Response bias is unaffected by delay length in a delay discounting paradigm

Behavioural Processes

Volumn 84, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 445-449

  Wilhelm, Clare J ^a   Mitchell, Suzanne H ^a,b  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Delay discounting; Rats; Reinforcer size; Variability

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; RODENT; SUCROSE;

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; LONG EVANS RAT; MALE; NONHUMAN; PLACE PREFERENCE; RAT; REINFORCEMENT; RESPONSE TIME; REWARD; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ANIMALS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DIETARY SUCROSE; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; RATS; RATS, LONG-EVANS; REACTION TIME; REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE; REWARD; TIME FACTORS;

RATTUS;

EID: 77951974280     PISSN: 03766357     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.02.017     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Bateson M. Context-dependent foraging choices in risk-sensitive starlings. Anim. Behav. 2002, 64:251-260.
2. Baum W.M. On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1974, 22:231-242.
3. Caraco T., Martindale S., Whitham T.S. An empirical demonstration of risk-sensitive foraging preferences. Anim. Behav. 1980, 28:820-830.
4. Grace R.C. Choice between fixed and variable delays to reinforcement in the adjusting-delay procedure and concurrent chains. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 1996, 22:362-383.
5. Green L., Myerson J., Shah A.K., Estle S.J., Holt D.D. Do adjusting-amount and adjusting delay procedures produce equivalent estimates of subjective value in pigeons?. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2007, 87:337-347.
6. Isles A.R., Humby T., Walters E., Wilkinson L.S. Common genetic effects on variation in impulsivity and activity in mice. J. Neurosci. 2004, 24:6733-6740.
7. Kacelnik A., Bateson M. Risky theories-the effects of variance on foraging decisions. Am. Zool. 1996, 36:402-434.
8. Mazur J.E. Fixed and variable ratios and delays: further tests of an equivalence rule. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 1984, 12:116-124.
9. Mazur J.E. An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. Quantitative Analyses of Behavior. The Effect of Delay and of Intervening Events on Reinforcement Value 1987, vol. 5:55-73. Lawrence Earlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
10. Mitchell S.H., Rosenthal A.J. Effects of multiple delayed rewards on delay discounting in an adjusting amount procedure. Behav. Processes 2003, 64:273-286.
11. Notterman J.M., Mintz D.E. Dynamics of Response 1965, Wiley, New York.
12. Richards J.B., Mitchell S.H., de Wit H., Seiden S.L. Determination of discounting functions in rats with an adjusting amount procedure. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1997, 67:353-366.
13. Rodriguez M.L., Logue A.W. Adjusting delay to reinforcement: comparing choice in pigeons and humans. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 1988, 14:105-117.
14. Schuck-Paim C., Kacelnik A. Rationality in risk-sensitive foraging choices by starlings. Anim. Behav. 2002, 64:869-879.
15. Stevens S.S. Mathematics, measurement, and psychophysics. Handbook of Experimental Psychology 1951, 1-49. Wiley, NY, NY. S.S. Stevens (Ed.).
16. Wilhelm C.J., Mitchell S.H. Rats bred for high alcohol drinking are more sensitive to delayed and probabilistic outcomes. Genes Brain Behav. 2008, 7:705-713.
17. Wilhelm C.J., Mitchell S.H. Strain differences in delay discounting using inbred rats. Genes Brain Behav. 2009, 8:426-434.