Powell R W, Morris G
J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Jul;11(4):473-8. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-473.
In the first of two experiments, three cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus) and three albino rats were exposed to instrumental escape, unsignaled avoidance, and signaled avoidance, in that order. All subjects learned the escape procedure quickly, with the albino rats having generally shorter latencies, higher response rates, and requiring fewer sessions to reach the criterion. When the avoidance contingency was introduced, the cotton rats continued to respond almost entirely in the presence of the shock, whereas the albino rats responded in its absence, thus displaying effective avoidance behavior. Introduction of a pre-aversive stimulus did not improve the performance of the cotton rats. In the second experiment, five cotton rats and four albino rats were exposed to a free-operant (Sidman) avoidance procedure with a shock-shock interval of 3 sec and a response-shock interval of 20 sec. The cotton rats initiated responding at lower shock intensities than the albino rats, but their asymptotic avoidance responding was far less effective.
在两项实验的第一项中,三只棉鼠(刚毛囊鼠)和三只白化大鼠依次接受工具性逃避、无信号回避和有信号回避训练。所有受试动物都很快学会了逃避程序,白化大鼠的潜伏期通常更短,反应率更高,达到标准所需的训练次数更少。当引入回避条件时,棉鼠几乎完全在电击出现时继续做出反应,而白化大鼠在电击未出现时做出反应,从而表现出有效的回避行为。引入厌恶性前刺激并没有改善棉鼠的表现。在第二项实验中,五只棉鼠和四只白化大鼠接受了自由操作(西德曼)回避程序,电击-电击间隔为3秒,反应-电击间隔为20秒。棉鼠在比白化大鼠更低的电击强度下开始做出反应,但其渐近性回避反应远没有那么有效。