sleep through shock, all resting or sleeping was interrupted at least once every 5 min by either a response or a shock. Neither the experimental (avoidance) animal nor a second animal which received all shocks not avoided by the first, gave any appearance of ill effects from the protracted session.

Animals↗
PubMed1964

BEHAVIOR: PERSISTENCE OF SHOCK-INDUCED AGGRESSION.

Previous research has shown that aversive stimulation causes aggression in several lower species of mammals prior to any specific conditioning. Our results show that fighting in response to shock tends to persist in spite of negative reinforcement for other behavior. The frequency of shock-induced fights decreased significantly only when the reinforcement of shock termination was made contingent upon a specific nonaggressive response.

Aggression↗
PubMed1964

STIMULUS CONTROL OF AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR.

The introduction of a warning signal preceding shocks greatly increased the effectiveness of avoidance responding. Periods of "warm-up" at the beginning of the session were eliminated, and the number of shocks received by the subjects was greatly reduced. With response-shock interval constant, response rate increased as the interval between the response and the onset of the warning signal was shortened. The response tended to occur shortly after the onset of the warning signal regardless of the duration of these "safe" periods. A greatly elevated response rate was maintained even when the duration of the safe period was reduced to 0.3 sec. Thus, the pre-shock signal obtained nearly exclusive control of the responding and overrode the usual "temporal discrimination" of the response-shock interval.

Avoidance Learning↗
PubMed1963

Punishment of temporally spaced responding.

The responses of pigeons were maintained by a DRL schedule of food reinforcement. With this schedule, responses were reinforced only when a fixed period of time elapsed without an intervening response. Punishment of all responses reduced the frequency of these responses as a direct function of the punishment intensity. As a consequence of the increased temporal spacing of responses, more reinforcements resulted during punishment. Under progressively higher intensities of punishment, the reinforcement frequency increased to a maximum value and then decreased at the highest intensities. The increased frequency of reinforcement which resulted during punishment did not counteract the suppressive effect of punishment, nor did it lead to a low response rate after punishment was removed. Punishment did not reduce the inter-response time distribution uniformly, but rather especially reduced the number of short inter-response times. Even at the low punishment intensities, the number of short inter-response times was considerably reduced. After punishment was discontinued, performance recovered almost completely after a compensatory burst. The number as well as the temporal pattern of responses returned to normal.

Animals↗
PubMed1962

Reflexive fighting in response to aversive stimulation.

Reflexive fighting was elicited between paired rats as a reflex reaction to electric shock prior to any specific conditioning. Such fighting was fairly stereotyped and easily differentiated from the rats' usual behavior. The strength of this reflex was not attributable to any apparent operant reinforcement. Elicitation of fighting was a direct function of the enclosed floor area and a nonmonotonic function of the shock intensity. Failure to scramble the polarity of the electrified grid produced inconsistent fighting. Under optimal conditions fighting was consistently elicited by shock regardless of the rat's sex, strain, previous familiarity with each other, or the number present during shock. Repeated shock presentations did not produce an appreciable decrease in fighting until signs of physical debility appeared. Although shock did not cause a rat to attack inanimate objects, it did produce attack movements toward other small animals. Failure of guinea pigs to defend themselves revealed that the elicitation of fighting from the rat does not require reciprocal attack. Paired hamsters showed fighting reactions similar to those of the rats, whereas guinea pigs failed to fight. Electrode shock and a heated floor elicited fighting between the rats, but intense noise and a cooled floor did not.

Aggression↗