The partial reinforcement extinction effect: The proportion of trials reinforced during conditioning predicts the number of trials to extinction.

IF 1.3 4区 心理学
C K Jonas Chan, Justin A Harris
{"title":"The partial reinforcement extinction effect: The proportion of trials reinforced during conditioning predicts the number of trials to extinction.","authors":"C K Jonas Chan,&nbsp;Justin A Harris","doi":"10.1037/xan0000190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Four experiments compared the extinction of responding to a continuously reinforced (CRf) conditioned stimulus (conditional stimulus [CS]) consistently reinforced on every trial, with extinction of responding to a partially reinforced (PRf) CS that had been inconsistently reinforced. To equate the acquisition of responding between the two CSs, the average duration of the CRf CS was extended so that it scheduled the same overall rate of reinforcement per unit time as the PRf CS. Experiment 1 used a within-subjects design to compare the rates of extinction for a 10-s PRf CS reinforced on 33% of trials versus a 30-s CRf CS. Experiment 2 made the same comparison but using a between-subjects design. Experiment 3 compared extinction in a group trained with a 10-s PRf CS reinforced on 20% of trials and a group trained with a 50-s CRf CS. Experiment 4 compared the rates of extinction following two partial reinforcement schedules: a 10-s PRf CS reinforced on 33% of trial versus a 20-s CRf CS reinforced on 66% of trials. In each experiment, responding took longer to extinguish for the CS that scheduled a lower per-trial probability of reinforcement. Modeling of individual extinction curves using Weibull functions indicated that the latency to initiate extinction was directly related to the per-trial probability of reinforcement learned during acquisition. For example, compared with training with a CRf CS, rats reinforced on 33% of trials took approximately 3 times as many trials to initiate extinction, and rats reinforced on 20% of trials took 5 times as many trials to initiate extinction. These results provide support for trial-based accounts of extinction (e.g., Capaldi & Deutsch, 1967), whereby rats learn about the expected number of trials per reinforcer, and extinction depends on the number of expected reinforcers that have been omitted rather than on the number of extinction trials per se. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":51088,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","volume":"45 1","pages":"43-58"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000190","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Four experiments compared the extinction of responding to a continuously reinforced (CRf) conditioned stimulus (conditional stimulus [CS]) consistently reinforced on every trial, with extinction of responding to a partially reinforced (PRf) CS that had been inconsistently reinforced. To equate the acquisition of responding between the two CSs, the average duration of the CRf CS was extended so that it scheduled the same overall rate of reinforcement per unit time as the PRf CS. Experiment 1 used a within-subjects design to compare the rates of extinction for a 10-s PRf CS reinforced on 33% of trials versus a 30-s CRf CS. Experiment 2 made the same comparison but using a between-subjects design. Experiment 3 compared extinction in a group trained with a 10-s PRf CS reinforced on 20% of trials and a group trained with a 50-s CRf CS. Experiment 4 compared the rates of extinction following two partial reinforcement schedules: a 10-s PRf CS reinforced on 33% of trial versus a 20-s CRf CS reinforced on 66% of trials. In each experiment, responding took longer to extinguish for the CS that scheduled a lower per-trial probability of reinforcement. Modeling of individual extinction curves using Weibull functions indicated that the latency to initiate extinction was directly related to the per-trial probability of reinforcement learned during acquisition. For example, compared with training with a CRf CS, rats reinforced on 33% of trials took approximately 3 times as many trials to initiate extinction, and rats reinforced on 20% of trials took 5 times as many trials to initiate extinction. These results provide support for trial-based accounts of extinction (e.g., Capaldi & Deutsch, 1967), whereby rats learn about the expected number of trials per reinforcer, and extinction depends on the number of expected reinforcers that have been omitted rather than on the number of extinction trials per se. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

部分强化消光效应:在条件反射过程中强化的试验所占比例预测了试验的消光次数。
四个实验比较了每次实验中持续强化的连续强化条件刺激(CRf)和不一致强化的部分强化条件刺激(PRf)的消退。为了使两种CSs之间获得的响应相等,延长了CRf CS的平均持续时间,使其在单位时间内安排与PRf CS相同的总体强化率。实验1使用受试者内部设计来比较33%的试验强化的10秒PRf CS与30秒CRf CS的消退率。实验2进行了相同的比较,但使用了受试者之间的设计。实验3比较了在20%的试验中接受10秒PRf训练的一组和接受50秒CRf训练的一组的消失情况。实验4比较了两种部分强化方案的消退率:33%的试验采用10-s PRf CS强化,66%的试验采用20-s CRf CS强化。在每个实验中,对于安排了较低次试强化概率的CS,反应需要更长的时间才能熄灭。使用威布尔函数对个体消去曲线进行建模,结果表明,初始消去延迟与习得过程中习得强化的次试概率直接相关。例如,与使用CRf CS训练相比,在33%的试验中强化的大鼠需要大约3倍的试验才能启动灭绝,在20%的试验中强化的大鼠需要5倍的试验才能启动灭绝。这些结果为基于试验的灭绝解释提供了支持(例如,Capaldi和Deutsch, 1967),大鼠了解每个强化物的预期试验次数,而灭绝取决于被省略的预期强化物的数量,而不是灭绝试验本身的数量。(PsycINFO数据库记录(c) 2019 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
23.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition publishes experimental and theoretical studies concerning all aspects of animal behavior processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信