Extinction of a Runway Response following Runway or Goal Box Partial Reinforcement

1967 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Wilton
Keyword(s):  
Reinforcement Schedule ◽  
Straight Runway ◽  
Partial Reinforcement ◽  
Full Length ◽  
Frustration Theory ◽  
Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect ◽  
Consistent Reinforcement

Rats were trained on a consistent reinforcement schedule in a straight runway. They were then switched to one of two partial reinforcement procedures. One group continued to run the full length of the runway, another was placed directly in the goal box. When extinguished in the full length of the runway both groups were more resistant to extinction than groups trained only on consistent reinforcement. An attempt was made to delineate the conditions for a demonstration of the partial reinforcement extinction effect. The results were discussed in relation to frustration theory.

Resistance to Extinction as a Function of Reinforcement Schedule and Training Level: A Test of Theios and Brelsford's Theory

1978 ◽  
Vol 42 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1091-1096 ◽  
Author(s):  
William N. Boyer ◽  
Henry A. Cross ◽  
David D. Avery
Keyword(s):  
Reinforcement Schedule ◽  
Incentive Motivation ◽  
Partial Reinforcement ◽  
Habit Strength ◽  
Training Level ◽  
Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect ◽  
Resistance To Extinction ◽  
And Training

Two experiments were run in which one group of rats received 100% reward with 16 pellets per trial (100%-16), a second group received 50% reward with 16 pellets on rewarded trials (50%-16), and a third group got 50% reward with 32 pellets on rewarded trials (50%-32). From Theios and Brelsford's theory it was predicted that Group 50%-32 should show less resistance to extinction than Group 50%-16, since both were equated for habit strength but differed on incentive motivation. In Exp. 1 all groups had 32 acquisition trials whereas in Exp. 2 all groups had 64 acquisition trials. Aside from this difference the two experiments were identical. The partial reinforcement extinction effect occurred in both studies. In Exp. 1, Group 50%-32 did not show less resistance to extinction than Group 50%-16, however, in Exp. 2 this result was obtained and confirmed the prediction under test.

Heterogeneous Squad Composition, Odor Cues, and the Partial Reinforcement Effect

1973 ◽  
Vol 36 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1163-1169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen F. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Partial Reinforcement Effect ◽  
Straight Runway ◽  
Partial Reinforcement ◽  
Reinforcement Effect ◽  
Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect ◽  
Odor Cues

4 groups of rats served as Ss in a study designed to determine the influence of odor cues on the partial reinforcement extinction effect in a straight runway. Ss were run in 2 heterogeneous squads. In both squads were Ss that received continuous or partial reinforcement prior to extinction. One squad run under odor-minimizing conditions, while a second, similar, squad was run under odor-maximizing conditions. Significant partial reinforcement extinction effects were shown only by the odor-maximizing Ss.

scholarly journals The Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect Depends on Learning about Non-Reinforced Trials Rather than Reinforcement Rate

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Harris ◽  
Dorothy Kwok ◽  
Daniel Gottlieb
Keyword(s):  
Alternative Explanation ◽  
Food Pellet ◽  
Reinforcement Rate ◽  
Partial Reinforcement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect ◽  
Consistent Reinforcement ◽  
Trial Probability ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Conditioned Responding

Conditioned responding extinguishes more slowly after partial (inconsistent) reinforcement than after consistent reinforcement. This Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect (PREE) is usually attributed to learning about nonreinforcement during the partial schedule. An alternative explanation attributes it to any difference in the rate of reinforcement, arguing that animals can detect the change to nonreinforcement more quickly after a denser schedule than a leaner schedule. Experiments 1a and 1b compared extinction of magazine responding to a conditioned stimulus (CS) reinforced with one food pellet per trial and a CS reinforced with two pellets per trial. Despite the difference in reinforcement rate, there was no reliable difference in extinction. Both experiments did demonstrate the conventional PREE comparing a partial CS (50% reinforced) with a consistent CS. Experiments 2 and 3 tested whether the PREE depends specifically on learning about nonreinforced trials during partial reinforcement. Rats were trained with two CS configurations, A and AX. One was partially reinforced, the other consistently reinforced. When AX was partial and A consistent, responding to AX extinguished more slowly than to A. When AX was consistent and A was partial, there was no difference in their extinction. Therefore, pairing X with partial reinforcement allowed rats to show a PREE to AX that did not generalise to A. Pairing A with partial reinforcement meant that rats showed a PREE to A that generalised to AX. Thus, the PREE depends on learning about nonreinforced trials during partial reinforcement and is not due to any difference in per-trial probability of reinforcement

scholarly journals The Partial-Reinforcement Extinction Effect Does Not Result from Reduced Sensitivity to Non-Reinforcement

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Harris ◽  
Manuel Stephen Seet ◽  
Dorothy Kwok
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Reinforcement Schedule ◽  
Conditioned Inhibition ◽  
Reinforcement Rate ◽  
Partial Reinforcement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect

Five experiments used a magazine approach paradigm with rats to investigate whether learning about non-reinforcement is impaired in the presence of a conditioned stimulus (CS) that had been partially reinforced (PRf). Experiment 1 trained rats with a PRf CS and a continuously reinforced (CRf) CS, then extinguished responding to both CSs presented together as a compound. Probe trials of each CS presented alone revealed that extinction was slower for the PRf CS than the CRf CS, despite being extinguished in compound. In Experiment 2, a CRf light was extinguished in compound with either a CRf CS or a PRf CS that had been matched for overall reinforcement rate. Responding to the light extinguished at the same rate regardless of the reinforcement schedule of the other CS. Experiment 3 replicated this result with a PRf light. Thus, we found no evidence that a PRf CS impairs extinction of another CS presented at the same time. Experiments 4 and 5 extended this approach to study the acquisition of conditioned inhibition by training an inhibitor in compound with either a PRf or CRf excitatory CS. The reinforcement schedule of the excitatory CS had no effect on the acquisition of inhibition. In sum, conditioning with a PRf schedule slows subsequent extinction of that CS but does not affect learning about the non-reinforcement of other stimuli presented at the same time. We conclude that the Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect is not due to a decrease in sensitivity to non-reinforcement following presentation of a PRf CS.

Note on Frustration Theory and the Partial Reinforcement Effect following a Few Acquisition Trials

1971 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-82
Author(s):  
A. M. Padilla
Keyword(s):  
Partial Reinforcement Effect ◽  
Acquisition Training ◽  
Partial Reinforcement ◽  
Frustration Theory ◽  
Reinforcement Effect ◽  
Acquisition Process ◽  
Early Acquisition

Frustration theory (Amsel, 1958) is unable to explain partial reinforcement effects following limited acquisition training. It is suggested that attempts to explain these findings may have implications for conditioning theories in general, and that more attention should be given to the early acquisition process.

Preference for Predictable Small Rewards over Unpredictable Larger Rewards

1984 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 467-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gene D. Steinhauer
Keyword(s):  
Reward Magnitude ◽  
Partial Reinforcement ◽  
Frustration Theory ◽  
Equal Frequency ◽  
Theory Analysis ◽  
Clear Preference ◽  
Avoidance Tendency ◽  
Discrimination Procedure ◽  
Two Alternatives ◽  
Reinforcement Procedure

Numerous prior studies have reported that rats, pigeons, and humans prefer predictable over unpredictable rewards of equal frequency and magnitude. A frustration-theory analysis of this preference suggests that it obtains because the unpredictable partial reinforcement procedure is aversive whereas the predictable discrimination procedure loses its aversiveness. The preference, on such an analysis, arises due to the tendency to avoid the unpredictable of two alternatives. Since frustration varies as a function of magnitude of reward, the avoidance tendency should increase with increases in reward magnitude in the unpredictable alternative. One group of rats in the present study showed a clear preference for seven versus five 45-mg Noyes Pellets. A second group showed the oft reported preference for five pellets predictable versus five pellets unpredictable. A third group of rats showed a preference for a five-pellet predictable reward over a seven-pellet unpredictable reward. The results of this experiment provide evidence for a frustration-theory analysis of the preference for predictable reward.

scholarly journals The Importance of Trials

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Harris
Keyword(s):  
Reinforcement Schedule ◽  
Partial Reinforcement ◽  
Continuous Learning ◽  
Reinforcement History ◽  
The Us ◽  
History Information ◽  
Temporal Intervals ◽  
Learning As A Process ◽  
Stored Information ◽  
The Relationship

Many theories of conditioning describe learning as a process by which stored information about the relationship between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US) is progressively updated upon each occasion (trial) that the CS occurs with, or without, the US. These simple trial-based descriptions can provide a powerful and efficient means of extracting information about the correlation between two events, but they fail to explain how animals learn about the timing of events. This failure has motivated models of conditioning in which animals learn continuously, either by explicitly representing temporal intervals between events, or by sequentially updating an array of associations between temporally distributed elements of the CS and US. Here, I review evidence that some aspects of conditioning are not the consequence of a continuous learning process but reflect a trial-based process. In particular, the way that animals learn about the absence of a predicted US during extinction suggests that they encode and remember trials as single complete episodes rather than as a continuous experience of unfulfilled expectation of the US. These memories allow the animal to recognise repeated instances of non-reinforcement and encode these as a sequence which, in the case of a partial reinforcement schedule, can become associated with the US. The animal is thus able to remember details about the pattern of a CS’s reinforcement history, information that affects how long the animal continues to respond to the CS when all reinforcement ceases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document