Advertisement

Animal learning & behavior

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 377–389 | Cite as

Acquisition and extinction of differential responses to signals paired with shock or shock omission in goldfish: Evidence for truly discriminated avoidance learning

  • Dominic J. Zerbolio
  • Joel L. Royalty
Article
  • 224 Downloads

Abstract

Goldfish trained to discriminate between signals paired with shock (S−) and signals paired with shock omission (S+) with a linear presentation procedure, originally learned (OL) to control the signal state of a shuttle box and showed a decided preference for the S+ signal. In Experiment 1, following OL, groups had one OL signal replaced (S+ or S−), both signals replaced (S+ and S−), or the OL signals reversed (S+ and S− reversed) and were then tested in a transfer training procedure. In transfer, groups with one signal replaced maintained discriminated performance at OL levels; the S+ replaced group was slightly superior to the S− replaced group on the first day of transfer. With both OL signals replaced, discrimination dropped to chance performance levels, whereas, with OL signal shock pairing reversed, discrimination performance dropped below chance levels. In Experiment 2, following OL, extinction procedures consisted of turning off the shocker (0% shock) or of shocking 100% or a random 25% of the trials. A fourth extinction procedure (R,) retained the trial start response-dependent shock-omission contingency, but shock differentiating the S+ and S− signals was eliminated entirely. Extinction of the S+/S− discrimination was measured both during extinction training per se and with reversal retraining of the S+/S− discrimination later. Groups for which the OL S+ was paired with shock during extinction extinguished on both measures, but groups for which the OL S− was paired with shock omission did not extinguish, especially as shown by the reversal test procedure. Theoretical implications and the implications for several conditioning procedures are discussed.

References

  1. Bolles, R. C. Species-specific defense reactions and avoidance learning.Psychological Review, 1970,77, 32–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolles, R. C. The role of stimulus learning in defensive behavior. In S. H. Hulse, H. Fowler, & W. K. Honig (Eds.),Cognitive processes in animal behavior. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1978.Google Scholar
  3. Bolles, R. C., Moot, S. A., &Grossen, N. E. The extinction of shuttlebox avoidance.Learning and Motivation, 1971,2, 324–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davenport, D. E., &Olson, R. D. A. A interpretation of extinction in discriminated avoidance.Psychonomic Science, 1968,13, 5–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Derdzinski, D., &Warren, J. M. Perimeter, complexity, and form discrimination learning by cats.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1969,68, 407–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Horner, J. L., Longo, N., &Bitterman, M. E. A shuttlebox for fish and a control circuit of general applicability.American Journal of Psychology, 1961,74, 114–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jacobs, B. Repeated acquisition and extinction of an instrumental avoidance response.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1963,56, 1017–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jenkins, H. M. Generalization gradients and the concepts of inhibition. In D. I. Mostofsky (Ed.),Stimulus generalization. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1965.Google Scholar
  9. Mackintosh, N. J. The psychology of animal learning. London: Academic Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  10. Mandler, J. M. Overtraining and the use of positive and negative stimuli in reversal and transfer.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1968,66, 110–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mason, J. R., Stevens, D. A., Wixon, D. R., &Owens, M. P. Assessment of the relative importance of S+ and S− in rats using differential training on intercurrent discriminations.Learning and Motivation, 1980,11, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Morris, R. G. M. Pavlovian conditioned inhibition of fear during shuttlebox avoidance behavior.Learning and Motivation, 1974,5, 424–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Morris, R. G. M. Preconditioning of reinforcing properties to an exteroceptive feedback stimulus.Learning and Motivation, 1975,6, 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mowrer, O. H. On the dual nature of learning—A reinterpretation of “conditioning” and “problem solving.”Harvard Educational Review, 1947,17, 102–148.Google Scholar
  15. Rescorla, R. A., &Solomon, R. L. Two-process learning theory: Relationship between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning.Psychological Review, 1967,74, 151–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Steiner, G. Stimulus control of avoidance learning in fish.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1971,74, 52–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stevens, D. A., Mason, J. R., &Wixon, D. R. Assessment of the relative importance of S+ and S− in rats, using intercurrent simultaneous and successive discriminations.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1981,17, 200–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stevens, D. A., &Fechter, L. D. Relative strengths of approach and avoidance tendencies in discrimination learning of rats trained under two types of reinforcement.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968,76, 489–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wallace, J., &Scobie, S. R. Avoidance extinction in goldfish.Learning and Motivation, 1977,8, 18–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Weisman, R. G., &Litner, J. S. Positive conditioned reinforcement of Sidman avoidance behavior in rats.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1969,68, 597–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Woodard, W. T., &Bitterman, M. E. Pavlovian analysis of avoidance conditioning in the goldfish (Carassius auratus).Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1973,82, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zerbolio, D. J., Jr. Discriminated avoidance learning and reversal by goldfish in a shuttlebox using a linear presentation procedure.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1981,9, 346–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zerbolio, D. J., &Reynierse, J. H. Discriminated learning and reversal in the wheat-turn avoidance situation.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1967,21, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zerbolio, D. J., Jr., &Wickstra, L. L. Goldfish avoidance acquisition: Is the process classical, instrumental, or phototaxis?Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1978,11, 321–323. (a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zerbolio, D. J., Jr., &Wickstra, L. L. Does elimination of a negative phototaxis eliminate CAR acquisition in goldfish?Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1978,11, 324–326. (b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zerbolio, D. J., Jr., &Wickstra, L. L. Instrumentally based conditioned avoidance response acquisition in goldfish in a simultaneous presentation task.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1979,13, 311–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zerbolio, D. J., Jr., &Wickstra, L. L. Instrumental avoidance acquisition by goldfish in a Y-maze using explicit and response-contingent cues.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1980,8, 304–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dominic J. Zerbolio
    • 1
  • Joel L. Royalty
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MissouriSt. Louis

Personalised recommendations