Is extinction the hallmark of operant discrimination? Reinforcement and S(Delta) effects.

Using a successive discrimination procedure with rats, three experiments investigated the contribution of reinforcement rate and amount of S(Delta) exposure on the acquisition of an operant discrimination. S(D) components and were always 2 min in length, while S(Delta) (extinction) components were either 1 min or 4 min in length; responses in S(D) were reinforced on one of four schedules. In Experiment 1, each of eight groups were exposed to one possible combination of rate of reinforcement and S(Delta) component length. At every level of reinforcement, the 4 min S(Delta) groups acquired the discrimination more quickly. However, within each level of reinforcement, the proportions of responding in S(D) as a function cumulative S(Delta) exposure were equivalent, regardless of the number of reinforcers earned in S(D), suggesting that extinction is the "hallmark" of discrimination. Experiment 2 sought to replicate these results in a within-subjects design, and although the 4 min S(Delta) conditions always produced superior discriminations, the lack of discriminated responding in some conditions suggested that stimulus disparity was reduced. Experiment 3 clarified those results and extended the finding that the acquisition of operant discrimination closely parallels extinction of responding in S(Delta). In sum, it appears that higher reinforcement rates and longer S(Delta) exposure facilitate the acquisition of discriminated operant responding.

Shock-duration reduction on the basis of interresponse times: the effect of the interresponse time limit.

Rats were trained on a free-operant procedure in which the duration of randomly occurring shocks depended on the interresponse times of lever presses. Shocks of 1.6-mA intensity were delivered at random intervals with an average density of 10 shocks per min. Each shock that was delivered lasted 0.3 s as long as the interresponse times were within a preset limit. Whenever the interresponse time exceeded the limit, the shocks that were delivered lasted 1 s until the occurrence of a response that met the limit. The limit was reduced in 3-s steps from 15 s to either 6 s or 3 s, at which point 3 of the animals were exposed to an ascending series. The avoidance of long-duration shocks was highly efficient at the 15-s and 12-s limits, and it decreased at the 9-s limit. With the exception of one animal, performance was substantially worse at the 6-s limit and it deteriorated for all the animals that were exposed to the 3-s limit. The data suggest that shock-duration reduction is quite effective as negative reinforcement for avoidance but is perhaps less effective than shock-intensity reduction.