» Articles » PMID: 20119521

Stimulus-food Pairings Produce Stimulus-directed Touch-screen Responding in Cynomolgus Monkeys (macaca Fascicularis) with or Without a Positive Response Contingency

Overview
Date 2010 Feb 2
PMID 20119521
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Acquisition and maintenance of touch-screen responding was examined in naïve cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis) under automaintenance and classical conditioning arrangements. In the first condition of Experiment 1, we compared acquisition of screen touching to a randomly positioned stimulus (a gray square) that was either stationary or moving under automaintenance (i.e., banana pellet delivery followed an 8-s stimulus presentation or immediately upon a stimulus touch). For all subjects stimulus touching occurred within the first session and increased to at least 50% of trials by the end of four sessions (320 trials). In the subsequent condition, stimulus touching further increased under a similar procedure in which pellets were only delivered if a stimulus touch occurred (fixed ratio 1 with 8-s limited hold). In Experiment 2, 6 naive subjects were initially exposed to a classical conditioning procedure (8-s stimulus preceded pellet delivery). Despite the absence of a programmed response contingency, all subjects touched the stimulus within the first session and responded on about 50% or more of trials by the second session. Responding was also sensitive to negative, neutral, and positive response contingencies introduced in subsequent conditions. Similar to other species, monkeys engaged in stimulus-directed behavior when stimulus presentations were paired with food delivery. However, stimulus-directed behavior quickly conformed to response contingencies upon subsequent introduction. Video recordings of sessions showed topographies of stimulus-directed behavior that resembled food acquisition and consumption.

Citing Articles

Group-based, autonomous, individualized training and testing of long-tailed macaques () in their home enclosure to a visuo-acoustic discrimination task.

Cabrera-Moreno J, Jeanson L, Jeschke M, Calapai A Front Psychol. 2022; 13:1047242.

PMID: 36524199 PMC: 9745322. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1047242.

References
1.
Jenkins H, Moore B . The form of the auto-shaped response with food or water reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973; 20(2):163-81. PMC: 1334117. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-163. View

2.
Silva F, Silva K, Pear J . Sign- versus goal-tracking: effects of conditioned-stimulus-to-unconditioned-stimulus distance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992; 57(1):17-31. PMC: 1323066. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1992.57-17. View

3.
Locurto C, Terrace H, Gibbon J . Autoshaping, random control, and omission training in the rat. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976; 26(3):451-62. PMC: 1333535. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-451. View

4.
Gamzu E, Williams D . Associative factors underlying the pigeon's key pecking in auto-shaping procedures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973; 19(2):225-32. PMC: 1334074. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-225. View

5.
Eldridge G, Pear J . Topographical variations in behavior during autoshaping, automaintenance, and omission training. J Exp Anal Behav. 1987; 47(3):319-33. PMC: 1348315. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1987.47-319. View