THE EFFECTS OF DOUBLE-ALTERNATION SCHEDULES OF SHOCK INTENSITY UPON PATTERNING OF SUPPRESSION OF LICKING IN RATS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO CUE-UTILIZATION

HIROSHI IMADA; KOZO SUGIOKA; YUJI OHKI; HAJIME NINOHIRA; AKIHIKO YAMAZAKI

doi:10.4992/psycholres1954.20.167

HIROSHI IMADA, KOZO SUGIOKA, YUJI OHKI, HAJIME NINOHIRA, AKIHIKO YAMAZAKI

Author information

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

1978 Volume 20 Issue 4 Pages 167-176

DOI https://doi.org/10.4992/psycholres1954.20.167

Details

Published: March 30, 1979 Received: July 17, 1978 Available on J-STAGE: February 24, 2009 Accepted: - Advance online publication: - Revised: -
Correction information
Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: TITLE Details: Wrong : THE EFFECTS OF DOUBLE-ALTERNATION SCHEDULES OF SHOCK INTENSITY UPON PATTERNING OF SUPPRESSION OF LICKING IN RATS WITH SPECIAL PEFERENCE TO CUE-UTILIZATION
Right : THE EFFECTS OF DOUBLE-ALTERNATION SCHEDULES OF SHOCK INTENSITY UPON PATTERNING OF SUPPRESSION OF LICKING IN RATS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO CUE-UTILIZATION

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: SUBTITLE Details: [in Japanese]

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : Thirsty rats were run in a water-drinking situation in which brief shocks of two different intensities were given with a fixed-time 40-sec schedule and in a doublealternation (DA) pattern of shock intensity, without any signal in Experiment I and with two different kinds of signal during the shock-shock interval in Experiment II. The three groups in Experiment II differed regarding the relationship of the signal with shock intensities. In Group SA, tone and light were presented in single-alternation and in Group R they were presented in a random order. In all the above groups there was no evidence of DA patterning of the suppression in licking to correspond with the variation in shock intensity. Only in Group DA, in which the two modalities of signal corresponded with the two repective shock intensities, was a DA patterning of suppression observed. There was clear evidence in all groups that the strong shock had an immediate burst-inducing function. In Experiment III the possibility that rats would predict forthcoming events on the basis of shock-cues was pursued but the results turned out to be negative.
Right : Thirsty rats were run in a water-drinking situation in which brief shocks of two different intensities were given with a fixed-time 40-sec schedule and in a doublealternation (DA) pattern of shock intensity, without any signal in Experiment I and with two different kinds of signal during the shock-shock interval in Experiment II. The three groups in Experiment II differed regarding the relationship of the signal with shock intensities. In Group SA, tone and light were presented in single-alternation and in Group R they were presented in a random order. In all the above groups there was no evidence of DA patterning of the suppression in licking to correspond with the variation in shock intensity. Only in Group DA, in which the two modalities of signal corresponded with the two respective shock intensities, was a DA patterning of suppression observed. There was clear evidence in all groups that the strong shock had an immediate burst-inducing function. In Experiment III the possibility that rats would predict forthcoming events on the basis of shock-cues was pursued but the results turned out to be negative.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: AUTHOR Details: Wrong : HIROSHI IMADA¹⁾, KOZO SUGIOKA¹⁾²⁾, YUJI OHKI¹⁾, HAJIME NINOHIRA¹⁾, AKIHIKO YAMAZAKI¹⁾
Right : HIROSHI IMADA¹⁾, KOZO SUGIOKA¹⁾, YUJI OHKI¹⁾, HAJIME NINOHIRA¹⁾, AKIHIKO YAMAZAKI¹⁾

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: AFFILIATION Details: Wrong :
1) Department of Psychology, Kwansei Gakuin University
2) Department of Anatomy, Shimane Medical University

Right :
1) Department of Psychology, Kwansei Gakuin University

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : AMSEL, A., & MALTZMAN, I. 1950 The effect upon generalized drive strength of emotionality as inferred from the level of consummatory response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 563-569.
BLOOM, J. M., & CAPALDI, E. J. 1961 The behavior of rats in relation to complex patterns of partial reinforcement. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54, 261-265.
CAPALDI, E.J. 1971 Memory and learning: A sequential viewpoint. In W. K. Honig & P.H.R. James (Eds.), Animal memory. New York: Academic Press.
DAVIS, H., MEMMOTT, J., & HURWITZ, H.M.B. 1975 Autocontingency: A model for subtle behavioral control, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 169-188.
EsTES, W. K., & SKINNER, B. F. 1941 Some quantitative properties of anxiety. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 390-400.
HENDRY, D. P., YARCZOWER, M., & SWITALSKI, R. C. 1969 Periodic shock with added clock. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 159-166.
HUTCHINSON, R. R., & EMLEY, G. S. 1972 Schedule-independent factors contributing to schedule-induced phenomenon. In R. M. Gilbert & J. D. Keehn (Eds.), Schedule effeets: drugs, drinking, and aggression. Toronto & Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.
IMADA, H., & OKAMURA, M. 1975 Some cues rats can use as predictors of danger and safety. Animal Learning and Behavior, 3, 221-225.
NAGEISHI, Y., & IMADA, H. 1974 Supplession of licking behavior in rats as a function of predictability of shock and probability of conditioned-stimulus-shock pairings. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 87, 1165-1173.
PAVLIK, W. B., & COLLIER, A. C. 1975 An analysis of “signaled double-alternation patterning” in the rat. Animal Learning and Behavior, 3, 73-75.
SELIGMAN, M. E. P. 1968 Chronic fear produced by unpredictable electric shock. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 66, 402-411.
SIEGEL, P. S., & BRANTLEY, J. J. 1951 The relationship of emotionality to the consummatory response of eating. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42, 304-306.
ULLMAN, A. D. 1951 The experimental production and analysis of a “compulsive eating symptom” in rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 44, 575-581.
WEISS, K. M., & STRONGMAN, K. T. 1969 Shockinduced response bursts and suppression. Psychonomic Science, 15, 238-240.

Right : AMSEL, A., & MALTZMAN, I. 1950 The effect upon generalized drive strength of emotionality as inferred from the level of consummatory response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 563-569.
BLOOM, J. M., & CAPALDI, E. J. 1961 The behavior of rats in relation to complex patterns of partial reinforcement. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54, 261-265.
CAPALDI, E. J. 1971 Memory and learning: A sequential viewpoint. In W. K. Honig & P. H. R. James (Eds.), Animal memory. New York: Academic Press.
DAVIS, H., MEMMOTT, J., & HURWITZ, H. M. B. 1975 Autocontingency: A model for subtle behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 169-188.
ESTES, W. K., & SKINNER, B. F. 1941 Some quantitative properties of anxiety. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 390-400.
HENDRY, D. P., YARCZOW ER, IVI, & SWITALSKI, R. C. 1969 Periodic shock with added clock. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 159-I66.
HUTCHINSON, R. R., & EMLLY, G. S. 1972 Schedule-independent factors contributing to schedule-induced phenomenon. In R. M. Gilbert & J, D. Keehn (Eds.), Schedule effects: drugs, drinking, and aggression. Toronto & Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.
IMADA, H., & OKAMURA, M. 1975 Some cues rats can use as predictors of danger and safety. Animal Learning and Behavior, 3, 221-225.
NACEISHI, Y., & IMADA, II. 1974 Supplession of licking behavior in rats as a function of predictability of shock and probability of conditioned- stimulus-shock pairings. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 87, 1165-1173.
PAVLIK, W. B., & COLLIER, A. C. 1975 An analysis of “signaled double-alternation patterning” in the rat. Animal Learning and Behavior, 3, 73-75.
SELIGMAN, M.E.P. 1968 Chronic fear produced by unpredictable electric shock. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 66, 402-411.
SIEGEL, P. S., & BRANTLEY, J. J. 1951 The relationship of emotionality to the consummatory response of eating. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42, 304-306.
ULLMAN, A. D. 1951 The experimental production and analysis of a “compulsive eating symptom ” in rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 44, 575-581.
WEISS, K. M., & STRONGMAN, K. T. 1969 Shockinduced response bursts and suppression. Psychonomic Science, 15, 238-240.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: PDF FILE Details: -

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : Thirsty rats were run in a water-drinking situation in which brief shocks of two different intensities were given with a fixed-time 40-sec schedule and in a doublealternation (DA) pattern of shock intensity, without any signal in Experiment I and with two different kinds of signal during the shock-shock interval in Experiment II. The three groups in Experiment II differed regarding the relationship of the signal with shock intensities. In Group SA, tone and light were presented in single-alternation and in Group R they were presented in a random order. In all the above groups there was no evidence of DA patterning of the suppression in licking to correspond with the variation in shock intensity. Only in Group DA, in which the two modalities of signal corresponded with the two respective shock intensities, was a DA patterning of suppression observed. There was clear evidence in all groups that the strong shock had an immediate burst-inducing function. In Experiment III the possibility that rats would predict forthcoming events on the basis of shock-cues was pursued but the results turned out to be negative.
Right : Thirsty rats were run in a water-drinking situation in which brief shocks of two different intensities were given with a fixed-time 40-sec schedule and in a double-alternation (DA) pattern of shock intensity, without any signal in Experiment I and with two different kinds of signal during the shock-shock interval in Experiment II. The three groups in Experiment II differed regarding the relationship of the signal with shock intensities. In Group SA, tone and light were presented in single-alternation and in Group R they were presented in a random order. In all the above groups there was no evidence of DA patterning of the suppression in licking to correspond with the variation in shock intensity. Only in Group DA, in which the two modalities of signal corresponded with the two respective shock intensities, was a DA patterning of suppression observed. There was clear evidence in all groups that the strong shock had an immediate burst-inducing function. In Experiment III the possibility that rats would predict forthcoming events on the basis of shock-cues was pursued but the results turned out to be negative.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : AMSEL, A., & MALTZMAN, I. 1950 The effect upon generalized drive strength of emotionality as inferred from the level of consummatory response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 563-569.
BLOOM, J. M., & CAPALDI, E. J. 1961 The behavior of rats in relation to complex patterns of partial reinforcement. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54, 261-265.
CAPALDI, E. J. 1971 Memory and learning: A sequential viewpoint. In W. K. Honig & P. H. R. James (Eds.), Animal memory. New York: Academic Press.
DAVIS, H., MEMMOTT, J., & HURWITZ, H. M. B. 1975 Autocontingency: A model for subtle behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 169-188.
ESTES, W. K., & SKINNER, B. F. 1941 Some quantitative properties of anxiety. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 390-400.
HENDRY, D. P., YARCZOW ER, IVI, & SWITALSKI, R. C. 1969 Periodic shock with added clock. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 159-I66.
HUTCHINSON, R. R., & EMLLY, G. S. 1972 Schedule-independent factors contributing to schedule-induced phenomenon. In R. M. Gilbert & J, D. Keehn (Eds.), Schedule effects: drugs, drinking, and aggression. Toronto & Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.
IMADA, H., & OKAMURA, M. 1975 Some cues rats can use as predictors of danger and safety. Animal Learning and Behavior, 3, 221-225.
NACEISHI, Y., & IMADA, II. 1974 Supplession of licking behavior in rats as a function of predictability of shock and probability of conditioned- stimulus-shock pairings. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 87, 1165-1173.
PAVLIK, W. B., & COLLIER, A. C. 1975 An analysis of “signaled double-alternation patterning” in the rat. Animal Learning and Behavior, 3, 73-75.
SELIGMAN, M.E.P. 1968 Chronic fear produced by unpredictable electric shock. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 66, 402-411.
SIEGEL, P. S., & BRANTLEY, J. J. 1951 The relationship of emotionality to the consummatory response of eating. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42, 304-306.
ULLMAN, A. D. 1951 The experimental production and analysis of a “compulsive eating symptom ” in rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 44, 575-581.
WEISS, K. M., & STRONGMAN, K. T. 1969 Shockinduced response bursts and suppression. Psychonomic Science, 15, 238-240.

Right : AMSEL, A., & MALTZMAN, I. 1950 The effect upon generalized drive strength of emotionality as inferred from the level of consummatory response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 563-569.
BLOOM, J. M., & CAPALDI, E. J. 1961 The behavior of rats in relation to complex patterns of partial reinforcement. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54, 261-265.
CAPALDI, E. J. 1971 Memory and learning: A sequential viewpoint. In W. K. Honig & P. H. R. James (Eds.), Animal memory. New York: Academic Press.
DAVIS, H., MEMMOTT, J., & HURWITZ, H. M. B. 1975 Autocontingency: A model for subtle behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 169-188.
ESTES, W. K., & SKINNER, B. F. 1941 Some quantitative properties of anxiety. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 390-400.
HENDRY, D. P., YARCZOWER, M,, & SWITALSKI, R. C. 1969 Periodic shock with added clock. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 159-166.
HUTCHINSON, R. R., & EMLEY, G. S. 1972 Schedule-independent factors contributing to schedule-induced phenomenon. In R. M. Gilbert & J. D. Keehn (Eds.), Schedule effects: drugs, drinking, and aggression. Toronto & Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.
IMADA, H., & OKAMURA, M. 1975 Some cues rats can use as predictors of danger and safety. Animal Learning and Behavior, 3, 221-225.
NAGEISHI, Y., & IMADA, H. 1974 Supplession of licking behavior in rats as a function of predictability of shock and probability of conditioned- stimulus-shock pairings. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 87, 1165-1173.
PAVLIK, W. B., & COLLIER, A. C. 1975 An analysis of “signaled double-alternation patterning” in the rat. Animal Learning and Behavior, 3, 73-75.
SELIGMAN, M. E. P. 1968 Chronic fear produced by unpredictable electric shock. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 66, 402-411.
SIEGEL, P. S., & BRANTLEY, J. J. 1951 The relationship of emotionality to the consummatory response of eating. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42, 304-306.
ULLMAN, A. D. 1951 The experimental production and analysis of a “compulsive eating symptom ” in rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 44, 575-581.
WEISS, K. M., & STRONGMAN, K. T. 1969 Shock-induced response bursts and suppression. Psychonomic Science, 15, 238-240.

Abstract

Thirsty rats were run in a water-drinking situation in which brief shocks of two different intensities were given with a fixed-time 40-sec schedule and in a double-alternation (DA) pattern of shock intensity, without any signal in Experiment I and with two different kinds of signal during the shock-shock interval in Experiment II. The three groups in Experiment II differed regarding the relationship of the signal with shock intensities. In Group SA, tone and light were presented in single-alternation and in Group R they were presented in a random order. In all the above groups there was no evidence of DA patterning of the suppression in licking to correspond with the variation in shock intensity. Only in Group DA, in which the two modalities of signal corresponded with the two respective shock intensities, was a DA patterning of suppression observed. There was clear evidence in all groups that the strong shock had an immediate burst-inducing function. In Experiment III the possibility that rats would predict forthcoming events on the basis of shock-cues was pursued but the results turned out to be negative.

Corresponding author

Correction information

Register with J-STAGE for free!