» Articles » PMID: 11256869

Overmatching in Rats: the Barrier Choice Paradigm

Overview
Date 2001 Mar 21
PMID 11256869
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The barrier choice paradigm was used to impose a cost on rats' behavior of traveling between two levers: Pressing on two levers was reinforced with food on concurrent random-interval schedules, but rats had to climb over a barrier to move from one lever to another. The height of the barrier separating the levers was increased from 30.5 to 45.7 cm across two phases that involved various pairs of random-interval schedules. With the 30.5-cm barrier, the generalized matching law showed slopes equal to or slightly above 1.0 for response and time allocation. With the 45.7-cm barrier, the generalized matching law showed slopes above 1.2 for responses, indicating that sensitivity to reinforcement increased with increasing barrier height. For time allocation the slopes remained close to 1.0; sensitivity to reinforcement did not seem to increase with increasing barrier height. The role of locomotion effort in choice situations is discussed.

Citing Articles

Undermatching Is a Consequence of Policy Compression.

Bari B, Gershman S J Neurosci. 2023; 43(3):447-457.

PMID: 36639891 PMC: 9864556. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1003-22.2022.


Effects of the dopamine depleting agent tetrabenazine on detailed temporal parameters of effort-related choice responding.

Ren N, Carratala-Ros C, Ecevitoglu A, Rotolo R, Edelstein G, Presby R J Exp Anal Behav. 2022; 117(3):331-345.

PMID: 35344599 PMC: 9531143. DOI: 10.1002/jeab.754.


Feeder Approach between Trials Is Increased by Uncertainty and Affects Subsequent Choices.

Gruber A, Thapa R, Randolph S eNeuro. 2018; 4(6).

PMID: 29313000 PMC: 5757189. DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0437-17.2017.


A long-term study of the impulsive choices of Lewis and Fischer 344 rats.

Aparicio C, Elcoro M, Alonso-Alvarez B Learn Behav. 2015; 43(3):251-71.

PMID: 25862317 DOI: 10.3758/s13420-015-0177-y.


Applicability to foraging simulation of a reinforcement schedule controlling the response energy of pigeons.

Kono M Learn Behav. 2013; 41(4):425-32.

PMID: 23949926 PMC: 3840284. DOI: 10.3758/s13420-013-0117-7.


References
1.
Baum W . Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979; 32(2):269-81. PMC: 1332902. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-269. View

2.
Shull R, Pliskoff S . Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: some effects on relative performance measures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1967; 10(6):517-27. PMC: 1338422. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-517. View

3.
Brown P, Jenkins H . Auto-shaping of the pigeon's key-peck. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968; 11(1):1-8. PMC: 1338436. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-1. View

4.
Baum W, Aparicio C . Optimality And Concurrent Variable-interval Variable-ratio Schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 2006; 71(1):75-89. PMC: 1284695. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-75. View

5.
Pliskoff S, Fetterman J . Undermatching and overmatching: The fixed-ratio changeover requirement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981; 36(1):21-7. PMC: 1333049. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1981.36-21. View