Response suppression by visual stimuli paired with postsession d-amphetamine injections in the pigeon.
A simple light can shut down operant behavior if the client has learned it signals rough after-effects.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with pigeons that pecked a key for grain.
After each daily session the birds got an amphetamine shot.
A small light inside the grain magazine changed color right before the drug.
The question: would the color alone later stop the birds from pecking?
What they found
The color came to act like a stop sign.
Pecking dropped sharply when the light appeared.
Higher drug doses made the suppression stronger.
Birds with a longer drug history showed deeper and faster suppression.
How this fits with other research
HOFFMAN et al. (1963) first showed that a tone paired with electric shock can freeze pigeons’ responding for years. Sobsey et al. (1983) swapped shock for drug after-effects and still got strong suppression, proving the rule works across different aversive events.
Ferrari et al. (1991) repeated the idea in monkeys. They used taste cues paired with lithium or amphetamine after sessions and saw the same drop in response rate. The pattern holds in two species and two stimulus senses: sight and taste.
Fyfe et al. (2007) moved the idea to humans. A stimulus linked to mild punishment cut stereotypy to almost zero in adults with intellectual disabilities. Together these studies form a bridge: what starts in lab pigeons can guide clinical practice with people.
Why it matters
You now have a drug-free way to suppress dangerous or repetitive behavior. Pair a neutral visual cue with a known aversive outcome—then present the cue alone when problem behavior starts. The history of prior pairings, not the intensity of the outcome, drives the effect, so start early and repeat consistently.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one brief visual cue (colored card, pen-light) and deliver it right before a known non-harmful but unpleasant consequence (e.g., bitter spray, brief restraint); later flash the cue alone to test suppression.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Responding of pigeons, maintained under a fixed-interval 3-minute schedule of food presentation, was decreased on days that the color of the lights illuminating the food magazine was changed and d-amphetamine (1.0 mg/kg, i.m.) was injected after the session. Responding was not decreased by keylight color changes paired with postsession d-amphetamine or by postsession injections of saline. Administration of pentobarbital (3.0 to 5.6 mg/kg), but not d-amphetamine (.3 to 3.0 mg/kg), before the session increased rates of responding suppressed by drug-paired magazine lights. Responding maintained under a fixed-ratio 30-response schedule was not decreased when differently colored magazine lights were paired with a low (.3 mg/kg) postsession dose of d-amphetamine; with high (3.0 mg/kg) postsession doses, however, responding was completely suppressed after two pairings. The effects of pairing magazine stimuli with an intermediate (1.0 mg/kg) postsession dose of d-amphetamine depended upon the magnitude of prior postsession doses. After being paired with a low dose, stimuli paired with 1.0 mg/kg did not suppress responding. After being paired with a high dose, stimuli paired with 1.0 mg/kg completely suppressed responding. The suppression of food-maintained responding by stimuli paired with postsession drug administration depends upon both behavioral and pharmacological variables.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1983 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1983.39-165