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.

Extinction Performance as a Function of N-R Transitions and Intertrial Reinforcement with Extended Partial Reinforcement Training

1968 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 765-771 ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. Spivey ◽  
David T. Hess ◽  
James Klemic
Keyword(s):  
Partial Reinforcement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Albino Rats ◽  
Extinction Performance ◽  
Extended Training ◽  
Consistent Reinforcement ◽  
Intertrial Reinforcement ◽  
Partial Reinforcement Training

3 groups of albino rats were given 96 acquisition trials in a runway. One group (C) was given consistent reinforcement, while the other 2 groups (PN, PR) received the same partial reinforcement pattern, RRNNRRNN, on each day. Following Trial 4 for Group PN and Trial 5 for Groups PR and C., Ss were given intertrial reinforcement. In extinction the groups were ordered PR, PN, C, with Group PR being most resistant to extinction. Taken in conjunction with the results of studies involving abbreviated training, the findings were interpreted as supporting the view that the same variables or processes influence extinction performance following both abbreviated and extended training. The results were further interpreted as supporting the modified aftereffects hypothesis.

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.

scholarly journals Cue duration determines response rate but not rate of acquisition of Pavlovian conditioning in mice

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (11) ◽  
pp. 2026-2035
Author(s):  
Joseph M Austen ◽  
David J Sanderson
Keyword(s):  
Pavlovian Conditioning ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Reinforcement Rate ◽  
Estimation Theory ◽  
Cumulative Exposure ◽  
Rate Estimation ◽  
Conditioning Rate ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Conditioned Responding ◽  
Associative Analysis

The duration of a conditioned stimulus (CS) is a key determinant of Pavlovian conditioning. Rate estimation theory (RET) proposes that reinforcement rate is calculated over cumulative exposure to a cue and the reinforcement rate of a cue, relative to the background reinforcement rate, determines the speed of acquisition of conditioned responding. Consequently, RET predicts that shorter-duration cues require fewer trials to acquisition than longer-duration cues due to the difference in reinforcement rates. We tested this prediction by reanalysing the results of a previously published experiment. Mice received appetitive Pavlovian conditioning of magazine approach behaviour with a 10-s CS and a 40-s CS. Cue duration did not affect the rate at which responding emerged or the rate at which it peaked. The 10-s CS did elicit higher levels of responding than the 40-s CS. These results are not consistent with rate estimation theory. Instead, they are consistent with an associative analysis that assumes that asymptotic levels of responding reflect the balance between increments and decrements in associative strength across cumulative exposure to a cue.

scholarly journals Hippocampal-amygdala interactions mediate uncertainty-dependent resistance to extinction following fear conditioning

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Morris ◽  
Francois Windels ◽  
Pankaj Sah
Keyword(s):  
Fear Conditioning ◽  
Basolateral Amygdala ◽  
Partial Reinforcement ◽  
Theta Oscillations ◽  
Field Potentials ◽  
Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect ◽  
Reinforcement Probability ◽  
Electrophysiological Recordings ◽  
Conditioned Responding

AbstractThe partial reinforcement extinction effect (PREE) is a paradoxical learning phenomenon in which omission of reinforcement during acquisition results in more persistent conditioned responding in extinction. Here, we report a significant PREE with an inverted-U, entropy-like distribution against reinforcement probability following tone foot shock fear conditioning in rats, which was associated with increased neural activity in hippocampus and amygdala as indexed by p-ERK and c-fos immunolabelling. In vivo electrophysiological recordings of local field potentials (LFPs) showed that 50% reinforcement was associated with increases in the frequency and power of tone-evoked theta oscillations in both the subiculum region of hippocampus and in basolateral amygdala (BLA) during both acquisition (Day 1) and extinction (Day 2) sessions. Tone-evoked LFPs in 50% reinforced animals also showed increases in coherence and bidirectional Granger Causality between hippocampus and amygdala. The results support a Bayesian interpretation of the PREE, in which the phenomenon is driven by increases in the entropy or uncertainty of stimulus contingencies, and indicate a crucial role for hippocampus in mediating this uncertainty-dependent effect.

Partial Reinforcement and Breadth of Learning

1966 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 289-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. S. Sutherland
Keyword(s):  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Negative Correlation ◽  
Correct Response ◽  
Process Model ◽  
Partial Reinforcement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Original Training ◽  
Consistent Reinforcement

Two experiments on partial reinforcement were undertaken to test predictions made by a two process model of discrimination learning. In the first experiment rats were trained on a discrimination involving two relevant cues: one group (C) was trained on a 100: o schedule, the other (P) on a 50:0 schedule. Both groups were then given transfer tests with the two cues presented individually; finally all animals were extinguished on the original training stimuli and on the single cue stimuli. During extinction there was a negative correlation between the number of correct responses made by individual subjects of Group C to each single cue; whereas the correlation was positive for subjects of Group P. The second experiment employed basically the same design, but subjects were trained with seven relevant cues. The results of transfer tests showed that subjects of Group P learned to attach the correct response to many more cues than subjects of Group C. This suggests that the breadth of learning is greater under partial than under consistent reinforcement. The results were predicted by the model of discrimination learning under test.

scholarly journals The probability of reinforcement per trial affects post-trial responding and subsequent extinction, but not within-trial responding

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Harris ◽  
Dorothy Kwok
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Reinforcement Rate ◽  
Trial Probability ◽  
Post Trial ◽  
Conditioned Responding

During magazine approach conditioning, rats do not discriminate between a conditioned stimulus (CS) that is consistently reinforced with food and a CS that is occasionally (partially) reinforced, as long as the CSs have the same overall reinforcement rate per second. This implies that rats are indifferent to the probability of reinforcement per trial. However, in the same rats, the per-trial reinforcement rate will affect subsequent extinction—responding extinguishes more rapidly for a CS that was consistently reinforced than for a partially reinforced CS. Here, we trained rats with consistently and partially reinforced CSs that were matched for overall reinforcement rate per second. We measured conditioned responding both during and immediately after the CSs. Differences in the per-trial probability of reinforcement did not affect the acquisition of responding during the CS, but did affect subsequent extinction of that responding, and also affected the post-CS response rates during conditioning. Indeed, CSs with the same probability of reinforcement per trial evoked the same amount of post-CS responding even when they differed in overall reinforcement rate and thus evoked different amounts of responding during the CS. We conclude that reinforcement rate per second controls rats’ acquisition of responding during the CS, but at the same time rats also learn specifically about the probability of reinforcement per trial. The latter learning affects the rats’ expectation of reinforcement as an outcome of the trial, which influences their ability to detect retrospectively that an opportunity for reinforcement was missed, and in turn drives extinction.

Sequential Effects of Non-Reward in a Skinner Box

1976 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 379-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. W. Still ◽  
A. St. C. Macmillan
Keyword(s):  
Partial Reinforcement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Simultaneous Discrimination ◽  
Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect ◽  
Sequential Effects ◽  
Discrete Trials ◽  
Within Subjects ◽  
Skinner Box ◽  
Suggested Explanation

The partial reinforcement extinction effect was examined within subjects in a simultaneous discrimination in a two bar Skinner box. Discrete trials were used, rats being required to press the bar under the illuminated cue light; one bar was correlated with 100% the other with 50% reinforcement. The three groups differed in the probability of a change in the cue light between trials during acquisition. When this probability was low, the 50% bar was preferred in extinction, while when it was higher (0.433 or 0.875) the 100% bar was preferred. These results confirm Capaldi's (1966) hypothesis of the partial reinforcement extinction effect, and support a suggested explanation of some conflicting results on partial reinforcement effects in a Skinner box.

Does Delay of Reinforcement Produce Durable Persistence?

1974 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 218-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul T. P. Wong ◽  
K. L. Traupmann ◽  
Steve Brake
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Partial Reinforcement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Delayed Reinforcement ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Control Phase ◽  
Runway Training ◽  
Consistent Reinforcement ◽  
Delay Of Reinforcement

In a foru-phase experiment, phase I was runway training under four different reinforcement conditions: partial reinforcement (PRF), partial delayed reinforcement (PDR), constant delayed reinforcement (CDR), and consistent reinforcement (CRF). During phase 2 extinction, PRF and PDR groups did not differ; both groups were more persistent than group CDR, which was in turn superior to the CRF control. Phase 3 was CRF reacquisition for all groups. During phase 4 extinction, PRF group was more presistent than the other three groups which did not differ. A Pavlovian counter-conditioning hypothesis was proposed to account for the absence of durable persistence following PDR training.

scholarly journals The Modified Law of Effect Explains the Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin M Seitz ◽  
Alexandra Stolyarova ◽  
Aaron Blaisdell
Keyword(s):  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Partial Reinforcement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect ◽  
Rapid Extinction ◽  
Paradoxical Finding ◽  
Environmental Reward ◽  
Behavioral Phenomena ◽  
Reward Contingencies ◽  
Selection Of

Thorndike’s Law of Effect provides a framework for understanding the selection of behaviors given specific environmental reward contingencies. Though a highly influential model, especially given its resurgence in popularity to understand habitual behaviors, it fails to predict several well-documented behavioral phenomena and incorrectly views extinction as the unlearning of a previously acquired association. Blaisdell, Stolyarova, & Stahlman (2016) proposed modifications to Thorndike’s original law that address these issues and greatly increases the model’s explanatory power. This modified Law of Effect (MLOE) also provides a testable account of the Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect (PREE). The PREE is the paradoxical finding of more rapid extinction to a continuously reinforced cue than to a partially reinforced cue, and has challenged many theoretical accounts of learning. Simulations of the MLOE confirm these predictions. Two experimental paradigms, one using pigeons and the other using humans, show support for the Modified Law of Effect’s explanation of the PREE.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document