Elsevier

Learning and Motivation

Volume 34, Issue 4, November 2003, Pages 389-409
Learning and Motivation

The effects of feature type in operant serial feature-positive discriminations

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0023-9690(03)00036-5Get rights and content

Abstract

In two experiments, rats were trained on two operant serial feature positive discriminations in which one feature was a flavored solution and the second feature was a visual or auditory cue. As in a previous study (Goddard & Holland, 1996), transfer of a feature’s control to the target of the other discrimination was not observed when the flavor feature and the reinforcer were flavored sucrose solutions (Experiment 1). The performance of comparison groups showed that this lack of transfer was not due to confounded differences in the event contingencies resulting from having similar stimuli serve as feature and reinforcer. By contrast, in Experiment 2, transfer was observed between visual and flavor features when the flavor feature was unsweetened and the reinforcer was plain sucrose. These results suggest that the lack of transfer in Experiment 1 and in Goddard and Holland’s (1996) study were related to the biological significance or hedonic properties of the sucrose feature.

Section snippets

Experiment 1

In Goddard and Holland’s study (1996, Experiment 1), sucrose delivery served as both a feature and as the reinforcer for correct responding during the targets. As a result, reinforcement of responding during either of the targets provided response-contingent presentations of the sucrose feature. Likewise, presentations of the sucrose feature could be viewed as response-independent presentations of the reinforcer, which are known to affect instrumental responding. Thus, the sucrose feature was

Experiment 2

Goddard and Holland (1996) suggested that flavor features that possess substantial intrinsic reinforcing properties, including high palatability or nutritional value, may be treated differently from light and tone features that do not possess those properties. Alternately, they pointed out that flavor features also differ substantially from auditory or visual features because they require the rats to engage in both preparatory (approach the liquid cup) and consummatory responses (lick the

General discussion

Goddard and Holland (1996) explicitly compared the performances of rats trained on operant serial feature positive discriminations with visual and flavored sucrose (hedonically significant) features. They found that whereas within each of these classes of features a feature’s occasion setting ability readily transferred to the target of another occasion setter, no such transfer was observed between feature classes. The results of the present experiments suggested that this failure to show

References (27)

  • L.M Gunther et al.

    CSs and USs: What’s the difference?

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

    (1997)
  • T Hatfield et al.

    Neurotoxic lesions of the basolateral, but not central, amygdala interfere with Pavlovian second-order conditioning and reinforcer-devaluation effects

    Journal of Neuroscience

    (1996)
  • E Hearst

    Stimulus relationships and feature selection in learning and behavior

  • Cited by (1)

    Darlene Skinner is now with the Memorial University of Newfoundland, Jennifer Thornton is now with the David Grant USAF Medical Center, and Peter Holland is now with the Johns Hopkins University. This work was supported by the Human Frontier Science Program. Portions of these data were described in a chapter by Skinner, Goddard, and Holland (1998).

    View full text