Academic literature on the topic 'Differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate'

Extensive research has been conducted demonstrating the utility of differential reinforcement as an effective intervention for self-injurious behavior. However, the majority of this literature requires teaching an alternative response to access reinforcement. Further evaluation of treating self-injurious behavior in individuals that already possess the repertories to contact reinforcement appropriately. Prior to initiating the study, functional assessments were completed for both participant that demonstrated high-rate bursts of mands served as a reliable precursor to self-injurious behavior. In the present study, we evaluated a waiting period and differential reinforcement of low rate behavior on reducing mands while keeping self-injurious behavior at or near zero levels. Results indicated that shorter waiting periods and DRL values were effective at reducing mands and maintaining near zero levels of self-injurious behavior.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a widespread psychiatric disorder that affects millions of people worldwide and is hypothesized to occur due to impairments in several neurotransmitter systems, including the monoaminergic and glutamatergic neurotransmitter systems. Antidepressant medications targeting multiple monoamine neurotransmitters have been shown to be effective for the treatment of depression. Racemic amisulpride is an atypical antipsychotic that has been used at low doses to treat dysthymia, a mild form of depression, and functions as an antagonist at DA2/3, 5-HT2B, and 5-HT7 receptors. Recent preclinical studies have suggested that the S(+) isomer may be more critical for amisulpride’s antidepressant-like effects; however, this interpretation has not been fully characterized in comparison to the R(-) isomer. The glutamatergic system also has been shown to play a critical role in alleviating depression. Several studies have demonstrated that the noncompetitive N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist ketamine produces rapid and sustained antidepressant-like effects in clinical trials; however, few studies have examined the degree to which ketamine’s isomers contribute to antidepressant-like effects. Fully characterizing these differences in a preclinical model of depression may offer important insight into the role of these neurotransmitter systems on depression. The present study used a 72-sec differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) task to assess the antidepressant-like effects of amisulpride, ketamine, and their isomers in mice. The DRL 72-sec task has shown to be a reliable and sensitive screen for drugs that possess antidepressant-like activity as reflected by an increase in the number of reinforcers, a decrease in the number of responses, and a right-ward shift in the interresponse time distributions (IRTs; i.e. the elapsed time between two successive responses). For comparison, the effects of the tricyclic antidepressant imipramine and the N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist MK-801 as positive and negative controls, respectively, were determined. Consistent with previous findings, we hypothesized that amisulpride and S(-)-amisulpride, but not R(+)-amisulpride, would produce antidepressant-like effects, and all formulations of ketamine would produce antidepressant effects. Racemic amisulpride and S(-)-amisulpride, but not R(+)-amisulpride, produced an antidepressant-like effect, evidenced by a significant increase in the number of reinforcers and a significant decrease in the number of responses. Racemic ketamine and R(-)-ketamine significantly increased the number of reinforcers and decreased the number of responses, while S(+)-ketamine significantly increased the number of reinforcers, but did not decrease the number of responses (at the doses tested). Overall, these results indicate that the racemic formulations of amisulpride and ketamine, S(-)-amisulpride, and both ketamine isomers demonstrate antidepressant-like effects as assessed in the DRL task and may be useful in a clinical context. If either of the ketamine isomers can be shown to produce fewer psychotomimetic effects in humans, then the isomers may offer a significant clinical advantage over the parent compound ketamine. Regarding amisulpride, the present results demonstrate that the S(-) isomer, but not the R(+) isomer, possess antidepressant-like activity similar to racemic amisulpride.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-29T13:18:08Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Livia Ferreira Godinho Aureliano.pdf: 559598 bytes, checksum: 8bc000da4999e46895b037747380a514 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-04-30<br>Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior<br>This study investigated the effects of duration exposure to activities without programmed reinforcers on performance under a temporal schedule of reinforcement. Two other questions guided this study: (a) Are there any changes in the patterns of activities that occur without programmed reinforcers dependent on the duration of exposure to these activities? (b) What would be the effect of the duration of this exposure over responding under a DRL schedule of reinforcement when subjects are placed in a standard operant chamber without access to other activities? Subjects were 4 male food deprived rats and 2 chambers were used: a standard operant chamber (1 compartment with lever and food recipient) and a 7 compartment chamber (activity chamber) in which subjects could engage on different activities: as bar pressing, eating, drinking, wood-chewing, and running. Bar presses were reinforced with food according to a DRL schedule that varied from 5 to 10 to 21s, but 2 subjects were exposed to this schedule on the standard chamber and the others on the activity chamber. Experimental sessions lasted 2 hours and bar presses, reinforce deliveries, and compartments visited were recorded. Results indicated performances in teach environment when DRL 10s or higher was in effect. On DRL 10s response and reinforcer rates and percentage of reinforced responses were higher, and time between reinforcements was lower for subjects on the standard chamber. In DRL 21s, however, these measures were reversed, suggesting that the availability of other activities could facilitate the acquisition and maintenance of performance on higher values DRL. There was indication of an increase on the percentage of reinforced bar pressing responses as a function of time of exposure to the experimental contingency in each session for all subjects. There were no significant differences on the percentages of reinforced responses of subjects on the standard or activity chamber box as a function of successive experimental sessions. However, percentages of reinforced responses were lower for subjects in the standard chamber at the beginning of the first sessions on each DRL value. Sequences of compartment visits, that seemed to be patterns were identified and the beginning of this patterns coincided with the increased effectiveness of the bar pressing responses. Results are discussed taking into account the differences between the criteria used in studies reported on the literature. The possible roles of the activities on the performance submitted on DRL schedules are also discussed<br>O presente estudo pretendeu investigar os efeitos do tempo de exposição dos sujeitos às atividades sem reforço programado sobre a efetividade do desempenho submetido a um esquema temporal de reforçamento. Duas outras perguntas nortearam o trabalho: (a) ocorreria alguma mudança nos padrões das atividades sem reforço programado em função do tempo de exposição a estas atividades? (b) qual o efeito do tempo de exposição aos diferentes valores do esquema DRL sobre o desempenho dos sujeitos na caixa padrão? Foram sujeitos 4 ratos machos, privados de alimento, que trabalharam em duas caixas experimentais, uma com 7 compartimentos nos quais havia a possibilidade de engajamento em atividades (pressionar a barra, comer, beber, roer madeira, correr na roda de atividades) e uma caixa operante padrão. As respostas de pressão à barra dos 4 sujeitos foram submetidas a um esquema DRL5s, 10 e 21s : 2 sujeitos foram expostos aos esquemas na caixa padrão e os outros dois na outra caixa. Todas as sessões experimentais tiveram a duração de 2 horas. Foram registradas as pressões à barra, os reforços obtidos e o tempo de permanência nos compartimentos. Os resultados indicaram que as maiores diferenças entre os desempenhos nos dois ambientes ocorreram a partir do DRL 10s, quando as taxas de respostas, de reforços e as porcentagens de respostas reforçadas foram maiores, e o tempo entre reforços foi menor para os sujeitos na caixa padrão. Em DRL 21s, no entanto, a situação se inverteu, sugerindo que a disponibilidade de outras atividades poderia facilitar a aquisição e adaptação do desempenho em valores mais altos do DRL. A análise dos efeitos do tempo de exposição à contingência em cada sessão sobre a efetividade da resposta de pressão à barra indicou que as porcentagens de respostas reforçadas aumentaram em função do tempo da sessão para os 4 sujeitos e não houve diferenças expressivas entre as porcentagens de respostas reforçadas ao longo das sessões experimentais. No entanto, para os sujeitos na caixa padrão, os percentuais alcançados no início das primeiras sessões em cada fase foram mais baixos do que para os sujeitos em ambiente aberto. Em relação ao padrão das atividades, uma seqüência de visita a compartimentos foi identificada e o início deste padrão coincidiu com o aumento da efetividade das respostas de pressão à barra. A discussão dos resultados leva em consideração as diferenças entre os critérios utilizados nos estudos relatados, além dos possíveis papéis das atividades sobre o desempenho submetido ao esquema de DRL

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-29T13:18:00Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao Thais Martins Sales.pdf: 1293785 bytes, checksum: 6161405c79ed51ec0c3dacacebe67ee1 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006-05-29<br>Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior<br>This study was an attempt to investigate possible relations between responding that is reinforced according to schedules based on a temporal parameter and performing other activities to which no reinforcement contingencies are programmed. These activities have been called adjunctive behavior, collateral behavior or interim activities. Two questions guided this study: a) is there any difference in response rate, average time between reinforcers, and percentage of reinforced responses when an FI schedule or a DRL schedule is in force, if the subject can engage in other activities; b) are typical sequential patterns developed between responses when these schedules are in force? Four male food deprived rats were subjects of this experiment. The apparatus was an experimental box with seven chambers in which subjects could perform different activities, such as bar pressing, eating, running, drinking, and wood-chewing. For two subjects, bar pressing was reinforced according to three DRL schedules (DRL 4s, DRL 5s, and DRL 20s). One of the subjects was first kept in the chamber with the bar and food dispenser and then was allowed to access the other chambers, the other was first allowed to access the other chambers and then was kept in the chamber with the bar and food dispenser. For the other two subjects, bar presses were reinforced according to two FI schedules (FI 5s and FI 10s). One of the subjects first had access to all chambers and then was kept in the chamber with the bar and food dispenser, and the other was kept in the chamber with the bar and food dispenser during the whole experiment. Bar presses, reinforcement deliveries, and occupancy of chambers were recorded. Results show there was a difference in response rate, average time between reinforcers, and percentage of reinforced responses in both schedules, depending on the access condition, mainly when responses were reinforced according to schedules higher than FI 5s and DRL 4s. Higher response rates, lower average time between reinforcers and higher percentage of reinforced responses were observed for the DRL subjects when access was possible than when it was not possible, and higher response rates, higher average time between reinforcers and higher percentage of reinforced responses were observed for the FI subjects when access was possible than when it was not possible. No typical sequential patterns were observed when access was possible and either of the two studied schedules was in force. Results are discussed in terms of possible controlling variables to performing activities other than bar pressing when responding is being reinforced according to FI and DRL schedules<br>O presente trabalho é uma tentativa de investigação de possíveis relações entre o responder reforçado segundo dois esquemas de reforçamento que envolvem parâmetros temporais e o engajamento em atividades para as quais não há reforço programado, chamadas de atividades ínterim, comportamento adjuntivo ou comportamento colateral. Duas perguntas dirigiram a realização deste trabalho: a) há diferença na taxa de respostas, tempo médio entre reforços e porcentagem de respostas reforçadas segundo esquemas DRL e FI, caso haja possibilidade de engajamento em outras atividades? e b) alguma seqüência típica de engajamento em outras atividades é formada no intervalo entre respostas reforçadas segundo estes esquemas? Os sujeitos do experimento foram quatro ratos machos privados de alimento. Foi utilizada uma caixa experimental com sete compartimentos, nos quais era possível o engajamento em diferentes atividades: pressionar a barra, comer, beber, correr, roer madeira. Dois sujeitos tiveram as respostas de pressão à barra reforçadas segundo esquemas DRL com três valores diferentes (4s, 9s e 20s). Um deles passou, primeiro, por uma condição na qual o acesso a todos os compartimentos era permitido, chamada de aberta, e, segundo, por uma condição na qual era mantido no compartimento onde havia a barra e o comedouro, chamada de fechada, e o outro sujeito passou, primeiro, pela condição fechada e, segundo, pela condição aberta. Os outros dois sujeitos tiveram as respostas de pressão à barra reforçadas segundo esquemas FI com dois valores diferentes (5s, 10s). Um sujeito passou primeiro pela condição aberta e, depois, pela condição fechada e o outro passou apenas pela condição fechada. As pressões à barra, os reforços e a permanência nos compartimentos foram registrados. Os resultados mostraram que houve diferença na taxa de respostas, tempo médio entre reforços e porcentagem de respostas reforçadas em função da condição de acesso, especialmente quando as respostas de pressão à barra foram reforçadas segundo o esquema DRL 9s e DRL 20s, para os dois primeiros sujeitos, e segundo o FI 10s, para os outros dois sujeitos. Na condição aberta com esquema DRL em vigor, observou-se uma menor taxa de respostas, menor tempo entre reforços e maior porcentagem de respostas reforçadas do que na condição fechada, com o mesmo esquema em vigor. Na aberta com esquema FI em vigor, observou-se uma menor taxa de respostas, maior tempo entre reforços e maior porcentagem de respostas reforçadas do que na condição fechada, com o mesmo esquema em vigor. Seqüências típicas de engajamento em outras atividades não foram observadas quando o acesso era possível e o responder era reforçado segundo os esquemas FI e DRL. Os resultados são discutidos em termos de possíveis variáveis que controlam o engajamento em outras atividades, quando respostas são reforçadas segundo estes dois esquemas