Autoshaping in the rat: The effects of localizable visual and auditory signals for food.

McGee et al. (1983) worked with 16 lab rats. They wanted to know if the kind of cue matters when food is coming.

Half the rats saw a light on the left or right side of the cage. The other half heard a tone from a left or right speaker. Every cue ended with food in the middle cup.

The team filmed where the rat’s nose was during each cue. They counted how often the rat poked into the food cup.

Visual cues made rats run straight to the food cup. They poked more and more across sessions.

Auditory cues did not. Rats only turned toward the speaker and froze; cup entries stayed low even though they still ate the food.

Lattal (1974) showed that a light-plus-tone combo can boost lever pressing. G et al. now show the single parts do not work the same way: vision drives approach, sound does not.

Van Hemel (1973) proved that a cue is useful only if it predicts food. G et al. agree, but add a twist: even when the tone perfectly predicts food, it still fails to pull the rat to the cup.

Thomas et al. (1968) found that mixing two food cues gives middle-level responding. G et al. explain why: different modalities trigger different actions, so they do not add up.

When you set up conditioned reinforcers, pick the sense channel that matches the response you want. Use visual tokens or pictures to spur approach and consumption. Save sounds for attention or warning, not for drawing clients toward items. Test each modality; do not assume one cue fits all.