Topography of signal-centered behavior in the rat: Effects of deprivation state and reinforcer type.
The physical way a learner approaches a reinforcer reveals what they actually want.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team watched hungry and thirsty rats during training sessions.
They gave each rat a signal that food or water would soon arrive.
Then they measured how often the rats touched the food cup or lick spout.
What they found
Hungry rats pawed and bit the food cup more when pellets, not liquid, were coming.
Thirsty rats barely touched the lick spout unless they were very water-deprived.
When both food and water were restricted, the rats only contacted the food site.
How this fits with other research
Kohlenberg et al. (1976) already showed that the schedule itself can reshape how rats nibble or press.
Sachs et al. (1969) found pigeons also change where they peck when the schedule shifts from steady to intermittent.
Together these studies say the same thing: the form of a conditioned response is not fixed.
Reinforcer type, deprivation level, and schedule history all sculpt the final picture.
Why it matters
When a client reaches toward a item before earning it, that topography is data.
Ask: is the child hungry, thirsty, or reinforced by something else?
Match the reinforcer format to the deprivation state and watch the prepatory movements tell you if you guessed right.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Offer the same reinforcer in two forms (solid and liquid) and note which one the learner contacts first.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In a series of three experiments, groups of food-deprived and water-deprived rats were given pairings of a retractable lever (CS(+)) with response-independent deliveries of either solid or liquid reinforcers. In Experiment 1 food-deprived rats given a solid-pellet reinforcer differentially tended to sniff, paw, mouth, and bite the CS(+) lever more often than a lever that was not paired with food (CS(-)), whereas food-deprived rats given a liquid reinforcer tended to differentially sniff, paw, and lick the CS(+) lever. 23(1/2)-hour water-deprived rats given liquid reinforcers showed very little CS(+) contact. In Experiment 2 increasing the severity of water deprivation from 23(1/2) to 47(1/2) hours significantly increased CS(+) contact. In Experiment 3, subjects that were simultaneously food and water deprived and given a water reinforcer failed to exhibit differential CS(+) contact, but subjects that were simultaneously food and water deprived and given a food reinforcer did acquire differential CS(+)-contact behavior. These results suggest that (a) even under a single motivational state the nature of signal-centered behavior can be determined by type of reinforcer, (b) although water reinforcement produces less signal contact than food reinforcement, this can be facilitated with more severe water-deprivation levels, and (c) high CS-contact rates using food reinforcement are not simply a product of reductions in body weight with food deprivation.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1982 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1982.38-291