Rats (Rattus norvegicus) find occupancy of a restraint tube rewarding.

Two experiments evaluated whether rats' occupancy of a restraint tube is reinforcing. In Experiment 1, each rat in the 0-min group moved freely in a chamber where a wall blocked access to a restraint tube. After 10 min the wall was removed, permitting 15 min of chamber access and tube entry. The other 2 groups were locked in the tube for 10 and 20 min respectively before release into the chamber for 15 min. Across sessions, rats locked up for 10 and 20 min entered the tube more frequently than rats in the 0-min group, and during the first 2 sessions rats in the 20-min group stayed in the tube longer than the other groups. Over sessions this difference disappeared. However, for all groups and sessions the mean percentage of session time in the tube exceeded chance expectations. This result suggests tube occupation was reinforcing. In Experiment 2's Phase 1, rats could enter an open tube. On exiting, the tube door closed. A lever press opened the door for the rest of the 1-hr session. In Phase 2, these rats were locked in the tube for 10 min before the door opened. Upon exiting, the door closed. As in Phase 1, a lever press opened the door for the rest of the session. The latency between pressing and tube entry decreased over sessions, indicating that tube entry reinforced lever pressing. These results are difficult to reconcile with accounts of rat empathy based on the thesis that tube restraint distresses occupants.

Heroin choice depends on income level and economy type.

RATIONALE: In a previous study, investigating choice between heroin and a non-drug alternative in animals and reductions in income (i.e., choices/day) caused the percentage of income spent on heroin to progressively decrease. In contrast, another study found that humans with opioid use disorder spent the majority of their income on heroin even though they had little income. Comparison of these two studies suggests that the seemingly conflicting results could be explained by differences in the underlying economy types of the choice alternatives. OBJECTIVE: The present experiment tested the hypothesis that the effect of income changes on choice between heroin and a non-drug alternative depends on economy type. METHODS: Rats chose between heroin and saccharin under three income levels. For the Closed group, the choice session was the only opportunity to obtain these reinforcers. For the Heroin Open group and the Saccharin Open group, choice sessions were followed by 3-h periods of unlimited access to heroin or saccharin, respectively. RESULTS: As income decreased, the Closed and Heroin Open groups, but not the Saccharin Open group, spent an increasingly greater percentage of income on saccharin than on heroin. The Saccharin Open group, compared to the other groups, spent a greater percentage of income on heroin as income decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Results confirm that the effects of income and economy type can interact and this may explain the apparently discrepant results of earlier studies. More generally, findings suggest that situations where heroin choice has little consequence for consumption of non-drug alternatives may promote heroin use.

Like chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), pigeons (Columba livia domestica) match and Nash equilibrate where humans (Homo sapiens) do not.

Martin, Bhui, Bossaerts, Matsuzawa, and Camerer (2014) found that chimpanzee pairs competing in matching-pennies games achieved the Nash equilibrium whereas human pairs did not. They hypothesized this outcome may be due to (a) chimpanzee ecology producing evolutionary changes that give them a cognitive advantage over humans in these games, and (b) humans being disadvantaged because the cognition necessary for optimal game play was traded off in evolution to support language. We provide data relevant to their hypotheses by exposing pairs of pigeons to the same games. Pigeons also achieved the Nash equilibrium, but did so while also conforming with the matching law prediction on concurrent schedules where choice ratios covary with reinforcer ratios. The cumulative effects model, which produces matching on concurrent schedules, also achieved the Nash equilibrium when it was simulated on matching-pennies games. The empirical and simulated compatibility between matching law and Nash equilibrium predictions can be explained in two ways. Choice to concurrent schedules, where matching obtains, and choice in game play, where the Nash equilibrium is achieved, may reflect the operation of a common process in choice (e.g., reinforcer maximization) for which matching and achieving the Nash equilibrium are derivative. Alternatively, if matching in choice is innate as some accounts argue, then achieving the Nash equilibrium may be an epiphenomenon of matching. Regardless, the wide species generality of matching relations in nonhuman choice suggests game play in chimpanzees would not prove advantaged relative to most species in the animal kingdom. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Does a rat free a trapped rat due to empathy or for sociality?

This report evaluates whether a rat releasing a trapped rat from a restraint tube is better explained as due to its empathic motivation or to the pursuit of social contact. In the first condition, each of six rats chose in an E maze between entering an empty goal box versus entering a goal box where its entrance caused a rat trapped in a restraint tube to be released. Rats preferred the goal box with the trapped rat over the empty goal box. In the second condition, these rats chose between releasing a restraint-tube-trapped rat in one goal box and another rat in the second goal box that was not locked into its restraint tube. Rats showed no preference between alternatives. In the third condition, rats chose between a goal box containing a rat with an open restraint tube and an empty goal box. Rats preferred the rat with the open restraint tube over the empty goal box. These results support attributing the response of releasing a rat from a restraint tube to the reinforcing power of social contact rather than interpreting this response as empathically motivated.

Preference pulses and the win-stay, fix-and-sample model of choice.

Two groups of six rats each were trained to respond to two levers for a food reinforcer. One group was trained on concurrent variable-ratio 20 extinction schedules of reinforcement. The second group was trained on a concurrent variable-interval 27-s extinction schedule. In both groups, lever-schedule assignments changed randomly following reinforcement; a light cued the lever providing the next reinforcer. In the next condition, the light cue was removed and reinforcer assignment strictly alternated between levers. The next two conditions redetermined, in order, the first two conditions. Preference pulses, defined as a tendency for relative response rate to decline to the just-reinforced alternative with time since reinforcement, only appeared during the extinction schedule. Although the pulse's functional form was well described by a reinforcer-induction equation, there was a large residual between actual data and a pulse-as-artifact simulation (McLean, Grace, Pitts, & Hughes, 2014) used to discern reinforcer-dependent contributions to pulsing. However, if that simulation was modified to include a win-stay tendency (a propensity to stay on the just-reinforced alternative), the residual was greatly reduced. Additional modifications of the parameter values of the pulse-as-artifact simulation enabled it to accommodate the present results as well as those it originally accommodated. In its revised form, this simulation was used to create a model that describes response runs to the preferred alternative as terminating probabilistically, and runs to the unpreferred alternative as punctate with occasional perseverative response runs. After reinforcement, choices are modeled as returning briefly to the lever location that had been just reinforced. This win-stay propensity is hypothesized as due to reinforcer induction.

Preference pulses induced by reinforcement.

Eight rats responded on concurrent Variable-Ratio 20 Extinction schedules for food reinforcement. The assignment of variable-ratio reinforcement to a left or right lever varied randomly following each reinforcer, and was cued by illumination of a stimulus light above that lever. Postreinforcement preference levels decreased substantially and reliably over time when the lever that just delivered reinforcement was now in extinction; however, if that lever was once again associated with variable ratio, this decrease in same-lever preference tended to be small, and for some subjects, not in evidence. The changes in preference level to the extinction lever were well described by a modified version of Killeen, Hanson, and Osborne's (1978) induction model. Consistent with this model's attribution of preference change to induction, we attribute preference change in this report to a brief period of reinforcer-induced arousal that energizes responding to the lever that delivered the last reinforcer. After a few seconds, this induced responding diminishes, and the operant responding that remains comes under the control of the stimulus light cuing the lever providing variable-ratio reinforcement.

A runs-test algorithm: contingent reinforcement and response run structures.

Four rats' choices between two levers were differentially reinforced using a runs-test algorithm. On each trial, a runs-test score was calculated based on the last 20 choices. In Experiment 1, the onset of stimulus lights cued when the runs score was smaller than criterion. Following cuing, the correct choice was occasionally reinforced with food, and the incorrect choice resulted in a blackout. Results indicated that this contingency reduced sequential dependencies among successive choice responses. With one exception, subjects' choice rule was well described as biased coin flipping. In Experiment 2, cuing was removed and the reinforcement criterion was changed to a percentile score based on the last 20 reinforced responses. The results replicated those of Experiment 1 in successfully eliminating first-order dependencies in all subjects. For 2 subjects, choice allocation was approximately consistent with nonbiased coin flipping. These results suggest that sequential dependencies may be a function of reinforcement contingency.

Humans (Homo sapiens) fail to show an inequity effect in an "up-linkage" analog of the monkey inequity test.

Brosnan and de Waal (Nature 425:297-299, 2003) claimed that if a capuchin sees another capuchin receiving a superior food, she tends to reject an inferior, previously acceptable food. They related this phenomenon to human inequity aversion. This phyletic extension is "down linkage," because nonhuman research is interpreted in terms of human research. The present experiment makes an "up-linkage" test of this claimed connection by attempting to reproduce the capuchin-inequity effect in humans. In Experiment 1's equity condition, a subject and an adjacent confederate each clicked a computer mouse to mark the number "7" from a random numbers table, earning 0.5 yen per mark. In the inequity condition, the confederate's pay rate was twice that of the subject. There was no between-condition difference in quitting times or likelihoods. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1 except, before beginning, the subject and confederate clicked a mouse over a rapidly switching message that said they would earn either 0.5 or 1 yen per marked seven. For the equity condition in this rigged test, subject and confederate stopped the message at 0.5 yen, while in the inequity condition, these values were 0.5 and 1 yen, respectively. Now, inequity-condition subjects quit sooner than equity-condition subjects. Experiment 1 found no inequity effect, but Experiment 2 did. These results show that: (a) a sense of control/responsibility may be critical to an inequity effect and (b) the inequity effect putatively present in capuchins cannot be reproduced in an up-linkage human analog of that research, thereby calling this linkage into question. This report exemplifies that up- and down-linkage tests are often requisite to establish commonality of psychological process between nonhuman primates and humans.

Schedule discrimination in a mixed schedule: implications for models of the variable-ratio, variable-interval rate difference.

In Experiment 1, each of three humans knowledgeable about operant schedules used mouse clicks to respond to a "work key" presented on a monitor. On a random half of the presentations, work-key responses that completed a variable ratio (VR) 12 produced a tone. After five tones, the work key was replaced by two report keys. Pressing the right or left report key, respectively, added or subtracted yen50 from a counter and produced the work key. On the other half of the presentations, a variable interval (VI) associated with the work key was defined so its interreinforcer intervals approximated the time it took to complete the variable ratio. After five tone-producing completions of this schedule, the report keys were presented. Left or right report-key presses, respectively, added or subtracted yen50 from the counter. Subjects achieved high yen totals. In Experiment 2, the procedure was changed by requiring an interresponse time after completion of the variable interval that approximated the duration of the reinforced interresponse time on the variable ratio. Prior to beginning, subjects were shown how a sequence of response bouts and pauses could be used to predict schedule type. Subjects again achieved high levels of accuracy. These results show humans can discriminate ratio from interval schedules even when those schedules provide the same rate of reinforcement and reinforced interresponse times.