VR5 After Shaping

Comparison of CRF and VR5 After Shaping 1 Running Head: COMPARISON OF CRF AND VR5 AFTER SHAPING

Comparison of CRF and VR5 After Shaping in Two Rats Hannah Smith Clemson University

Comparison of CRF and VR5 After Shaping 2 Abstract The behavior of two rats was observed by fifteen college students at Clemson University in a laboratory setting. The rats were trained to press a bar in a Skinner Box on either a Continuous Reinforcement schedule or a Variable Ratio-5 schedule. The rats’ bar presses, rearing behaviors, and grooming behaviors were recorded. The rats then went through extinction, reshaping, and punishment. The amounts of bar presses for the different training schedules were compared. It was found that non-target behaviors were
Both virtual rats were considered to be fully shaped at the beginning of this section of the study. The settings were changed on the Sniffy program so that there was no sound when the bar was pressed. The rats also did not receive any food pellets when they pressed the bar. The rats were observed for ten minutes each at different times. Bar pressing, rearing, Comparison of CRF and VR5 After Shaping 5 and grooming behaviors were recorded. Again, because of time constraints, neither rat became completely extinct in the ten minutes of observation, but completely extinct rats were used for the next section of the experiment. Extinction was defined as less than one bar press per minute for the rats. After behaviors for both rats were extinguished, they were placed on their previous schedules of reinforcement to measure recovery behavior. The rats were observed for twelve minutes in attempt to retrain them to press the bar for food. Once more, because of time constraints, the virtual rats were set back to full association of bar pressing with food for the remainder of the experiment. Finally, punishment took place. A fully trained CRF virtual rat and a fully trained VR5 virtual rat were used in this section. High punishment was implemented for every time the rats pressed the bar. This punishment was a shock from the floor of the Skinner Box. Both
Incorrect time intervals and incorrect recording of data could have resulted from human error. At times, the virtual rats pressed the bar many times sequentially, making it difficult to accurately record the data. In this study, the independent variable was the level of reinforcement the rats got when they pressed the bar; these levels were: no reinforcement, CRF, VR5, and positive punishment. No reinforcement was used during baseline observations. CRF and VR5 were used in training the rats to press the bar and again in recovery. Positive punishment was used in attempt to extinguish the learned behavior of bar pressing in the rats. The dependent variable was the virtual rats’ pressing of the bar, Comparison of CRF and VR5 After Shaping 6 and data was collected. It is arguable that rearing and grooming behaviors were additional dependent variables, but the one being studied and compared was the bar pressing behavior. There were no ethical problems in this procedure. Virtual rats were used, so no live animals were in danger. These were the only participants in the experiment. The experimenters were also not in danger. The only possible issue would be stress. The experimenters had a slight amount of stress on them to keep up with the bar presses of these rats. Other than this minor possible dilemma, the experiment was ethically sound. There was no compensation offered in this procedure, and very little bias was likely to play