EXTMC'HON OF A RUNNING RESPONSE AS A FUNCUON OF THE SIZE OF A TUBE-RUNWAY Thesis for M» Dog!” of Ph. D. MECHlGAN STATE UNNEaSETY Robert Lloyd Marfindalo 1955 THEFIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled Extinction of a Running ReSponse as a Function of the Size of a Tube-Runway presented by Robert Lloyd Mart indale has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for 131101). degree in PS YChOlog Major flfesgorg‘y Date September 19, 1955 0-169 EXTINCTION OF A RUNNING RESPONSE AS A FUNCTION OF THE SIZE OF A TUBE-RUNWAY By Robert Lloyd Martindale AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology Year 1955 Approved pa/ 1 Robert Lloyd Martindale The experiment was designed to test the possibility that a unique apparatus and procedure might provide a better framework in which to evaluate the implications of an inter- ference theory of extinction. The apparatus was designed to provide a straightway running response that involved a far more limited set of variations in response than with the con- ventional straight alley. The extinction trials were much more widely spaced than in conventional procedures and this spacing was identical to the intertrial interval used during the acquisition trials. The subjects were thirty experimentally naive albino rats. The apparatus was a glass tube straighway placed in an enclosure that provided a constant luminance without gradi- ents within the tubes and end boxes. Three different tubes with internal diameters of 62; 72; and 82 milimeters were interchangeable in the enclosure. I The subjects were reduced to 80 to 85 percent of their ad libitum body weights during the experiment. They were also under 12 hour food deprivation for each experimental session. The subjects were trained to run to food reward through the 72 milimeter internal diameter tube with single trials spaced every 24 hours. This training phase lasted 15 days. One group of subjects was subsequently run in the apparatus every 2h hours for a period of 25 days with no food reward present. This group of subjects was divided into three subgroups during this phase. One subgroup ran through the 62 milimeter tube, one ran through the 72 milir 2 Robert Lloyd Martindale meter tube; and the other ran through the 82 milimeter tube. The remaining subjects continued running to food reward to provide control groups in a balanced experimental design. Subsequent to this last phase all subjects were extinguished with massed non-rewarded trials. The results showed no evidence of extinction under spac- ed trials unless the removal of reward was accompanied by a change in tube size. The data suggested the tentative con- clusion that removal of reward in this situation was a far less important factor in producing experimental extinction; than other changes in the stimulus situation which required a modification in the performance of an acquired response. This result was considered consistent with an interference theory of extinction. EXTINCTION OF A RUNNING RESPONSE AS A FUNCTION OF THE SIZE OF A TUBE-RUNWAY ‘ By ROBERT LLOYD MARTINDALE A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology Year 1955 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Grateful acknowledgement is made to Dr. M. Ray Denny, under whose supervision this study was carried out, for his guidance and participation in the work herein reported. , Robert Lloyd Martindale candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Final examination September 19, 1955, 3:00 P. M., room 16, Psychology Building Dissertation: Extinction of a Running Response as a Function of the Size of a Tube-Runway Outline of Studies Major subject: Experimental Psychology Minor subject: Philosophy Biographical Items Born, April 16, 1927, Detroit, Michigan Undergraduate Studies, Muchigan State College, l9hh-h9 Graduate Studies Michigan State College, 19h9-50, continued 1952-5; Experience: Graduate Assistant Michigan State College, 1949-50 1953-55, Instructor in Psychology, l§52 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES..C.............C...0.00......00...... 1v LIST OF FIGURES 03000000000000eeeeeeeeeoeoeeoeoeoece V I. INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL ORIENTATION .. 1 II. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE .................... 14 Subjects apparatus abituation Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III III. EXPERIWNTAL RESULTS COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... 27 Iv. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO [*5 ‘v. SUMMARY . as BIBLIOGRAPHY O....0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.... 50 APPENDIX .OOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Table 10. 11. iv LIST OF TABLES Pane Experimental Design and Subject Heights ........ 21 Rank Difference Correlation Coefficients between Meaures for Each Set of Trials in Phase I ...... 28 Means and H Values on Each Set of Trials for measureL000.0...0000.00.000.000000000000000... 30 Means and H Values on Each Set of Trials for IdeasureR ..0.0..000000000000.000000.0000000...0 31 Means and H Values on Each Set of Trials for measureG .0000..0000.0000.0000.000.000.00....0. 32 Means and H Values for Trials 15, 16, and 17 ... 36 Values between Two-Group Comparisons on Measure for sets 1*, 6’ and8 00.00.0000....0000000000. 38 Values between Two-Group Comparisons on Measure for sets 6’ 7, and800000000000000.000000.00. 39 Values between Two-Group Comparisons on Measure for Sets 1, h, 5, 6, 7, and 8 ................ Al 06 FIN—3 he Values between Two-Group Comoarisons on Measure for Trial lb 00.00.00.00000000000000000000.0.0 1+1. :06 Number of Trials to Massed Extinction .......... hh LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page I. Experimental Apparatus ......................... 15 II. Response Latency Curves(L) for Experimental 33 III. IV. V. Phases I and II ................................ Running Time Curves(R) for Experimental Phases Iand II 0.0.0.0...000000OOOOCOOOOCOOOOOOOOCOCOO 31* Goal Response Times(G) for Experimental Phases Iand II .OCOOOOCOCOCOCOOOOOOOOOOCOCO0.0.0000... 35 Running Time Curves(R) for Trials 15, 16, and 17 0.000.000.0000.00000000000000000000000000000. #3 I. INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL ORIENTATIQN A good deal of research on the relative merits of reinforcement and contiguity theories in animal learning has centered around the problems of experimental extinction and their associated phenomena. The reinforcement theorists have modified Pavlov's (1927) notion of internal inhibition and used it as a drive state construct in a two factor in- hibition theory to account for experimental extinction (Hull, 1943). The inhibitory drive state, for the most part, is a construct inferred from sheer response. This is to say, that each repetition of a response produces an increment to a tendency not to perform that response on a subsequent occasion. This inhibitory drive state is assumed to dissi- pate as a function of time. A permanent tendency not to perform the acquired res- ponse is the second factor. This is based on the accuisition of alternative responses including the response of not responding, through the operation of the inhibitory drive state and/or the removal of reward. It is necessary for the reinforcement theorists to retain the inhibitory drive state construct for two reasons. First, they assume reduc- tion of drive to be a necessary condition for learning. The inhibitory drive state is assumed to be the drive reduced by the responses which bring about extinction. Secondly, in order to explain spontaneous recovery, this inhibitory drive state is assumed to dissipate as a functicn of time, and by virtue of this dissipation the acquired resoonse is reinstated. The contiguity theorists, because they do not infer reinforcement as an Operation, prOpose an interference theory of extinction (Guthrie, 1935). This is simply the claim that the sheer performance of alternative responses, result- ing from stimulus differences between acquisition and extinc- tion situations, is the necessary condition for the acquisition of competing responses. Recently, theorists who subscribe to interference inter- pretation have paid more attention to stimulus differences between acquisition and extinction series. They have noted that the new responses acquired in the extinction situation, which interfere with the original response, are actually acquired in a new stimulus situation. This is to say that experimental extinction is an example of discrimination learning. That is, the animal learns to discriminate between the stimulus situation prevailing during acquisition and that during extinction. An animal responds to each condition with a different set of responses. This is generally referred to as the discrimination hypothesis (McClelland, 1953). In particular, spontaneous recovery is regarded as a case of the reinstatement of cues associated with acquired responses and a change in the cues associated with extinction responses. Recently, a more rigorous development of interference theory has been undertaken by Maatsch (195h) and by Denny and Adelman (1955). Both of these approaches integrate the dis- crimination hypothesis into a broader interference approach and a general theory of learning. A dilemma has arisen in that both two-factor extinction theorists and interference extinction theorists have taken the same experimental evidence as support for their respective points of view. This is graphically illustrated in the ob- jections to interference interpretations presented by Spence (1951) and in a rebuttal by Maatsch (l95h). The present writer regards this dilemma as the result of traditional interpretations of equally traditional experimental apparatus and procedures. This rigidity in experimental technique has led to two basic interpretive biases on the part of rein- forcement theorists. First, the acquired response in the process of extinction has been regarded as the same response that was originally acquired. This acquired response has been regarded as uni- tary. However, the measures typically employed during acqui- sition and extinction permit very diverse responses to bring about the same measured result. A derivative effect of this bias has been a failure adequately to observe and evaluate responses occurring in the extinction situation that are different from those performed during acquisition. Secondly, the stimulus situation prevailing in the extinction of an acquired response has been typically regarded by reinforcement theorists as the same in which the acquisition of the reSponse occurred. It is against this stimulus bias that most of the experimental work of the interference theo- rists has been directed. Most experimental work concerned with the stimulus bias has involved conventional apparatus and methodology. Recent focus has been on the evaluation of differential massing and spacing procedures between acquisition and extinction trial series. In general, these studies have dealt with the differ- ential cue value of different intertrial intervals. Typically, they have supported a general conclusion that the greater the similarity between the acquisition and extinction intertrial intervals the slower the extinction process. An early study by Rohrer (19h?) supports this general conclusion. Using a modified Skinner box situation and a response latency measure, he found that extinction was more rapid with massed trials than with spaced trials after spaced acquisition. The author interpreted the results as a confirmation of an inhibitory state hypothesis. That is, massing prevented the dissipation of the inhibitory state and led to faster extinction. However, Rohrer failed to realize that relatively greater massing in extinction as compared with acquisition provides a discrimin- able cue situation. A classic study on this problem using a straight alley and a combination of response latency and running time as a measure was conducted by Sheffield (1950). Using intertrial intervals of 15 seconds and 15 minutes, she found that extinction was most rapid when spaced extinction trials followed massed acquisition. This would support the inter- ference point of view which holds that the dissimilarity of conditions should produce the most rapid extinction. Stanley (1952) supported the same general conclusion using a running time measure in a T maze situation. However, when using percent correct response as a measure; he found that massed extinction trials led to more rapid extinction other things equal. He accounts for this result with a frustration hypothesis. That is, the more frequent tendency to perform the alternative response under massing results from recoil from the frustrating situation of no reward in the goal box where the reward was present during acquisition. Another case of interpretive bias is found in a study by Teichner (1952) employing response latency measures in a mod— ified Skinner box situation. Animals were trained under 30, #5, and 90 second intervals and extinguished under 30, AS, 60, and 90 second intervals in a balanced experimental design. The principal finding was that extinction was slower when the same intertrial interval was used in both acquisition and extinction. This finding would be prediCted by the discrimination hypothesis. However, the author interpreted his results as a disconfirmation.of the predictions of interference theory, because the effects of the time intervals were different for acquisition and extinction. Again, we have a case of the theorist failing to realize that he is dealing with two different sets of responses in acquisition and extinc- tion. Extinction is not simply the weakening of an acquired response tendency but, rather, is the building up of competing responses that are certainly more diverse than the acquired responses in this type of experimental situation. Teichner's results are also difficult to interpret on a methodological count. His groups were performing at different levels of proficiency at the end of the acquisition trials due to some intertrial intervals being more optimum for learning than others. Accordingly, his acquisition groups began extinction at different levels of performance proficiency. The study of partial reinforcement has been another area in which the stimulus aspect of the problem has been studied. Using latency measures in a conventional straight alley, Sheffield (l9h9) found greater resistance to extinction after massed partially rewarded trials than after massed completely rewarded trials. This would be expected under the discrimi- nation hypothesis as partially rewarded acquisition trials bear greater similarity to extinction trials than completely rewarded acquisition trials. However, Sheffield did not find greater resistance to extinction under partial reward when the acquisition trials were spaced. Wilson, Weiss, and Amsel (1955) carried out a repetition of Sheffield's experiment. They found greater resistance to extinction following partially rewarded acquisition whether the acquisition trials were spaced or massed. There was no difference in extinction rate between the massed and spaced acquisition trials under partial reward. This more general effect of partially rewarded acquisi- tion was also supported by a study by Weinstock (l95t). He used an L shaped runway with response latency and running time measures. With an acquisition intertrial interval of 24 hours, Weinstock found progressively greater resistance to extinction as the percentage of rewarded trials during acquisition decreased from 100 to 30 percent. Wells (1952) performed a more definitive study on this problem with a modified Skinner box using approach to reward and number of bar press responses as measures. The results indicated that not only was there greater resistance to ex- tinction after partially rewarded acquisition trials, but that the degree of this resistance could be predicted from animal performance during acquisition. During fixed-ratio reinforcement (partial reward) the animals began to learn to approach the food tray only at the time when food would be present; i. e., they tended to learn not to visit the food tray on the to-be-non-rewarded bar-presses. The degree of resistance to extinction was found to be directly proportional to the degree of discrimination attained during acquisition. In non-instrumental shock conditioning, Gwinn (1951) has found, in general, that resistance to extinction in- creased with an increase in the number of shock acquisition trials. However, when strong shock was used, an increase beyond an optimum number of shock acquisition trials tended to provide decreased resistance to extinction. Gwinn favored a learned fear-drive interpretation of his results, but they are also consistent with the discrimination hypothesis. In- creasing the intensity and frequency of the shock beyond an optimum level provides a situation for better discrimination between shock and no-shock trials. fihere there is better discrimination between acquisition and extinction situations we would expect lower resistance to extinction. A more direct evaluation of the discrimination hypothesis has been made by Liberman (19h8). He used a straight alley and an L alley with running time measures. Animals were trained on both forms of the apparatus with groups extinguish- ed on just one or both. He found possible slower extinction and definitely less spontaneous recovery by animals extinguish- ed on just one apparatus while continuing to perform on the other. This differential extinction procedure resulted in a discrimination situation. That is, the animal must learn to discriminate between the cues associated with the two different types of apparatus, in order to continue performing on one type while failing to perform on the other. Due to this discrimination, the cues associated with performance are a more limited set than in the ordinary situation. Accordingly, there are fewer acquisition cues reinstated upon a spontaneous recovery test, and less spontaneous recovery would be expected. The studies discussed so far have illustrated the stimulus bias as present in traditional interpretations. Perhaps, the examination of the response bias is more im- portant from a broader theoretical point of view. It re- quires greater revision of traditional apparatus and pro- cedures. Unfortunately, little work has been dOne in this area as compared with that on stimulus questions. However, at least two experimental publications are notable in that they have not only dealt with the response, but have also departed from conventional methodology. McClelland and McGown (1953) trained two groups of animals in a circular goal alley. One group always received reward in a specific location and a general-reward group received food reward in four randomized locations in the goal alley. The extinction series employed a choice point on the way to the goal alley. They obtained learning based on the secondary reward value of the goal alley. The general- reward group exhibited greater resistance to extinction than the specific-reward group, both in terms of running time and number of errors at the choice point. McClelland and McGown regard these results as a function of the relatively greater ease of discrimination between acquisition and extinction trials for the specific-reward group as contrasted with the general-reward group. A particularly relevant study on the response problem 10 was carried out by Adelman and Maatsch (1955). The sig- nificant methodological aspect of this study was the control of response possibilities during extinction. Animals were trained in a conventional straight alley situation. Adelman and Maatsch extinguished their animals with non-rewarded trials at ten minute intervals. However, one group was al- lowed to recoil back down the straight alley after experienc- ing non-reward, another was allowed to jump out of the end box, and a third was retained in the end box for a period of time in the conventional fashion. The recoil group exhibited the greatest increase in running times during extinction and the conventional group was somewhat lower. However, the jump group failed 22 £523 agy evidence gf extinction. Adelman and Maatsch accounted for these results with the ob- servation that the more incompatible the extinction responses with the original acquired response, the more rapid was the extinction. This is exactly what would be expected from an interference point of view because the responses performed in an extinction situation must be incompatible with the original acquired response in order for a decrement to occur in the original response performance. A study by Maatsch, Adelman and Denny (1954) has some relevance to the problem of response bias. They found no differences in the rate of extinction responding for groups of animals trained in a modified Skinner box to depress bars requiring differing degrees of effort. This would be exoected by interference theory, if the degree of effort re- quired did not involve significantly different responses. The different groups were extinguished under the same effort conditions that prevailed during their respective acquisition series and, accordingly, no differences would be expected. However, inhibitory state theorists would expect more rapid extinction under the conditions requiring greater effort. This is true because they assume that greater effort generates larger amounts of inhibitory drive. It was the purpose of the present study to evaluate a new and unique apparatus and procedure. It was hoped that this apparatus and procedure might permit better observation and control of some of the factors previously discussed. Richard A. Behan (1953) has obtained some preliminary data from running rats through a mailing tube h2 inches long and A inches in internal diameter. These data showed some evidence of progressively decreasing running times even though the animals were under no deprivation and never ex- perienced reward in the experimental situation. The present writer found a similar result with some animals using apparatus and procedure similar to the present study. In other pilot observations the present writer, using the same apparatus and procedures asmthe present study, found that two of three animals exhibited progressively de- creasing response latencies and running times even though they never experienced reward in the experimental situation. 12 These animals were run twenty trials at the rate of one trial per day with two of the three animals maintaining running times and response latencies indicative of learning. These pilot observations suggested that the responses of running through a small diameter tube are a very limited set. Conventional straight alley procedures permit a more extensive variety of response, all of which are regarded as a unitary learned response. If the responses of running through the tube were as limited as indicated by the pilot work, the response, once established, might be extremely stable. It was considered possible that these responses might become relatively autonomous with respect to the goal response. If this were the case, we should expect animals trained to run a tube to food reward not to extinguish even though the reward was removed from the situation. At the very least, it was expected that this apparatus and procedure would allow the study of a running response that was far less varied than in conventional straight alley procedures. Another consideration in the present study was the possibility that varying tube diameters might systematically vary the variety of response possibilities available to the animal, and concurrently bring about a stimulation change. This variable might provide a method for measuring the effect of stimulus change and change in the variety of response possibility. Accordingly, this should provide a better method 13 for observing response differences between acquisition and extinction. II. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE A. Subjects The subjects were naive male albino rats from the colony of the psychology department of Michigan State University. The subjects ranged in age at the beginning of the experiment from approximately 120 to 275 days. Forty-four animals were used of which thirty were carried through to the completion of the experimental period. These were selected animals whose ad libitum weights before deprivation ranged from 335 to 515 grams. This weight range was considerably above the average for the colony. B. Apparatus The experimental apparatus illustrated in Figure I was a modified straight alley. The runways were three inter- changable glass tubes #8 inches long and 62, 72, and 82 milimeters in internal diameter. The apparatus was designed to provide a uniform luminance from any position or angle of regard within the tubes or end boxes. These tubes were placed in a sheet metal and wood en- closure containing a light source consisting of three 15 watt florescent tubes placed beneath light baffles at the bottom of the enclosure. The intensity of these light sources could be independently varied. The reflecting mops» \Il.u:oomopoam - pawn” mw O meats rt 1///It hoou won vcollk\ sue“ a a» son“ oH\H "oaaom /r 5 [tr «M All . in a M. “NM”... m In“: MWWWHIU. nwuuuna... .un H 1 \x\\ Km uuuuuuuuuuu Tunauuu \ . . wasp popesmwv Hangman“ .s.a mm s. mpwam coapm>hmmno \ x , , /. \ r. .. ._ in,’ —-1 mspmpmnm< amasseduoaxm .H musmam 16 surfaces of the enclosure were designed to diffuse the light as completely as possible. This provided an adjustable and uniform luminance level within the tubes. This luminance level was maintained at about 12 to 15 foot-candles through- out the tubes as measured by a light meter. The tubes were equipped with collars at each end so that all three different tubes were on the same center when installed in the enclosure. All interior surfaces of the enclosure were painted aluminum except the bottom of the light baffle directly above the florescent tubes which was painted flat black. Identically constructed end boxes were placed at each end of the tubes. The end boxes had a rectangular floor plan and a semi-circular roof. The interior floor of the end boxes measured four and one-half inches wide by ten and one-half inches long. Their maximum interior depth was six inches. The boxes were constructed of wood and metal except for the glass floors which were a flat surface. Except for the glass floor the interior was painted aluminum. The end boxes were adjustable so that their glass floors could be brought even with the bottom of any diameter tube. A light source consisting of one 15 watt florescent tube was placed beneath the glass floor of each end box. The intensity of these light sources was independently variable. The light enclosure was painted aluminum except for the bottoms of baffles placed directly over the light sources which were painted flat black. This lighting arrangement provided a l7 uniform luminance level similar to that in the-main enclosure. This level was maintained at 12 to 15 foot-candles so as to provide a uniform luminance level without gradients through- out the end boxes and tubes. This level of luminance was well within the range found in the subjects home environment. The subjects could be observed in the apparatus by a' mirror suspended above a one-half inch wide slit running the entire length of the top of the tube enclosure. Similarly, subjects could be observed in the end boxes through a one- quarter inch wide slit running the entire length of the top of the boxes. This unit was used like a conventional straight alley. Door and hand switches controlled timers that provided three time measures for each run. One measure was from the opening of the starting box door to a ten inch penetration into the tube. A door switch automatically started a timer when the starting box door was opened and stopped it when the door was again closed. The door was closed when the criterion of complete entrance into the tube was met. The criterion for closing the door and, thereby, stopping the timer was the observation by the experimenter that the first part of the subject's body had reached a black line around the tube. This black line was three thirty-seconds inches wide and was placed ten inches along each tube. This measure will henceforth be referred to as reaponse latency and will be abbreviated by L. 18 The second measure was the time from the 10 inch penetra- tion into the tube until the subject reached the end of the tube. Closing the starting box door simultaneously stOpped the first timer and started the second. When the first part of the subject's body was observed to reach the end of the tube the second timer was stopped by the experimenter with a hand switch. This measure will henceforth be referred to as running response time and will be abbreviated by R. The third measure was the time from reaching the end of the tube until the subject had completely entered the goal box. Stopping the second timer with the hand switch simul- taneously started a third timer. when the subject Was observed to have completely entered the goal box the third timer was stopped automatically when the experimenter closed the end box door. This measure will henceforth be referred to as goal response and will be abbreviated by G. The apparatus was completely reversible so that either end box could serve as the starting box or goal box. The timing devices were similarly reversible. B. Habituation Phase The habituation phase consisted of six days of handling kDy the experimenter. Starting with the first day of this phase tlhe subjects were placed in individual cages. They remained i.n these same cages throughout the remainder of all experiment- afll phases. This and all subsequent experimental sessions were 19 held at approximately the-same time daily for each animal. During the habituation phase each animal was handled briefly by the experimenter and allowed to run free on a small table for about one-half hour. During this time each subject was weighed daily. The subjects were on an ad libitum diet until the first day of the habituation phase. They were totally deprived of food at the time they were first placed in their individual cages. They were first fed again 36 hours later and, thereafter, once every 2h hours throughout all experimental phases. The feeding time was always midway between the experimental sessions and, thereby, provided a 12 hour offset. Therefore, the subjects were on a 12 hour food deprivation schedule in addition to a reduced diet. The food used was Purina Dog Chow checkers of the same type that the animals had been fed throughout their lifetime. Water ‘was continually available in the individual cages. The feeding schedule was arranged so that the subjects reached 80 to 85 percent of their body weight by the day following the last day of the habituation phase. This was done by feeding each animal three and one-half to four grams of'food each day except for the first day when no food was given. The experiment was run in three sections. The different Esections were run at the different times. All subjects in fiiach section were on the same daily phase schedule. Each of tlhese sections was as close as possible to a replication 20 across all experimental and control conditions. C. Phase I This phase started on the first day following the com- pletion of the habituation phase. The weight range of ap- proximately 80 to 85 percent of initial body weight was reached by this day and was maintained at this level throughout all remaining experimental phases. This was done by a daily diet of 12 to 14 grams. All subjects were weighed daily just before their experimental session. This weighing procedure was maintained throughout all remaining experimental phases. On the first day of this phase each subject was assigned to its respective experimental group. These groups were (determined by the two possible reward conditions and the three loossible tube diameters in phase II. This provided six ciifferent experimental groups each containing five subjects. C}roups receiving reward in phase II were designated by C and Groups changed Egroups receiving no reward were designated E. t;o the 62 milimeter tube in phase II were designated 1, groups I‘emaining on the 72 milimeter tube were designated 2, and Egroups changed to the 82 milimeter tube were designated 3. 11115 provided the six different group designations of C-1, E--l., C-2, E-2, C-3, and E-3. This assignment is listed in COlumns (1), (2), and (h) of Table 1. However, there were other considerations in the assignment 21 can mme m NN assay 0mm men n ma: N pa op ONm oam own a a puma 1 paua mom mom mus a m on N-o oom cam own N ma pewap _etmzmu Ne pswap . sit moN 00m 00m N ma on 0mm 0mm mm: a N puma mON cam men n mN pama a-m _ oom mam mum N ma op _esmzos “ 00m can can a oa semat “ o: m can mum mas m MN semac a _ mam 0mm com N oN op _ mam omm com N Na pama puma w mam own «as m aN on i a-o mom 00m com a e sagas mesmzmt ” Ne w gnome « amsmumv “msmpwv new M a.s.av unwamz unwamz amempmv pumzmm . ease aa omega ta amaze sesame penssz coasompao Ha _ aa swaps: swaps: HmapacH coauomm nomnnsm mcaccsm _ omega omega. am. any ass any lav am. W aNV ‘ lav memem3 aomwmam Qz< onmmo Aund in the appendix. Subjects were discarded who failed to eanter the tube, run the tube, or leave the tube for a period <>:E'five minutes on five consecutive days during this phase, C’I? who refused to eat within five minutes on five consecutive Ciéays during this phase. Subject 31 was not used in the 25 analysis because, although this subject did not quite reach the discard criterion, it obviously showed no evidence of learning. Subject 32 died on the tenth day of phase II. Animal 33 was discarded because a door was accidently dropped on him on the third day of phase II. Phase II This phase was begun on the day following the comple- tion of phase I. The procedure in this phase was identical to phase I except that certain subjects were no longer re- warded and certain others were run through different diameter tubes. This was done according to the schedule shown in columns (1), (2), and (h) in Table 1. During this phase subjects were discarded when they met an extinction criterion <3f failing to enter the tube, run the tube, or leave the trube for a period of five minutes on two consecutive days. The last trial of phase II was non-rewarded for all subjects. Phase III Phase III started immediately following the last trial <>.f phase II. The trials were massed for each subject. Other- VVTise the trial conditions were the same for each subject as 11¢n.phase II, except that there was no reward in the end box 13‘<:>r any subject. Immediately following the thirty seconds 3111 the end box, the subject was returned to the starting box. 26 This provided about a five second intertrial interval. This was continued until each subject completed ten trials or had required one minute to enter the tube, run the tube, or leave the tube. After these ten trials or after the one minute criterion had been met the subject was discarded. III. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS For the purposes of analysis, medians were taken for each subject on each successive set of five trials for each of following measures: response latency (L), running time (R), and goal response (G). This provided three indexes on each' measure for the 15 trials in phase I and five indexes for the 25 trials in phase II. Means of these medians were then calculated for each of the experimental groups. Spearman rank-difference correlation coefficients between the three measures were computed for each set of indexes in phase I. These coefficients and their signifi- cance levels are presented in Table 2. There was no consist- ently significant relationship between the measures through- out phase I. Since any indicated relationship was very low, in subsequent analyses each measure was analyzed seperately rather than in combinations. Group E-l was not included in the analyses after the fourth set of five trials. This group was obviously extinguishing at a rapid rate. Two of the five subjects in this group met the extinction criterion of phase II by the end of the fourth set. 0f the three remaining subjects one met the extinction criterion on trial 38, one on trial 39, and the other failed to meet the criterion. No subjects in the other experimental groups met the extinction criterion in phase II. 28 TABLE 2 RANK DIFFERENCE CORRELATICN COEFFICIENTS BETNEEN MEASURES FOR EACH SET OF TRIALS IN PHASE I SET 1 SET 2 Measure R 0 Measure R G L .h6* .l6’ L .53** -.11 R — .32 R - .28 SET 3 fieasure—f RIIF G FL .11 .28 pa .i._“ll. R - 1.37.: * A Pearson product-moment coefficient of correlation must exceed .361 at 28 degrees of freedom to be significant at the 5% level of confidence.‘ Each of the above coefficients involved 28 degrees of freedom. ** A PearsOn product-moment coefficient of correlation must exceed .463 at 28 degrees of freedom to be significant at the 1% level of confidence. 29 The means of the medians for each successive set of five trials are presented in Tables 3, h; and 5 and Figures II, III, and IV for measures L; R, and C respectively. The means of the first three sets are from phase I and constitute the acquisition curves for each group. The means of the last five sets are from phase II. These are the spaced extinction curves for the non-rewarded groups on each of the three tube sizes in the case of groups E-l, E-2, and E-3. Groups 0-1, 0-2, and 0-3 are the rewarded control groups for these five sets on the respective tube sizes. \ The Kruskal and Wallis (1952) H test for independent groups was used to test for differences among experimental groups on each set of indexes. These H values are listed in Tables 3, h, and 5 for measures L, R, and C respectively. This is a test for differences among means and is believed to be very insensitive to differences in variability. It is a test of the deviation of ranks from their expected position in a random ordering. In all cases the R values were correct- ed for possible attenuation due to tied ranks. Table 6 lists the means and R values for each measure on trials 15, 16, and 17. These trials were analyzed separately because of their proximity to the introduction of the experi- mental variables. Trial 15 was the last trial of phase I. irrial 16 was the first trial of phase II. On trial 16 certain eeXperimental groups were changed to different diameter tubes btlt none had experienced non-reward before the end of this TA 30 BLE 3 MEANS AND H VALUES ON EACH SET OF TRIALS FOR MEASURE I. ”ha“. 1 _.w- ' _1_ Group_Mgans -, 1_”__ 11 1 1 Proba- Set: 0-1 1E-l 0-2 [8-2 0-3 48-3 -_ 1.1-9.11- bility -__1__1L182.7 51.6 37.2 117.9 51.91354. .18 5 <1.00 - ‘2 180.0 16.7 13.8 98.1 12.2 27.7 .83 5 <98 :51 7-5. 5.? 5-5 5-5 - 5:51-551 51-60 .A 5.15.59.1- _1._-: 1719.29.33 H_6.1. __1._.7___,___._’2__.1. 1.5.12-1 10.18 5 <05 5 7.21 1..8f .6131 2.21 6. 1.13.1.1.- :1<10 .5...) 51 _- 1:.5.1_-__.__7:_5.'v 5.51 55 51 '10 :1<°:°:_- 7, 5.01 I2.9 8.3 2.3 8.571.<10 T1 73.1 1.. 9 1 8.91M1.1. 6 1:116." 51. 1:1“ <01) 1 31 TABLE h MEANS AND H VALUES ON EACH SET OF TRIALS FOR MEASURE R Group Means 1 I” 1* 1 1 , Proba- Set C'}.1 8-1 0-2 1 8-2 1 0-3 8-3 H DF bility . 1- .1--- - ._.__-1..- - 1.9 5 1.17:. 1 .-5_.~_5__.‘___1_+.9. -5-5 7.9. 10:57 -5. <- 10-- 2 1 2. 6 3.3 1.8 2.31 2.3 3.0 5.11. 5 (.50- a- _. .- ' ' ..__ _..._'_.,_a .. - .11- .. 3 : 2.2 2.3 1.71-2.1 2.0 1.8-.. 2.71. <90_ 1. ; 3.0 63.2 1.7 2.3 2.1 2.2 9.83 51 “<10 #1 1, , ___- ”_- _.- 5 2.6 1.9 2.6 3' 7 1.8 1.- 8. 721.1 <10 - 6 1 2.51“ 1.7 3. 1. 9 _.2_:.._9._.-. 11.80_____ L301 __ 7 2.61 1.8 2. 2.2 2. 5 10.11.11, ’;<.05 ___ . _ .. 7 -..- 8 2.9 g 1 2.3 2. .118 1._2.8___._V_12.5311. '1 (.02 32 TABLE 5 MEANS AND H VALUES ON EACH SET OF TRIALS FOR MEASURE 0 Group Means Proba- C-l E-l 0-2 E-2 C-3 E-3 H DF bility 3-9 11 1; 9:01_-..__2_:2.1-.._3_:_2._1_1_4:7 11.111.321-511 <105 “r1 11* 81 “"2 ___..2_:_’*-1_. 3:1. 1:13.. 218.2 7, 5. 321.01 3.316.01 3.8% €18 203 203 _._... 1,“...9...“ 013 5 <20 -- “3.135131 3'.11-‘*‘.1‘.1-2°Z-- 6.9 14. .10; 51 <05 5; 3.7 1 1 3.8 5.9 3 2.4 9. 6 11.61 11 1<305 61 2.7 1 1 3.8 1.6 2.7 ;12. 71 13. 97 a 1:<301 _.-‘ __ 1 _ 1. 1 .11-. ,1- 713.3é 13.9 3.1. 20181111231. <.o1 -___f__._____ _ _--T .-- ,. .._ -- - 1.. -....._._._ 4.... - ~- flj°§j _ _1__‘f°1___ 3. 7 _ 2.1. 110. 0 11.63 _1z.__1 <05_-__ 33 Figure II. Response Latency Curves (L) for Experimental Phases I and II 120 ' Q 110 - \ 100 r \ 90- h 80" .—-C—1 70 v 93 I l I l l l I I I l l Response Latency in Seconds 34 35 Figure IV. Goal Response Times(G) for Experimental Phases I and II A u . \\ . no \ A . .7 I I , \\ A a U .5 I // Jdaadd I / _ . _ X Forges A . 45 \ x \ / \ ARI. :u // -IIIIIIIII.IIIIIIhwhWLVHVII / IflIIIIIIIIIuo n .3 \IIIII , III \IV II II \ , Owl.“ \A U 12 l \ x // \ ’ \ l/ \\ \ / Av B 11.. P b p LII. F P P p |P p P b b L ”D “m “U M“ nu m“ o, no 7. ,o .9 .4 a; o~ 1. uncooom nu cage uncommom Hmoc Set 36 TABLE 6 MEANS AND H VALUES FOR TRIALS 15, 16, AND 17 Measure L Group Means —~T‘ "' *I ‘ Proba- Trial 0-1 I E- 1 0-2 E-2 0-3 E-3 H DF bility ' -— «I»— ~---—4 ' ’ .._II.- 15 5.0 ~4.9 3.3 A.b I 1.7 2.2 2.73 5 I<(L33 .1... -- - _ - "T.“ _.. 1-. 1 I- _.._1-_-.-....- In- —- .1- —- -—-— - 1. _16 I 12;? ' 7+1. I 7 2.1 3 :11- 12- 6; 62}. 515.239-- 1.}Z.I1_?5'3 I 69.9 7.0 4.6 I 7.a 6.9 5.71 5 I<350 I _ _ I- .. _._...1._.1_..I,.111_-._-_I.__. 1.11.... 1,-.- I _. 1111.} 1 1 _ 1-1- - I ;_ 1 I Measure B Group Means _ I I I 15 i 2.1‘ 2.0I 1,5 I 2.0 2.0 1. 7I 3. .62I 5 <(7mI 56“I___I 2 2.5 I} 55I 1.8 2.2 3.1I12 5oI 5 I<(<11 17 3 3.4 63.0 I1.7 I 2.1 I 3.0 1. 8 8. 21 5 I<32o __ -~’; 1 ” I _ _-__ _ __ _ _ 11. _1 _fi__ __ _I . .1. 1- . 1-31--.. 1-..._ _-I I I‘“ Measure G Group Means I I. .111... 11.-.... .11...._.._.__._.+11..11_ _._..- .1- I . I 15 3.8; 6. 2 I26 .9 _ 3.2 ; 1. 9 I 2. 2 1o. 83 . <320 I~~- I . 1- ; I .1-_ - _ 16 4.3I 20.3I I ' 3.9 I 2. 6 I 3. 6E 8. 86 .<;20 {31. 11?'3’ 67.0 I:.3 I 5.8 I 5.2 I 3.7I 5.15_ 5 _<;505_ 37 trial. Trial 17 was the second trial of phase II. This was the first trial before which certain experimental groups had experienced one nonerewarded trial. In all cases where an.H value among experimental groups significant at the five percent level or less was found; White's (l952) T was calculated between all possible two-group comparisons. This test yields identical_prebabilities to the H test when only two-groups are compared.\ Accordingly; in the case of measure L. the T values were calculated on all possible two-group comparisons in sets u;_6; and 8. These results are listed in Table 7., Out of a possible lOO two-group comparisons for measure L in all sets; two were significant at the five percent level and three were signif- icant at the one percent level. Inasmuch as there were no discernabletrends in these differences and as this number; of differences would not deviate significantly from expectv ancy in 100 independent comparisons; no differences were considered demonstrated. ’ The T values were calculated for all tw09group comparig sons in sets 6; 7; and 8 for measure 2. These are listed in Table 8. Out of a possible 100 two-group comparisons; three were significant at the five percent level of confidence and one was significant at the one percent level. For the same reasons as in measure L no differences were considered demonstrated in this case. 39 TABLE 8 T VALUES BETWEEN TWO-GROUP COMPARISONS 0N MEASURE R FOR SETS 6, 7, AND 8 Set 6 Set 7 Group 0-2 0-2 0-3' E-3 Group 0-2 FS-z 0-§T“§:3' oler 18 27_hm§§,+w2h C-1 33__ 25 16* mg7fi_ 0-2 __ 22 l 21 I5M "(2:3, .._______-_2_2_-.,._..02L+.3§___ E-2 ___..l *24 _l2 E-2 1 .29ul_27 0-3 __- ,-,_ 1 * 0-3 ‘_‘;_w_ 20 Set 8 .——-—.--— fl——— ——-—-———-—-—- Group, 0-2 0-29 0-3 0-3 0-1 21 2@”_.lé:w_2§l C-2 23-1-34-- 3.... _E-2 __19 r"2 0-3 -- .29. * A T value this small or smaller would be expected by chance less than five percent of the time. ** A T value this small or smaller would be expected by chance less than one percent of the time. 40 The T values were calculatedfor all two-group compari- sons in sets 1, h, 5, 6, 7, and 8 for measure C. These values are shown in Table 9. In this case there were a_ sufficient number of differences between groups and indica- tions of trends to conclude that differences had been demonstrated. Group E-B had consistently longer goal re- sponse times than groups 0-3 and C-1 throughout phase II. That is, the non-rewarded group changed to the larger tube in phase II had consistent significantly longer goal re- sponse times than both_rewarded groups changed to different tube sizes in phase II. However; the interpretation of this trend is attenuated by a large variability difference between these groups during phase I. This difference is indicated in Figure III. This apparent difference between the E-3 curve and curves for the other groups must_be attributed to variability differences because the signifi- cance_tests did not demonstrate a difference between their means. Accordingly; the significantly higher mean goal response time of group E-3 from groups 0-1 and 0-2 during . phase II, might conceivably be due to variability differences between these same groups during phase I. . Figure III indicates a similar situation in the case of group E-l. However; this group did manifest a difference in mean performance from groups E-Z and C-3 during the first set of five trials. This result must be considered in evaluating the rapid extinction of group E-l during phase II. 41 TABLE 9 T VALUES BETWEEN TWO-GROUP COMPARISONS ON MEASURE G FOR SETS 1, A, Set 1 Set 5 Group E-l' 0-2 E-2 0-3 3-3 GrSEETc-z S-2E c-ST 3-3 ‘ l _ C-1 18 22q 20 22 2h ._C-l i26 _____ 22 -m2l-l222.- Bil -__ .18 z 16* 16* 20 ..0:2 ; -...23.1..27..--.2.1.- 3'2 - ._ 20-..l_..2._l.+.-_.-_.2.L -._:L.'1-2 I - 22 27.- E:§- - “29 L21 _2-31__ -_ ----__- léi 0' - _--32- Set A Set 6 6mg; 741" 1‘72' 7:27—33 @133“ GroupTE-f 3:2, Kiwi-:3 _._-.. ,. -- a — ..—-~--—— f—-—_- g-.- __ _._—f—fi—T — -___ -- _._- -- .2: .18___L2.2---_22 , 2.2-.1121.- C-_.1._i 2.8. l 2.4.. .26. 1. .1722 8-1 _ 17* 18‘Ig15**;23 0-2 t 24 1 21_ is“ _§:2_fl__ 25 j 26 118 _E-2_%___fi 24 1 20 3-2 25 119 -3 15* ’C3flf - I?% "m""w—*m-‘m‘"”“‘" Set 7 Set 8 056E§V40:2T“E-2 v-BE EZ“ :roup+C-2§ E-2g C-%L_E-3 T i"‘ " _ )"“T" ‘"’“w; ES“ _c-i- -__2.7._| -27.- _-.§_--__!_-_.1TZ: C-l..1'28-1-27.I 21. 0.21 _3-2 2.5. .2: .22.. 3-2 l -2; l 23 .2 22-2- - _- -112 -2-2- ._..- _ .19_.--_2-_._. -§:l-__ _- W ”1.2- L?- l -- - _._-1]": * A P value this small or smaller would be expected by chance less than five percent of the time. ** A T value this small or smaller would be expected by chance less 5, o, 7, AND 8 than one percent of the time. 1.2 Only one significant H value was found in the individual analyses for trials 15, 16, and 17. This was found in meas- ure R on trial 16. These means are graphed in Figure V. A two-group difference analysis for trial 16 is shown in Table 10. Group C-l had significantly longer running times than all other groups except E-3 on this trial. 'The large difference between group E-3 and all others apparent on trial 16 in Figure I must be attributed to variability differences. _ _ The number of trials for each subject to massed nextinc- tion in phase IIIis listed in Table 11 with the medians for each group indicated. .The remaining animal in group E-l met the phase III extinction criterion on the first trial in this phase. #3 Figure V. Running Time Curves(R) for Trials 15, 16, and 17 Running Time in Seconds w *L [H Trial Ah TABLE 10 T VALUES BETNEEN TED-GROUP COMDARISONS ON MEASURE R ON TRIAL lb _,._._. .—-.—. -..-—--————.——o--—-— O, —-———-—.r_‘.——_-_..- 1 Group S'-1[ 0-2 13-2 ;0-3 2-3 -1r 0-1 1 17*! 15** 15**_17* 20 I121; 18-..”! _ SEEIIEBI g0-25? -5 24"“‘121#52535~ 12:31 - 2.2.1 20 '3' “I__ - ---3§. * A T value this small or smaller would be expected by chance less than five percent of the time. ** A T value this small or smaller would be expected by chance less than one percent of the time. TABLE 11 NUMBER OF TRIALS TO MASSED EXTINCTION 'oraup“”o-ij 0:2 fii2 0-31’2-5 1 7 a 7 2 g 2 g 10/ §10 ; 10/; 5* 1 1 10/ 5 1 I 3 3 1 3* 10/* o*§ 9*r 10/ _5_ 10/ 8 = 10 ; 10 * median values IV. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS The results permit only tentative conclusions. The number of subjects was too small, in view of the extreme variability obtained in the time data, to allow a more powerful statistical analysis of the data. A more appropri- ate analysis would be a two-way analysis of covariance with the covariance correction made for body weight. Such an analysis would require a much larger amount of data with several successive constant conversions of the time measures. There is a general indication in these present data that extinction of the various responses was more a function of change in tube diameter than of the removal of reward. This is indicated in the rapid extinction of group E-l and by the significantly higher goal response times of group E-3 during phase II. These were the groups that had no reward and were changed to different diameter running tubes during phase II. Group E-Z, which had no reward but ran in the same diameter tube during phase II, showed no evidence of extinction. However, we must consider the possibility that the result in group E-l and E-3 might have been due to the apparent variability difference between these two groups and the remaining groups on goal response time during phase I. The extinction of the 5-1 group might be attributed to a significant change in the responses necessary to enter and negogiate a smaller tube. The C-l grdup which was also chang- ed to the smaller tube, but continued to be rewarded, had L6 significantly higher runninr response times than some groups at the trial where the change in tubes took place. This group also showed significantly higher response latency times than some groups during the first trial series of phase II. However, this significant difference is suspect for reasons indicated earlier. These tendencies were not apparent in the E-l group even though both the E-l and C-1 groups had been treated in an identical fashion to this point in the experiment. The relatively greater decrement in response for group C-l was also indicated in the phase III data. This group appeared to extinguish under the massed trials of phase III faster than all other remaining groups even though some of £Qg§g latter subjects had experienced g5 non-rewarded trials previous to phase III. The responses observed in this experiment were extremely stable once they were initiated. Undoubtedly, the wide spacing of trials contributed to this stability. However, the fact remains that when there were no other changes in experimental conditions concurrent with the removal of reward, there was no evidence of extinction after g5 Spaced non-rewarded trials when the response had been acquired under lgnly l2 rewarded trials. It had been hoped that there would be an increase in the various time measures for the groups changed to the larger diameter tube. This was only tentatively indicated with 47 group E-j on the goal response measure and group C-3 mani- fested no comparable increase. In no case during phase II did a subject reverse his direction in the large diameter tube even though this was a physical possibility for some subjects. To summarize, it was tentatively indicated that the change in tube size, which constituted a change in stimulus conditions and required a modification of the acquired response, was a more important factor in extinction than was the removal of reward. This conclusion is limited to this specific experimental situation in which a very circum- scribed set of responses were possible and under conditions of widely spaced acquisition and extinction trials. This conclusion is consistent with the expectancies of the inter- ference viewpoint which, at least theoretically, does not regard the reward as an any more significant part of the experimental situation than other stimulus aspects. a possible interpretation would be that a response acquired 9 under as limited stimulus and performance conditions as in the present study, might require more than the stimulus change of removal of reward in order to extincuish. That is, food removal was too insignificant a stimulus difference between phases I anl II to be readily discriminable. Also, the rate of extinction was further increased by change to a smaller diameter tube. There is an indication that this tube may have elicited a different set of responses than the larger acquisi- tion tube. V. SUMMARY The subjects were thirty experimentally naive albino rats. The apparatus was a glass tube straightway placed in an enclosure that provided constant luminance without gradients within the tubes and and boxes. Different dia- meter glass tubes wereinterchanggble in the apparatus. Subjects under food deprévation were trained to run a medium diameter tube to a food reward with trials spaced every 24 hours for 15 days. One group of subjects was subsequently run in the apparatus every 2h hours for 25 days with no reward present. One subgroup of these subjects was run through the same glass tube and others changed to a larger diameter tube or to a smaller diameter tube. Other subjects continued running to reward to provide con- trols in a balanced design. The same deprivation level was maintained. Subsequently, the responses of all subjects were extinguished with massed non—rewarded trials. 2 The experiment was designed to test the possibility that a unique apparatus and procedure might provide a better framework in which to evaluate the implications of an inter- ference theory of extinction. The apparatus was designed to provide a straightway running response that involved a far more limited set of reSponses than a conventional straight alley The extinction trials were much wider spaced than in conventional procedures. A9 The data in the present study suggested the tentative conclusion that removal of reward in this situation was a far less important factor in producing experimental extinc- tion than other changes in the stimulus situation which required a modification in the performance of an acquired response. 1. 2. 3. h. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adelman H. M. and Maatsch J. L. Resistance to Ext ction as a Function of the Type of Response Eli ted by Frustration. Journal pf Expgrimental Psychology. 50(1955), pp. 51-55. Behan, R. A. oral communication, 1953. Denny, M. R. and Adelman, H. M. Elicitation Theory: I An Analysis of.Two Typical Learning Situations. Psychological Review. 62(1955), pp. 290-296. Denny, M. R. and Adelman, H. H. Elicitation Theory: II The Formal Theory and its Application to Instrumental Escape and Avoidance Conditioning. unpublished manuscript. Guthrie, E. R. The Psychology of Learning. New York: Harper, 19350 Gwinn Gordon F. Resistance to Extinction of Learned Fear-Drives. Journal pf Expgrimental Psychology. #2 (1951), PP. 6‘120/ . Hull, C. L., Principles of Behavior. New York: D. Appleton Century, 19h3. Kruskal, W. H. and Wallis W. . Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Eariance Analysis. Journal of pp: American Statistical Association. 571195277 pp. 583-621. Liberman, Alvin M. The Effect of Differential Extinction on Spontaneous Recovery. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 38(19h8), pp.—7§§:7337- McClelland, David C., and McGown, D. R. The Effect of Variable Food Reinforcement on the Strength of a Secondary Reward. Journal of Comparative ppg Physiological Psychology. h6(l953), pp. EU- Maatsch, J. L. Reinforcement and Extinction Phenomena. Egg Psychological Review. 61(195h), pp. 111-118. Mastsch J. L., Adelman, H. M. and Denny, M. R. Effort and Resistance to Extinction o the Bar-Pressing Response. The Journal pf Com arative gpg Physiological Psychology. 193:), pp. A - . 13. 1h. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. .21. 22. 23. 51 Pavlov, I. P. Conditioned Reflexes (Translated by G. V. Anrep. London: Oxford University Press, 1927. Rohrer, John H. Experimental Extinction as a Function of the Distribution of Extinction Trials and Response Stren th. Journal pf Experimental Psychology. 37 (19h7 , pp. 573-593. Sheffield, V. F. Extinction as a Function of Partial Reinforcement and Distribution of Practice. Journal 2; Expgrimental Psychology. 39(l9h9), pp. 511-526. Sheffield, V. F. Resistance to Extinction as a Function of the Distribution of Extinction Trials. Journal 2; Experimental Psychology. AO(1950), pp. 305-315. Spence, K. W. Theoretical Interpretations of Learning. in: Handbook of Experimental Psychology. Edited by S. S. Stevens. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1951, pp. 690-729. Stanley, W. C. Extinction as a Function of the Spacing of Extinction Trials. Journal pf Experimental Psychology. h3(1952), pp. 2h9-255. Teichner, W. H. Experimental Extinction as a Function of the Intertrial Intervals during Conditioning and Extinction. Journal 2; Experimental Psychology. AL (1952), pp. 170-1770 ‘ Weinstock 3. Resistance to Extinction of a Running Response following Partial Reinforcement under Widely Spaced Trials. The Journal of Com rative and Experimental Psychology.' E7TI9SE), pp. 318-322. Wells, R. H. Resistance to Extinction as a Function of the Number of Blocks of Fixed Ratio Reinforcement. Unpublished M. A. Thesis. Michigan State College, 1952, 32 pages. White, C. The Use of Ranks in a Test of Significance for Comparing Two Treatments. Biometrics. 8(1952), PP- 33'h 0 Wilson, W., Weiss, E. J., and Amsel, A. Two Tests of the Sheffield Hypothesis Concerning Resistance to Extinction, and Distribution of Practice. Journal pf Experimental Psychology. 50(1955), pp. 51- . APPENDIX EXPERIMENTAL DA TA G R (seconds) Phase II tube - 72 mm. L Trial Initial weight - 380 grams. no. Section 1. G R (seconds) Age- 225 days. L Running Direction - right to.1eft. Phase II - rewarded. (grams) Trial Weight Subject 1. no. 10 999930 98 0 1:1 .1 h.8 2122000133 1111111111 35372 “550 3 91*.“ 760191.. 32818 957558 “141 551 72 I41 32 Lwhhth/B 2 0..CCCOOCCCCOCOOOOOOCC0......'0000...... 1 533mgh3222251111#131111111121211111111 0 72 9.14286 7393971028 932111485562 311 14146 56 72 kw 522111121111 11111 122111111111111111122 2 29 Elk/0.860 208876 3961908631921 uglMOIIWB 17882 0..O...OCOCOCCOQOOOOCCOOOOCOCOO 00.... 080 0628 [4970106830 590 5990 51.358 7398 26132113 3121... 3121 255 050 50050550505550000005000000505 0555000 211 01.101111111112222220222222221m3221222 333 3333333333333333333333333333333333333 123L567890123L~S67890123‘56 also/0123.456 7890 1111111111222222222233333333.4131“ Subject 2. Age - 225 days. Running direction - right to left. 51+ Initial weight - 435 grams Phase II tube-62 mm. Phase II - non-rewarded. Section 1. Trial Weight L o no. (grams) (seconds) 1 365 51.5 7.7 97.9 2 365 88.1 10.2 1.1 3 360 25.1 11.0 1h.h h 350 162.2 11.9 15.0 5 355 160.0 10.h 13.7 6 3h5 2h.1 8.1 21.9 7 350 33.0 3.9 1h.0 8 365 19.8 3.h 3.9 9 3h5 20.9 1.h h.6 10 355 7.1 2.0 17.1 11 3&5 9.2 3.5 7.3 12 350 L2.6 h.0 6.3 13 350 1h.h 3.2 9.7 lb 350 7.0 2.7 9.1 15 3&5 7.1 2.3 10.9 16 3h5 25.h 2.1 1.0 17 3&5 h1.5 7.1 9.0 18 355 181.L 5.5 17.9 19 350 130.h 7.6 7.h 20 3&5 300.0 21 350 221.2 16.9 101.9 22 3h5 300.0 23 355 300.0 G Phase II tube - 72 mm. L R (seconds) no. Initial Weight - #55 grams Trial 55 Section 1. G R (seconds) Age - 220 days. L Running direction - left to right. (grams) Phase II - rewarded. no. Trial Weight SUbJfiCt 3 0 6585222565 0 C C O C O O C O 0 1133512113 2788h81002 2113112222 2 06 76 314378 8511125113 68970 9170 [$67356 783900 L701 506 1+2 770 1476916 1+0 61R56 33378666232 1.792 3h3h39ha3522 32 52 1+2 1 32 “88751)“.“115139621217.10962159375146802239 e “9017817.“106 9676138 14937788 72 596 788691.70 98 e O O 0.00.00.00.00.00000000COCIOOOOOOOOO 9080.77873552h12u82888650357n9922hullhlnh ””731 1 51+]. 1 2 31.796 78 90 333333333...» l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2h 25 26 27 28 29 30 G R (seconds) ght - LAO grams L Phase II tube - 82mm. Trial no. 56 Initial Wei Section 1. G R (seconds) ction - right to left. L Age - 220 days. (grams) Subject h. Running dire Phase II - rewarded. Trial Weight no. 491113229 111511116 6215801425 32231561D 1668 501 [+30 #323115950 .123 .4nru 8569102062806238h2065896620226383h32659h Wh37h5h833322326923111112532m17112211212 hlh78891561hh6205h852817217052108206859h COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.000000.00.00.00 HW9R226612222221622221212212625213h21112 68010603 6315661400369382293I+7 “250138020 0000000080000000000000000.000.00.00000000 91059133 02213129h32111126116 09133213111 230362.167 1 2 131 5 5 55 50 505055555555505505050000050 6w5w”Wh5mw55m565555555555565565527665556 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333 1231456 78 901231456 78 90123:»56 78 901231456 78 90 111111111122222222223333333333h grams. 8-8201111. R G (seconds) Phase II tub L no. Trial right. 57 Initial Weight - #20 Section I. R G (seconds) Age 220 days. L Running direction - left to (gramS) Phase II - rewarded. no. Trial Weight Subject 5. 10385111462 211 “1333.1 0233Iw55569 2111111112 0 #96 30 .32 I40 2115111221 123I+567 890 hhhhhhh #45 8756728561397925220463459777L91057952197 00000000000.000000000000000000000so.coo 1333521633211213321121311132243211111511 198890850982798h553h9676733853767265 . . . . . . 9 . . . . . 0 8: O'HOOIOOOOO0.000000000000000 “337221112112112111111111211111111111121 3 1 611620860328999399h7808h5h3818k§h2951553 ..... .....0....0.0...0.00.0..0.00 000000 77.106 6172142411+1 52111 1311122111211136122 3586 1 @505050505555505500005005555005000000550 55hh333333322h23h3hh33323333h3h1hhhb33h 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333 1236567890123h567890123h567890123h567890 111111111122222222223333333333h G - 360 grams R (seconds) Phase II tube - 62 mm. 4. u L 58 Initial weigh ighte Section I. G~ Trial no. R (seconds) Age - 220 days. L Running direction - left to r (grams) Phase II - rewarded. Trial Weight Subject 6. no. 02939h76636440h718l948#20632235132364865 00009000000000.0000...eeeoooeoeeeooeceeo #36217hh5h229525223131213311311211111215 291 71 [+32 968 0 [+161 0195(52 1 5266 73h6 1 7:198 78 5O 00000000000000.)00000000000000.000000000 6752222211121215532232222211211211121122 938291765821202568050779733 736613 52105 0.00000000000000000000000001eooeoohoeeoo 2085592235222#1901523536337.222131.11h12 111 11 l 2 5 505000m555050500005005055055555500000500 000000 990109000010000100100000091111011 3333333223332333333333333333333323333333 123h5678901236567890123h567890123h567890 1111111111222222222233333333336 G Phase II tube - 82 mm. L R (seconds) 1'10. Initial weight- #15 grams Trial 59 Section 1. G R (seconds) Age - 195 days. L Running direction - right to left. (grams) Phase II - non-rewarded. no. Trial Weight Subject 7. 0221402697 ......... 335659078 1. 1. nU.61805170 00...... nl111<1qJnIVAUnu 1910698810 m 1&1 2 “3.570an 80116 571056 #26 28 7O 586 751.2 556 76133688 5130 so.o90190000000000.0000.eoeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 035.651.81016563532528095275146831456568226926 1... 6 1.. 1121 6 2613622 #1436 3115935612 366 1&2 3772 51.. 76 961 77 ....................................... 77686966336232283hh2212335hhh23225212337 .1311sz 1 9.1.1..339151683h079616865668902766981831999 eooeeoeoe 0.0000000000000000...oeoeeeeee c2015cznZUnvazSXU(2615:)nZUnuczfizucznZUnunv€15czSfi5nu§1Unu:/SAUnu€15 :JfifhiwLThiu1:31»21515113121131)11512113121131211315111.41211312215 QJQZJQJ2131)2:3122131521312113152151221312113122151211362115123:31) 23656 78 90 3.456 78 90 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3333333333!“ 60 Subject 8. Age - 190 days. Initial weight - 365 grams Running direction - left to right. Phase II tube - 82 mm. Phase II - non-rewarded. Section 1. Trial Weight L R G Trial L R G no. (grams) (seconds) no. (seconds) 1 305 16.2 6.7 2.9 Ll 1.2 2.0 h.3 2 300 19.9 5.3 1.6 42 l.h h.1 21.7 3 305 6.3 6.9 3.3 L3 1.6 5.7 23.7 L 300 5.9 2.2 h.1 an h.3 3.3 60.0 5 295 5.5 2.0 5.h 6 295 h.7 3.1 2.9 7 285 1.9 1.3 2.1 8 290 7.1 1.7 2.5 9 290 2.5 2.2 3.3 10 295 1.3 1.8 l.h 11 290 h.2 1.2 2.7 12 300 .7 1.1 2.3 13 295 .8 1.0 1.2 It 300 .9 1.2 1.8 15 290 .6 1.1 1.7 16 290 3.5 1.h l.h 17 295 .6 .3 2.5 18 315 .7 1.1 16.2 20 295 .7 1.1 12.0 21 295 8.1 .9 3.9 22 295 .5 1.1 2.h 23 295 1.1 1.0 1.6 21 300 .7 1.0 15.0 25 295 .9 .8 21.9 26 300 h.5 2.h 7.3 27 300 .7 h.h 13.2 28 300 .7 1.3 28.3 29 300 1.1 18.2 52.3 310 300 1.0 2.2 1505 31 295 .9 2.6 15.9 32 300 .9 2.0 h7.l 33 275 12.h 7.1 12.3 34 305 1.6 1.8 3.8 35 310 5.2 2.3 10.9 36 300 5.8 1.5 2.h 37 300 2.9 1.2 3.h 38 295 .9 .9 1.7 39 300 .7 1.0 1.8 to 300 .7 2.0 12.1 G R (seconds) Phase II tube - 72 mm. L Trial no. 61 Initial weight - LOO grams ighte Section 1. G R (seconds) Age - 175 days. L Running direction - left to r (grams) Phase II - non-rewarded. no. Trial Weight Subject 9. 678806827 626631131 688631509 143348 12 2 .l. .l. 31... 5323263850 0 o e O 0 O O o O e #112638960 15 6 979655027182 “1000522 14922157016906 14.6 90 7390 6323103061636826835561220160438289260290I4 56h3h322122232222623633339365&22213m3133 .3i4520918n703132314:508IRZ980 222222233333333335 62 Subject 10. Age - 170 days. Initial weight - 390 grams. Running direction - left to right. Phase II tube - 2 mm. Phase II - non-rewarded. Section 1. Trial Weight L no. (grams) (seconds) 1 325 52.5 5.6 6.0 2 320 5.8 5.2 1.1 3 320 21.6 5.0 h.1 h 315 1.5 1.8 6.1 5 315 6.6 2.h 2.7 6 315 3.1 1.8 3.6 7 310 6.2 1.7 2.5 8 305 6.8 1.3 1.8 9 305 .8 1.2 5.8 10 300 5.0 1.5 1.8 11 300 5.6 1.3 3.3 12 305 3.6 2.0 5.9 13 310 2.1 1.6 3.3 lb 310 6.8 2.6 h.2 15 305 10.6 1.1 5.1 16 305 2.5 1.9 78.2 17 300 300.0 18 305 52.1 27.5 7.1 19 300 300.0 20 300 300.0 Subject 11. Running direction - left to right. Phase II - non-rewarded. Trial Weight no.~ (grams) QWVOmeNH 30 pwwwwwwwww Oxo cos) 0‘me N H 300 295 285 285 280 285 280 63 Age - 125 days. Initial weight - 3&0 grams. Phase II tube - 72 mm. Section 2. L R G Trial L R G (seconds) no. (seconds) 1&9.0 35.0 h.0 bl 56.2 2.1 1.4 285.1 3.0 2.0 12 60.0 32.6 3.0 1.5 300.0 2.6 1.3 2A9.3 3.3 2.h 179.3 208 207 300.0 1.6 1.7 188.9 1.3 1.7 101.6 1.h 1.5 15.7 1.1 1.5 99.0 1.0 1.9 h.l 1.1 1.1 18.0 1.6 1.2 1.9 1.0 1.0 1L.2 1.1 1.0 h.3 .9 .9 2.1. 1.1 1.3 503 102 09 1.2 1.9 1.0 3.1 1.6 2.8 5.3 1.3 1.7 1.3 103 109 4.7 1.0 1.9 7.7 1.3 1.3 1.“ 10h 103 2.1 1.3 1.1 1h.h 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.2 .9 1.6 1.7 1.2 2205 09 101 3.8 1.6 100 [01.2 .9 1.0 25.2 1.5 1.2 25.7 1.h 1.0 2.1 1.7 1.2 60"} 106 [.03 17.5 1.9 1.7 9.0 l.h 1.2 21.8 2.h 2.5 12.5 1.7 2.0 64 Initial weight - 390 grams. ght to left. Phase II tube - 62 mm. Section 2. Age - ZhO days. Running direction - ri Phase II - rewarded. SUbjeCt 120 L R G (seconds) Trial no. L R G (grams) (seconds) Trial Weight no. "I72U1#1:41’On“011n30GIQ:“O£)K)LXU6:51L7AU17OLiUQJQZVRZUn41:/1:Z a... o... o.-o o.-o o... o... O.-o o.-o O... o... o.uo o... a... o 346633L22222122324567322222111221 1&2122 80133055866332490957452“6336555952280#35 5531*2211111111L2211112211111211111132121 L7OI4QXU§iBAU7LD7LBOngcRXUQUSI 9:5ac€10(38:5n7ofiynvQXGQ9L§JOT“GI o o... a... o o... o... o o... ohvo a... a... o... o... a... a... o 03h72h733hh516hh725.1 1151 31 4211 111 .1 1’ 11 0000500055555055000000550000505005005005 #436233323222222222222112111111111221221 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333 123h56789012305678901230567890123h567890 111111111122222222223333333333h 81583;: G R (seconds) Phase II tube - L 60.0 no. Initial weight - 360 Trial 65 Section 2. G R (seconds) Age " 285 days. L Running direction - right to left. Subject 13. Phase II - non-rewarded. Trial Weight no. (grams) 1 h 381 7&11458 533552 .40 3301661+2 1491191 I” 20868 [.sz 00.000000000000000000.00.00.00. .00.... ntfiiDnI3T#MW6(DnuSZDiQL7DqlofhnuL7OnuOZDQuif#:/7Jh57§n .Jnufifoocvfib 13 168 38 14140 551662 52 578 740933.“.2 “2 317 6 399526 53231222111112121112632232236263 1323232 .DGIQLUAufiidLWS¥1RZUAUQ(J113, 970.1117AVQUIIJ7181414010.471401219n7 OOQOCOO’OOOOOOOOOSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 6085225225111 111 .112362518714745056218248 .41 1 01 0 01263 1 1 3112 .Dnufizu(1519:)R1UAU£/§1)nuSKUnvSXUCJOZU:141UgDnVKXUnUnv51U:zSZUnunZU 1290090090099990909990999889899999990000 3323323323322223232223222222222222223333 1 57 0 01 9:3?» ,0 nuoxi .3121153)1€11)1221h G ght - #10 grams. R (seconds) Phase II tube - 72 mm. L 66 Age - 235 days. Initial wei Section 2. L R 0 (seconds) Tg6fl (grams) Running direction - right to left. no. Phase II - non-rewarded. Subject 1h. Trial Weight 71¢.“18 2 20 406 70 1638808 53138 14.8 5090058 169996 11 75354142 7:17h339mn52né “D735”. 378 732 L70 59514 892961021h1636352 76107109145289.4331058550 .00. 000.000.0000....000.000.000.00...00 «9122111221211492112oc7ZZo21:J1Jh7#1(Z(21:29211152541121fu12L7h121, "/011118292fifbnllfin7bdo9221951728nuo~Qfibalnu7144uvrfifoa):/22911622PDAU 00.000000000000000oceans-cocoooooooooooo 23h56 78 90 33333333“ 31 67 Subject 15. Age - 235 days. Initial weight - 380 grams. Running direction - left to right. Phase II tube - 72 mm. Phase II - rewarded. . Section 2. Trial Weight L R 0 Trial L R G no. (grams) (seconds) no. (seconds) 1 335 11.2 96.3 8.6 11 19.3 3.6 5.9 2 310 58.7 15.9 3.5 12 12.2 1.1 19.b 3 325 63.2 7.2 2.6 13 33.8 5.7 8.3 5 320 60.0 5.0 1.5 15 10.6 3.9 5.5 6 315 2h.2 2.5 h.8 16 12.9 1.8 5.3 7 325 18.3 2.6 6.7 17 60.0 8 310 29.0 1.9 10.1 9 310 8.1 2.2 7.9 10 310 1h.5 2.0 h.7 11 310 15.h 2.1 3.5 12 305 7.5 2.2 h.2 13 305 3.8 3.7 9.7 11 305 5.0 2.9 2.h 15 305 2.6 2.h 2.3 16 305 5.1 2.3 2.6 17 300 L.8 2.6 2.9 18 305 2.6 2.2 2.2 19 300 5.1 2.0 2.6 20 300 2.2 h.6 7.5 21 305 5.6 1.4 2.9 22 310 1.0 2.1 3.1 23 300 2.1 1.7 1.9 21 305 .8 2.1 5.5 25 300 .8 2.2 2.9 26 295 .7 1.7 2.8 27 290 .8 2.2 5.2 28 295 .7 1.2 3.0 29 295 1.2 3.1 3.6 30 290 .9 1.7 1.3 31 300 1.2 203 20] 32 300 2.9 2.0 1.7 33 305 1.0 2.1 1.2 3A 300 .9 2.0 1.8 35 315 .9 1.9 1.2 36 310 .7 2.3 5.0 37 310 1.7 3.8 6.0 38 305 3.3 2.1 h.h 39 320 5.h 2.7 8.6 10 305 1“]. 3.9 3.3 G R (seconds) Phase II tube - 72 mm. L Trial Initial weight — #15 grams. no. 68 Section 2. R G (seconds) Age 235 days. L (grams) Subject 16. Running direction - right to left. Phase II - rewarded. 1100 Trial Weight 5010915535 0 O o o o o o o o 0 2913923222 1 11 l 7875587h6h 6 3.835311 11 0 530 90 388 7 0211qu121...) 123h567890 hhhhhhhhhS 60177710141475.4188 14192010 52 14790 “1+8 79.00 14342032 0000.000000000.000000000000000coo000000. 2102118302551551407147796 78:08 5551 53/0 38 78 55 11 1. .1 11 .1 11 7580996556003887152132333018593h78215362 5112112211222111222L22222221222361239~3L~3 561318 31418 170130390148 14951706190 773622 143812 00000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOcoco.000000000 083481550121322631333321212 321131321221 11 1 32211 1 00555005550000005 0000055 0050 655hb55hhhhhhhh33333h3332222232324h33h3 33333333333333333 3333333 3333 360 12 31456 78 90 3333333336 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 23 2h 25 26 27 28 29 30 G R (seconds) Phase II tube - 82 mm. L Trial no. Initial weight - hlo grams. ght o 69 Section II C R (seconds) Age - 235 days. L (grams) Running direction - left to ri n00 Phase II - non-rewarded. Subject 1?. Trial Weight 1977929202682793886253089621500656200022 00.000000....OOOOOOOOOOO'OOOOOOO0.000.... 56450D52h22121122n563756 6&54D306l6888h3 70 50905157322202 nick/075220073770 14110390 [+50 cococoo-000.coo,oooooo00.000000000000000. hhSnmh322222222213211222%332223322h135h4 1.980 GIG/580 339000 141/052 7998898 2588 59058 98 0153 o.coco00000000000000.0000.coco...000.000 7638908768I¢5111321121 651116 83 11.52 .81 11287651 31456 78 020123.056 78 010123.456 78 010 111111122222222223333333333“ SUbJBCt 180 Running direction - left to right. Trial Weight no. F‘ (anJOwn¢W»hJ 31 Phase II - non-rewarded. L (grams) (seconds) 330 300.0 20.5 325 127.1 12.2 315 71.8 9.5 320 25.h h.0 315 8h.9 h.8 315 26. 2.5 320 32.2 1.9 320 11.5 3.1 310 7.0 2.1 315 9.8 2.3 310 7.0 2.3 305 3.3 1.6 305 7.7 1.5 305 h.6 1.9 305 2.8 1.5 300 3.9 2.6 300 h.7 1.5 300‘ 19.5 3.3 300 123.2 2.h 300 202.1 2.2 300 66.3 2.5 295 8.9 2.2 300 60.1 2.0 300 38.9 2.3 290 6.0 1.7 235 3.2 1.6 295 15.3 1.6 290 h6.2 2.7 295 116.0 1.5 300 119oh 2.1 300 118.1 1.9 295 59.3 1.8 300 h. 1.3 305 167.5 2.0 310 20.9 2.0 300 300.0 305 300.0 unukuun»\uuo mQOwF‘WN Age - 235 days. 70 Section 2. G tthdDONHOAHH HNHHHO‘W—lmNHHWHwOHHquowamwwg-aooxOmomoxq 0.00000000000000000QOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOG omrcnuvuowrnrq\ncurora~uauruoourmnucnrrrourvuos-whoaunomm Initial weight - 375 grams. Phase II tube - 62 mm. G R (seconds) Phase II tube - 82 mm. L- Trial Initial weight - 350 grams. no. 71 Section 2. G R (seconds) Age - 235 daYS. L (grams) SUbjeCt 190 Running direction - left to right. Phase II - rewarded. Trial Weight “00 12.0 51.8 60.0 #1 #2 #3 doSfibnYlao920le$D1f1nu129118:3119nln70L38nuiiyvibncAYh1f2111101l 11h532222122222225331121311211226111211h 3229:31tUAulzufifiunYOacfiiuiflaanUnvfiianUqIqu9TkQYO117l4018Au7. hmh632232h2212222222111212112h3122211221 48n/11nfhf4h70n44fhdufl§8n7£u§fhd70§7nu9:8.“nv737nu7kb(11:3Qu07OCJZTQ 0 00000000 00000000 coo-0.0000000000- 811759108957682b8321h12h2231212hh2hll731 2633 221 285 C/GfibnufiiUnufiiu Qu7L8AOQuQfiUdOO/ 222222222 315 290 295 295 290 290 290 290 290 285 285 285 285 290 285 285 285 285 275 275 280 280 280 .DnXUKZDR19 1inZUanXUnu .3113212113 .logflfhcflanRZV 13 1h 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2h 25 26 27 28 AVOYLGLQfQCKOn/Rzynv 23 012 111 333333333.“ 72 Subject 20. Age - 145 days. Initial weight - 390 grams. Running direction - right to left. Phase II tube - 62 mm. Phase II - rewarded. Section 2. Trial Weight L R G Trial L R G n0. (grams) (seconds) no. (seconds) 1 350 35.4 35.0 11.7 41 12.9 . 3.8 18.5 2 345 11.4 3.9 5.0 42 31.5 4.0 11.8 3 335 35.5 4.8 4.9 43 60.0 4 335 22.2 9.6 5.2 5 330 34.3 17.3 5.2 6 330 75.5 6.5 7.4 7 330 15.4 3.8 27.4 8 330 44.2 3.3 8.6 9 325 18.0 2.6 8.4 10 325 10.3 2.1 5.7 11 325 12.8 2.4 4.1 12 320 7.8 2.1 3.6 13 315 2.6 2.1 5.6 14 320 11.4 3.8 2.6 15 320 8.6 2.2 6.6 17 315 32.4 2.4 3.0 18 320 45.1 2.4 7.7 19 320 6.4 2.7 5.6 20 315 4.6 2.8 4.1 21 315 3.3 2.3 4.8 22 315 9.2 8.7 5.0 23 315 17.2 2.7 4.5 - 24 320 17.3 3.7 3.8 25 315 5.2 2.2 3.2 26 305 7.6 1.9 3.5 27 310 2.8 2.2 4.1 28 310 5.6 2.1 2.9 29 315 12.3 6.1 6.1 30 305 1.3 3.1 7.1 31 320 1.8 3.1 5.3 32 310 1.6 2,2 5.0 33 315 1.2 2.2 4.9 34 315 .9 3.1 4.5 35 315 8.9 2.5 4.5 36 320 1.2 3.3 5.7 37 315 1.2 4.3 4.1 38 320 1.1 4.2 5.6 39 325 1.8 3.0 10.4 40 320 1.6 2.4 5.6 G Phase II tube — 62 mm. L R (seconds) no. Initial weight - 445 grams. Trial 73 Section 3. G R (seconds) Age - 175 days. L Running direction - left to right. (grams) Phase II - rewarded. no. Subject 21. Trial Weight 1.7 3.2 0 O 0 6 11.9 12 44 L70 3.4532 9666 1.70 .1408 14758.8 99538 732 766 1 £708 5531+ cocoooooeooooooooeooo00000000000000.0000 182322211211112121111412334222u4211322[*3 6392092 76 147.148 148 52 9381120609h371490 141314062 o09000000.000000000000000000000000000000 "MW/339m 3332 32 2 2 2 1 5332 2 33333433335332 352 333 00 02 068177087616I¢99372882382“861437200909 000 000000000one.cocooooooeoooooooooeoooo 00030591469297782I406790688992“72231372382 “WMN3JM127dwnI?7411 .1 ocfiifiaz 1. .1 555 55 55 5 55 5 5005505505050050050 333333333333333333333333333333333333.3333 1234567890 34 678901234 1 11 11112 222 67890123.“.«16 7890 2 2 3 5 5 A . l 2 222 333333333!“ G R (seconds) Phase II tube - 72 mm. L Trial Initial weight - 3&0 grams. no. 75 Section 3.- G R (seconds) Age " 200 day30 L Running direction - right to left. Subject 22. Phase II - rewarded. Trial Weight no. (grams) 8902305295 148636070414 2 1.. 08.1.»1022259 0.0900000. .Zn711731.41111111710n74u12550921.4015531+870n7q1070AUnVK/hlbazifio.unu 000.000.0000....ooooooooooocoo-cococoon. 283321222311111111111112611131211123m3h2 37514366727506534637539522951008581414017000 00.000000000000000...00.000000000000000. “32111111111111.1111 11 112111121111822222 36I420558383283h33391+279089187861498630539 00000000000000.00000000000000000000000.o 0.46928694793211511 21. 1.. 11 1 13013 235 1 [#111 1 zlfil nu AU:)§’ :25, nu .5anZUc1515nu025k25XUnvS£Uc2§$5nv€15nu§1Unu 2222222222222222222222222222222222222222 123.456789012314567.89012314567890123.14567890 111111111122222222223333333333“ 76 Subject 23. Age - 200 days. Initial weight - &15 grams. Running direction - right to left. Phase II tube - 62 mm. Phase II - rewarded. Section 3. Trial Weight L ‘ Trial L R G no. (grams) (seconds) no. (seconds) 1 365 19.9 3.3 5.6 1 60.0 2 365 32.9 3.0 &.6 h 3 360 57.1 3.& &.2 & 360 85.9 55.8 &.9 5 360 300.0 2.6 1.3 6 355 300.0 2.5 2.& 7 355 300.0 2.7 2.& 8 355 300.0 2.1 1.2 9 355 2&8.9 &.7 12.7 10 355 271.& &.1 2.7 11 350 26.3 3.2 2.8 12 350 1&.1 3.3 6.0 13 350 &3.5 3.5 7.3 1& 350 5.2 3.1 8.1 15 350 2.7 3.7 5.3 16 350 23.6 &.6 &.6 17 350; &1.& &.6 16.1 18 3&5 26.8 3.1 9.8 19 3&5 22.9 3.9 &.7 20 3&5 9.1 3.5 8.9 21 3&5 &.6 &.1 8.2 22 3&0 10.9 3.& 6.5 23 3&0 8.& &.2 5.5 2& 3&0 28.6 3.5 5.6 25 3&0 20.9 3.5 1&.O 26 3&5 13.1 3.6 6.0 27 3‘0 302 he“ 209 28 335 6.6 3.& &.0 29 3&0 5.1 3.2 5.0 30 310 8.0 3.1 2.7 31 3&5 17.2 3.9 6.5 32 310 12.3 3.6 3.5 33 3&0 10.7 3.& 2.7 3& 3&0 117.0 &1.9 6.8 35 335 300.0 36 3&0 191.6 19.1 6.3 37 335 21.8 &.0 3.5 38 3&0 &9.9 3.3 6.1 39 340 28.8 3.1 6.9 40 3&0 27.3 &.7 3.7 Phase II tube - 72 mm. L R G (seconds) Trial Initial weight - &75 grams. no. 77 Section 3. G R (seconds) Age - 200 days. L Running direction - right to left. (grams) Phase II - non-rewarded. no. Subject ZA. Trial Weight 5980.2).w8 RXJR/hcich 61.481426 9:2022829:1 127(4927117AU o o o o o o o c 31141 520 116 11923 .417& .512741o49?h&oR{0n/dun:5.41ISLYnILTOR24u0271211R192301§13A0123hun3111 22.163111521121222238:49Lw76685632222653753 #98 2 782 9666Lw2l+l400206 5806 22.80 79612 14.4.88 558 .0...IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 000000 000.00 ”M111:9Au1131211202922ac922n292322129221211211921111192202?T&1)92202 300906000886612.136521148976016hon/181263231 O 0.. O I O O O O O O O O O C O O C D O O O C O O O O O C O O O O O 50090052145005212014352 2627661596533900333 GXUnunZUIQ7AUc22<111 11721 .4 1. «3 .11211212121111 1192334:{Onldu01U 23133131231312274 27 28 29 30 Subject 25. Running direction - left to right. Phase II - non-rewarded. Trial Weight L no. (grams) (seconds) 1 320 &6.0 &.0 2 320 31.5 18.9 3 315 111.1 300.0 & 315 69.5 57.2 5 315 230.5 309.0 6 315 192.0 126.7 7 310 19&.O 12.8 8 310 &&.6 7.5 9 310 15.5 &.6 10 305 1&.3 5.0 11 300 8.6 &.O 12 300 12.6 3.& 13 295 2.9 3.6 l& 295 3.0 3.7 15 300 2.7 3.7 16 295 2.8 3.6 17 290 1.9 &.9 18 300 9.8 &.0 19 295 2.5 &.8 20 295 9.7 7.& 21 295 116.& &.9 22 295 76.0 5.0 23 295 2.& &.9 2& 295 5.2 3.5 25 300 5.& 7.1 26 300 &.3 5.3 27 295 &.1 3.6 28 295 3.7 .&.1 29 295 66.2 &.1 30 290 61.5 2.7 31 305 99.0 3.8 32 295 78.7 3.9 33 300 3.3 3.7 34 300 12.3 &.6 35 300 20.0 7.0 36 295 12.3 7.2 37 295 60.8 7.8 38 295 300.0 39 300 300.0 78 .Age - 200 days. Sect G HP HNHl-J HP- HPNkflwm PO‘\O\n\n\nO‘~O\\J col-”ONQOWONQN O 6 C O O O O O O O O O O C O O O . NP? 0W 0‘04" N\] O\O \JONUIOWHNNOWHflflrmeOO‘mOPWOOOQWO“NQHUIHUI N oxgwmm #‘ONHQO Initial weight - 375 grams. Phase II tube - 62 mm. ion 30 79 Subject 26. Age - 185 days. Initial weight - 365 grams. Running direction - right to left. Phase II tube - 82 mm. Phase II - rewarded. Section 3. Trial Weight L R G Trial L R G no. (grams) (seconds) no. (seconds) 1 300 15.2 &.h &.3 &l .9 1.9 6.9 2 305 13.9 88.8 1.7 1.2 1.2 3.0 5.1 3 305 300.0 85.5 1.1 &3 .7 1.7 6.2 h 300 79.3 22.9 1.9 hh .8 2.3 10.1 5 300 &2.6 2.5 bob #5 13.5 2.0 &.O 6 300 19.5 2.3 2.0 &6 5.3 5.0 5.7 7 300 22.8 1.8 1.9 #7 2.9 2.1 7.7 8 300 20.6 2.7 3.5 &8 1.9 3.& 6.1 9 290 9.0 1.7 2.1 &9 60.0 10 300 7.6 3.5 2.9 11 300 12.1 2.0 2.6 12 290 5.5 1.9 2.& 13 295 2.& 1.6 2.3 lb 295 2~3 1.7 2.6 15 295 2.3 2.1 2.0 16 290 2.5 2.6 2.2 17 300 3.& 2.3 9.0 18 295 3.1 2.1 2.0 19 290 2.2 1.3 2.7 20 295 1.1 1.6 3.6 21 285 6.6 1.6 3.0 22 265 6.6 2.5 6.2 23 300 2.0 1.8 2.7 2& 290 1.6 1.7 2.5 25 295 &.6 1.8 3.2 26 295 3.1 1.9 2.9 27 295 5.8 2.7 3.8 28 290 '1.5 1.8 2.3 29 290 1.5 1.8 2.1 30 295 2.5 1.8 2.2 31 295 2.0 1.8 1.8 32 295 1.3 1.8 1.8 31+ 295 06 107 103 35 290 .6 1.6 1.1 36 295 .9 2.1 1.5 37 290 . .8 1.3 1.2 38 295 1.2 1.6 1.7 39 295 2.0 2.0 &.8 &O 295 .8 1.8 1.2 G R (seconds) eight - 395 grams. L Phase II tube - 82 mm. Trial no. 80 Initial‘w Section 3. G R (seconds) Age - 185 days. L Running direction - right to left. ) sht. grams ( Phase II - non-rewarded. Trial Wei Subject 27. no. 3810080601 cow-000000 7hh53Q/2 355 7767780369 00.0.0000... 1122322111 .QQU7A2Qu519127L9 [4.49632 58 30908938 538608650 L62 7.8 7118 20 51451 O...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.000 nu7Ame31112574922121:1QTI:492JWMH74mWOcJ?:90278992114323111122«2 7:1nuL76nUL47A4A9hZDn/Q7OAUL76n91u62/GLSXUq17£102§10nlé¥6n2nu7Aqu92 L336“$2711111111111112112115222113221321 1 9.4217739 1.179723532025701 0960282141 227665 coo00000140000-ooooooooo3oooooooool40 coco 9814/07910 .031423232130/091 .7629039145 11 98 67890123456 78901231456 7890 111:111922a2922n402724023151231111319123fh G R ‘(seconds) 60.0 Phase II tube - 82 mm. L no. Initial weight - 335 grams. Trial 81 Section 3. G R (seconds) Age - 140 days. L Running direction - right to left. Phase II - non-rewarded. Trial Weight (grams) Subject 28. no. 1 h I+12 71386 5.14.92 960722 145291477566667I+90820276 00......0:...OOOCOOOCOOOCiOOO0.0...:....00......°. 1112321111122136625988868075hh0063381090 112322 #122222 11553 3 50 733316 210 56 36870 1458.6 566 2 5388 56 77720750 _ooooooooooooooooooooococo...0000.00.00.00 23011122“22211111221111.211222322221232523k 3 18 0395036 #5399116 22191576156373.4596 55606 52 alnuanian:21152401be.4029:2.#92€12.41497h82n7112A4129218)3)Lq7£1n/Au 102821 23 1 2032 3 1 1.. 12 788 7777777777776 76 14666666 76 76666 766666 77 2222222222222222222222222222222222222222 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2h 25 26 27 28 9012 3’456 78 90 2 3333333333)». 15 1:28):4:¢6nlanJw ll 12 13 lh 82 Phase II tube - 82 mm. Initial weight - 395 grams. Section 3. Age - lhO days. Running direction — right to left. Phase II - rewarded. Subject 29. L R G (seconds) Trial no. Trial Weight L R G (grams) (seconds) no. 2 4080379551+Lw7350 2908 352 I406 th0 279598 .n/6 321 533232 “1992272112222th1 26336632112176 53.1.» Lwl 5798 14778 96 98 7218 78 96 32 3572 6 31 #9950 90 56 0.0.0.00000000000.0000000000000... 143363221111111132111111112121121111“121..2 097.)...1886 5156 90 79097989776 776 55.40. O 76 7776 5 8. c/nJmQuQ£J:/Szl1iofh 9~ 11 11122.4 nibnufiibnufitb 81):)01UnuRibc2nZUnufiibnu029nu§1U:)§:Dnu€1>:JSAUnZU 11200100m0000009000111001000101010900111 .11231112111221111231112112123:)1211)1{311122:)2221152311923111211) 1 23.456 78 90 1 5 890 0 92114 ,6"! .1 QZquiifiqziifiqzlfh G R .(seconds) 60.0 Phase II tube - 72 mm. L no. hl Initial weight - 515 grams. Trial 83 Section 3. G R (seconds) Age - 1&5 days. Running direction - left to right.. (grams) Phase II - non-rewarded. Trial Weight L SUbjeCt 300 no. 6989I403I+ 14122008253159h201829951275695801 0 6 0 6 6 6 6 69 6 6. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 6 6 6 0 6 6 0 6. 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 6 6 6 .312112Il.11IlII 1&112213hh13112n25h21423 8.8618 181962176 92 5.148 #148 5903I+37983719071 2].». 6666666.66666 666 6666 6666.666666 6666.6666.60 6 ”63h1212122111111113111333121113132312LI.» 8928610652263h29006220369998383522703781 .0.0..60000000000000.00000000000000000000000 QAOAuQAU1281192Qiiofhill. :{O1l74l1fbn497h71114wISXUq{bn4970a:7L) 111 211 5515151 12 25 505005055050550005500000500000005500055 1.100099877887778 76778878877777.787788778 L7hfuLThd)219121111211112211121111211)12111121111)21912111221111) #30 .1. 2 3.456 78 90 333333333h 23 2h 25 26 27 28 29 30 Subject31o Phase II - non-rewarded. 8h Age - 180 days. Initial weight - #05 grams. Running direction - right to left. Phase II tube - 72 mm. Trial Weight L no. \OCDQO‘Wn-PWNp—o R (grams) (seconds) 3&5 h.2 6.8 3&5 22. 3.1 3&5 10.7 3.1 335 18.5 2.2 330 8.8 2.8 330 h3.2 1.8 320 31.3 3.0 325 22.8 30.h 325 238.3 1.2 330 138.1 2.0 330 37.0 1.5 320 110.5 5.3 330 101.8 1.0 330 2h.7 1.0 330 11.0 2.8 330 13.5 1.5 330 32.2 1.h 3h5 37.3 5.2 3&0 300.0 330 25h.5 2.0 335 300.0 330 300.0 (discarded) Section 1. r HONHHNHN?N©N?NP?WN Ooooooooooooooooo‘o H mmoorwowoowxzrmoowr SUbjeCt 320 Phase II - rewarded. Trial Weight (grams) no. 1 BAG 2 330 3 320 h 325 5 315 6 320 7 325 8 315 9 315 10 320 11 315 12 315 13 310 14 315 15 315 16 320 17 310 18 310 19 310 20 310 21 310 22 310 23 300 2b 85 Age - 280 days. Running direction - right to left. Phase II tube - 82 mm. Section 2. (discarded) L G (seconds) 19.6 10.6 127.9 13.9 2.9 h.5 35.7 3.2 3.6 92.7 4.2 2.7 19.2 2.3 3.3 13.6 2.5 5.2 30.1 2.h 5.2 6.6 1.6 1‘03 9.6 2.3 3.7 9.9 3.h h.2 5.9 2.2 2.8 10.9 2.6 18.5 h.6 2.5 11.9 6.9 5.7 23.9 8.6 3.3 15.3 18.2 9.8 1A.3 3.2 5.3 5.7 2.6 6.9 20.3 2.6 3.3 12.9 10.1 h.6 8.3 7.3 3.1 11.6 12.7 &.6 7.1 3.5 2.7 3.2 (died) Initial weight - 375 grams. 86 Subject 33. Age - 330 days. Initial weight - th grams. Running direction - right to left. Phase II tube - 62 mm. Phase II rewarded. Section 1. Trial Weight L R o no. (grams) (seconds) 3L5 50.9 h.2 3.2 2 335 15.3 Ah.0 1.2 3 335 22.9 h.0 3.5 h 330 25.8 2.3 5.5 5 330 18.h 3.& 10.0 6 330 18.7 2.1 3.2 7 325 15.9 3.0 11.3 8 325 10.9 2.8 12.6 9 325 11.5 h.3 10.2 10 330 11.0 2.3 5.7 11 330 30.7 1.8 7.9 12 330 8.h 1.1 10.6 13 325 10.1 2.3 10.9 1k 330 10.5 2.9 1h.1 15 330 3.8 2.2 17.2 16 325 13.3 5.6 lh.6 17 330 (Door was aCcident- ally dropped on subject.) (discarded) . . ‘ f . v. . '3’ 1 \ _,.--c N USE (3N1)! K Jul 25 '56 Sep 10 '56 853 M(( All” “(lulu Ull’l H Y“ ”"1 S” Rl5 EH4 Wldl N”(3