Ayres J J, Benedict J O, Glackenmeyer R, Matthews W
J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Sep;22(2):371-9. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-371.
Head poking, a suggested natural escape reaction to shock for the rat, was compared to lever pressing in a Sidman avoidance study. Both responses could be emitted at any time, but only one was effective in a given session. Acquisition and extinction of the two responses were compared under both signalled and unsignalled avoidance. Then, a test for transfer was conducted in which acquisition conditions were re-instated, but the effectiveness of the responses was reversed. Three differences between responses were noted: (a) head poking was superior in reducing shock rates under signalled conditions; (b) head poking was more resistant to extinction, especially under signalled conditions; (c) under unsignalled conditions, animals were unable to learn to head poke if they had previously learned to lever press. Findings a and c were pursued in later experiments. Finding a depended on the location of the warning signal with respect to the response system. When the lever press required approach to the warning signal, the head poke was superior. But when the head poke required approach to the warning signal, the two responses were equally effective. Finding c depended on the absence of feedback for head poke during transfer. Two conclusions are offered: first, the two responses appear to obey the same laws when their topographical differences are taken into account. Second, response feedback appears to be more critical in transfer than in original acquisition.
在一项西德曼回避实验中，将大鼠对电击的一种假定的自然逃避反应——探头行为，与按压杠杆行为进行了比较。两种反应都可以在任何时候发出，但在给定的实验环节中只有一种反应是有效的。在有信号和无信号回避条件下，对两种反应的习得和消退情况进行了比较。然后，进行了一项迁移测试，在该测试中恢复习得条件，但反应的有效性发生了反转。结果发现反应之间存在三个差异：（a）在有信号条件下，探头行为在降低电击频率方面更具优势；（b）探头行为更不易消退，尤其是在有信号条件下；（c）在无信号条件下，如果动物先前学会了按压杠杆，它们就无法学会探头。在后续实验中对结果a和c进行了深入研究。结果a取决于警告信号相对于反应系统的位置。当按压杠杆需要靠近警告信号时，探头行为更具优势。但当探头行为需要靠近警告信号时，两种反应同样有效。结果c取决于迁移过程中探头行为缺乏反馈。得出了两个结论：第一，当考虑到两种反应的形态差异时，它们似乎遵循相同的规律。第二，反应反馈在迁移过程中似乎比在最初的习得过程中更为关键。
