Implementation of Reinforcement Skill in Teaching English in The Pandemic Situation

This study aimed to identify the types of reinforcement skills and investigate the implementation of reinforcement skills used during the online learning process at SMP Laboratorium Undiksha Singaraja. This study used a qualitative descriptive method as the research design. This study also used an English teacher as the research subject. In collecting data, this study used three methods, namely; observation, interviews, and questionnaires. This research was conducted online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Through the data obtained, this study found the results of the type of reinforcement and the implementation used by teachers during online learning. There are four types of reinforcement used by the teachers, such as; (1) positive verbal reinforcement in the form of praise and partial reinforcement, (2) positive non-verbal reinforcement in the form of gestures, (3) negative verbal reinforcement in the form of enforceable statements, questions, calling out the students' names, and (4) negative non-verbal reinforcement in the form of facial expressions and record the students' misbehavior. In addition, the reinforcement implementation were in line with theories suggested by experts by following the five principles in giving reinforcement.

Individual differences in proactive interference in rats (Rattus Norvegicus)

Individual differences in behaviors are seen across many species, and investigations have focused on traits linked to aggression, risk taking, emotionality, coping styles, and differences in cognitive systems. The current study investigated whether there were individual differences in proactive interference tasks in rats (Rattus Norvegicus), and tested hypotheses suggesting that these tasks should load onto a single factor and there should be clusters of rats who perform well or poorly on these tasks. The performance of 39 rats was tested across three learning tasks that all involved disengagement from an irrelevant previously learned stimulus to a relevant stimulus: latent inhibition (LI), partial reinforcement extinction effect (PREE), and reversal learning (RL). An exploratory factor analysis revealed the existence of one factor underlying performance. A cluster analysis revealed the existence of sets of rats displaying either weak LI and strong PREE and RL effects, or vice versa. These findings suggest that proactive interference may be based on a single underlying psychological system in rats.

368 Durability of Tx Response to Zolpidem using a Partial Reinforcement Regimen: Does this strategy require contingent reinforcement?

Introduction In 2015, partial reinforcement (PR) was assessed as an alternative approach to maintenance therapy with zolpidem. The method being: once a treatment response is obtained over the course of 1-month’s Tx with QHS dosing (Phase-1), Tx response can maintained over time with a PR regimen (Phase-2 [nightly pill/capsule use with 50% of capsules having medication and 50% having only inert filler]). In that study, it was assumed that Phase1 QHS dosing was required 1) to maximize treatment responding and 2) for the conditioning of pharmacologic responses to the medication vehicle (capsule). In the present study, these assumptions were tested by including both QHS and PR arms into Phase-1. Methods In Phase-1 (1 month), subjects were randomized to the QHS or PRS conditions (2QHS:1PRS). In Phase-2 (3 months), the PRS group continued forward without a change in the treatment regimen (variable dose [VD-VD]) and the QHS group was re-randomized to either continued QHS Tx (full dose [FD-FD]) or to PRS Tx [FD-VD]). Both study phases were evaluated for treatment responses rates and for average change in TWT (SL+WASO+EMA). Results 55 subjects (age 61.2+/-8.1, 64% female, & 73% white) were enrolled into Phase-1; 39 were randomized to the QHS condition and 16 to the PRS condition. In Phase-1, 77% (QHS) and 50% (PRS) exhibited treatment responses (p=0.09) where the average change in TWT was similar by group (QHS was -43min [CI -76,-9] and PRS was -76min [CI -138,-14];p=0.35). In Phase-2, 73% (FD-FD), 57% (FD-VD), and 88% (VD-VD) exhibited continued treatment responses (p=0.22) where the average improvement of TWT continued with FD-FD and remained stable for FD-VD and VD-VD (p<0.01). Conclusion These data, while preliminary, suggest that QHS (vs. PRS) dosing produces more treatment responders and similar initial effects on sleep continuity during Phase-1, comparable maintenance of treatment response over time, and continued improvement on sleep continuity during Phase-2. These results suggest that partial reinforcement can maintain effects but cannot allow for the additional clinical gains afforded by continuous treatment. Given this, it may be the case that the partial reinforcement technique could be improved upon by extending phase from 1 to 2–4 months. Support (if any):

Partial reinforcement in rat autoshaping with a long CS: Effects of pramipexole and chlordiazepoxide on sign and goal tracking

In Pavlovian autoshaping, sign-tracking responses (lever pressing) to a conditioned stimulus (CS) are usually invigorated under partial reinforcement (PR) compared to continuous reinforcement (CR). This effect, called the PR acquisition effect (PRAE), can be interpreted in terms of increased incentive hope or frustration-induced drive derived from PR training. Incentive hope and frustration have been related to dopaminergic and GABAergic activity, respectively. We examined the within-trial dynamics of sign and goal tracking in rats exposed to 20-s-long lever presentations during autoshaping acquisition under PR vs. CR conditions under the effects of drugs tapping on dopamine and GABA activity. There was no evidence of the PRAE in these results, both groups showing high, stable sign-tracking response rates. However, the pharmacological treatments affected behavior as revealed in within-trial changes. The dopamine D2 receptor agonist pramipexole (0.4 mg/kg) suppressed lever pressing and magazine entries relative to saline controls in a within-subject design, but only in PR animals. The allosteric benzodiazepine chlordiazepoxide (5 mg/kg) failed to affect either sign or goal tracking in either CR or PR animals. These results emphasize the roles of dopamine and GABA receptors in autoshaping performance, but remain inconclusive with respect to incentive hope and frustration theories. Some aspects of within-trial changes in sign and goal tracking are consistent with a mixture of reward timing and response competition.

Extinction of Pavlovian Conditioning: The Influence of Trial Number and Reinforcement History

Pavlovian conditioning is sensitive to the temporal relationship between conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US). This has motivated models that describe learning as a process that continuously updates associative strength during the trial or specifically encodes the CS-US interval. These models predict that extinction of responding is also continuous, such that response loss is proportional to the cumulative duration of exposure to the CS without the US. We review evidence showing that this prediction is incorrect, and that extinction is trial-based rather than time-based. We also present two experiments that test the importance of trials versus time on the Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect (PREE), in which responding extinguishes more slowly for a CS that was inconsistently reinforced with the US than for a consistently reinforced one. We show that increasing the number of extinction trials of the partially reinforced CS, relative to the consistently reinforced CS, overcomes the PREE. However, increasing the duration of extinction trials by the same amount does not overcome the PREE. We conclude that animals learn about the likelihood of the US per trial during conditioning, and learn trial-by-trial about the absence of the US during extinction. Moreover, what they learn about the likelihood of the US during conditioning affects how sensitive they are to the absence of the US during extinction.

Pavlovian conditioning under partial reinforcement: The effects of non-reinforced trials versus cumulative CS duration

A core feature of associative models, such as those proposed by Allan Wagner (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972; Wagner, 1981), is that conditioning proceeds in a trial-by-trial fashion, with increments and decrements in associative strength occurring on each occasion that the conditioned stimulus (CS) is present either with or without the unconditioned stimulus (US). A very different approach has been taken by theories that assume animals continuously accumulate information about the total length of time spent waiting for the US both during the CS and in the absence of the CS (e.g., Gallistel & Gibbon, 2000). Here we describe three experiments using within-subject designs that tested between trial-based and time-accumulation accounts of the acquisition of conditioned responding using magazine approach conditioning in rats. We found that responding was affected by the total (cumulative) duration of exposure to the CS without the US rather than the number of trials on which the CS occurred without the US. We also found that exposure to the CS without the US had the same effect on conditioning whether that exposure occurred shortly (60 s) before each CS-US pairing or whether it occurred long (240 s) before each pairing. These findings are more consistent with time-accumulation models of conditioning than trial-based models like the Rescorla-Wagner model and Wagner’s (1981) Sometimes Opponent Process model. We discuss these findings in relation to other evidence that favours trial-based models rather than time-accumulation models.