THE EFFECTS OF CONDITIONING AND

THE EFFECTS OF EXTINCTION ON

SNIFFY, THE VIRTUAL RAT

Jack Schuldenfrei

5/24/2010

1
 Results and discussion

Insert Figure 1 Here

When Sniffy, the rat pressed the bar, the sound and food was presented as reinforcements. When

the reinforcement plan was completed, Sniffy continued to press the bar showing signs of resistance to

extinction as shown in Figure 1. Within the first 10 minutes of responses as seen between point A and B

in Figure 1, the rat performed 19 responses. From point B to point C, Sniffy demonstrated a gradual

acquisition phase and the responses became more frequent at a rate of 250 times in a period of 20

minutes. That’s 125 responses for 10 minutes. From point C to D Sniffy reached his asymptote level and

performed its actions at a constant rate. The area between points C and D is where the conditional

reinforcement (CRF) procedure continued to be implemented to maintain and strengthen the association

between the conditional reinforcement and the primary reinforcement. This continued for about 45

minutes, thus making a strong connection between the sound and the food.

At point D, extinction procedures were implemented and the tone was turned off, immediately we

observed an extinction burst from point D to E, where it seems like sniffy pressed the bar 20 times in only

1 minute. This is an increase in responses compared to the pattern of responses that was witnessed at the

end of CRF. From point E to F, a 1:25 minute time period, Sniffy gradually made responses and from

points F to G, a 30 minute time frame he again hit the bar very rapidly indicating a small extinction burst.

From points to G to H, a one minute period there are 3 responses and from H to I there are so many

responses in a small amount of time that it is hard to examine by eye, but it appears that there are 18

responses in 30 seconds. From points I to J, Sniffy continued his attempt to acquire food and within this 5

minute time frame there were periods of time where he did nothing. From point J to K, Sniffy had

qualified for the criterion for extinction because he had made two or fewer responses within 5 minutes.

The amount of time it took for extinction to set in was 25 minutes.

2
 Insert Figure 2 Here

In a second experiment Sniffy was trained to associate food with sound but this time after

extinction was presented the tone (conditional reinforcement) was presented. In Figure 2 we see that 5

minutes after extinction, represented by the range A to B sniffy continued to press the bar 79 times

showing little signs of change in behavior. From point b to c, a one and a half minute time interval we do

see signs of rapid responding which maybe a sign of a little extinction burst. From points C to D a 17

minute period, sniffy gradually pressed the bar similar to the rate viewed during CRF training. From D to

E, a 35 minute period he continued to press the bar at a much slower rate and within this time period there

were moments were sniffy produced no relevant data known as “insignificant activities” such as the areas

demonstrated at point 1, 2,3,4,5. From point E till point F Sniffy’s response rates are considerably less

and there are many “insignificant activities," one of them which is located at area 6. It took sniffy 166

minutes to respond 2 or less time in a 5 minute interval to satisfy the criterion for extinction.

Insert Figure 3 Here

The number of responses in extinction is directly related to the amount of training of the CRF.

The more CRF training Sniffy was introduced to before extinction the more resistant sniffy was to

extinction. The amount of resistance was determined by how long it took for Sniffy to produce only 2 or

less responses in a five minute period. The relationships between the amount of CRF training and the type

of extinction procedures that were implemented can be seen in Figure 3. In Figure 3 we see that an

interaction occurred because there is a difference in the rise of variables. The averages or the ratio values

of the amount of responses needed under low and high criteria and with or without reinforcements are

different. When there was no conditional reinforcements presented after extinction there was a 3.24 gain

in resistance. When there was conditional reinforcement presented there was a 4.1 gain in resistance. So

when there is reinforcement presented after extinction the resistance to extinction is stronger than when

there was no reinforcement presented. When there was low CRF the resistance to extinction on average

3
was 3.0 and when the CRF was high the average is 3.7. This means that when more CRF was presented

the more resistance the rat became towards extinction.

The graph shows a synergistic effect demonstrated by the slope of the lines. The slope of the line

that represents that reinforcement was present rises at a higher rate than the slope of the line that

represents without reinforcement.

In these experiments Sniffy was trained to associate a tone when he received food for

accomplishing a task, the tone, became the conditional reinforcement and the food was the primary

reinforcement. Then we tested to see what would happen if the primary reinforcement was taken away

and to see how resistant sniffy would be to extinction if the conditional reinforcement was presented or

omitted after the extinction procedures were implemented. It appears that when the conditional

reinforcement remained after extinction, sniffy took a lot more time to fully degrade the association

between the primary and conditional reinforcement when compared to the experiment where the

conditional reinforcement was eliminated. We also noticed that when the conditional reinforcement was

eliminated, major extinction bursts were observed and in the experiment where the conditional

reinforcement remained, there was hardly any extinction burst. The little amount of time that was used to

complete the extinction process for the muted experiment (figure 1) and the major rapid pressing of the

bar may indicate signs of frustration. Once sniffy realized that all signs of possible rewards were

terminated he got aggravated and then stopped attempts to press the bar because it became a useless

activity. In the case where the conditional reinforcement was presented after extinction (Figure 2) he

continued to press the bar at a steady rate with very few areas of rapid hits. This may be do because he

realizes that part of the reward process was still there and continued to press the bar for hope that the

primary reward will be delivered. He continued these actions for 166 minutes or until the criterion for

extinction had been reached.

4
 We also saw in this experiment that the more amount of training sniffy received before training

the more resistant sniffy would be towards extinction (Figure 3). Being resistant to extinction is when the

organism continues to act even though the reward is not being presented. This may be caused because the

association between the reward and the behavior is very strong and more time is needed to decrease the

association. A practical example would be somebody trying to “kick a bad habit.”

5
 Figure captions

Figure 1: The cumulative record of CRF using the high criterion of training followed by extinction in the

absence of conditional reinforcement. The letters are presented to point out key areas that are discussed in

the result section.

Figure 2: Cumulative record of CFR using the high criterion for training followed by extinction with the

conditional reinforcement present. The letters and number indicate key areas where Sniffy made certain

responses and are discussed in the result section.

Figure 3: A line graph to demonstrate the effect of hi and low criterion of training. The graph also shows

the effects of what happens when the conditional reinforcement is present and when it’s not present after

extinction procedures are implemented. The line with the filled in circles represents with reinforcement

and the empty circle refers to the line that represent without reinforcement.