PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16812137

Partial avoidance contingencies: Absolute omission and punishment probabilities.

B L Flye·J Gibbon
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Avoidance contingencies were defined by the absolute probability of the conjunction of responding or not responding with shock or no shock. The "omission" probability (rho(00)) is the probability of no response and no shock. The "punishment" probability (rho(11)) is the probability of both a response and a shock. The traditional avoidance contingency never omits shock on nonresponse trials (rho(00)=0) and never presents shock on response trials (rho(11)=0). Rats were trained on a discrete-trial paradigm with no intertrial interval. The first lever response changed an auditory stimulus for the remainder of the trial. Shocks were delivered only at the end of each trial cycle. After initial training under the traditional avoidance contingency, one group of rats experienced changes in omission probability (rho(00)>0), holding punishment probability at zero. The second group of rats were studied under different punishment probability values (rho(11)>0), holding omission probability at zero. Data from subjects in the omission group looked similar, showing graded decrements in responding with increasing probability of omission. These subjects approximately "matched" their nonresponse frequencies to the programmed probability of shock omission on nonresponse trials, producing a very low and approximately constant conditional probability of shock given no response. Subjects in the punishment group showed different sensitivity to increasing absolute punishment probability. Some subjects decreased responding to low values as punishment probability increased, while others continued to respond at substantial levels even when shock was inevitable on all trials (noncontingent shock schedule). These results confirm an asymmetry between two dimensions of partial avoidance contingencies. When the consequences of not responding included occasional omission of shock, all subjects showed graded sensitivity to changes in omission frequency. When the consequences of responding included occasional shock delivery, some subjects showed graded sensitivity to punishment frequency while others showed control by overall shock frequency as well.

Explore related subjects

Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B L Flye, J Gibbon. 1979. Partial avoidance contingencies: Absolute omission and punishment probabilities.. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1979.31-351

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2027

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗