344 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16112816)
1. Stimulus change dis-habituates operant responding supported by water reinforcers.
McSweeney FK; Kowal BP; Murphy ES; Wiediger RS
Behav Processes; 2005 Nov; 70(3):235-46. PubMed ID: 16112816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Spontaneous recovery and dishabituation of ethanol-reinforced responding in alcohol-preferring rats.
Murphy ES; McSweeney FK; Kowal BP; McDonald J; Wiediger RV
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol; 2006 Nov; 14(4):471-82. PubMed ID: 17115875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Extinguished operant responding shows stimulus specificity.
McSweeney FK; Murphy ES; Kowal BP
Behav Processes; 2004 Mar; 65(3):211-20. PubMed ID: 14998658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Within-session rates of responding when reinforcer magnitude is changed within the session.
Weatherly JN; McSweeney FK; Swindell S
J Gen Psychol; 2004 Jan; 131(1):5-16. PubMed ID: 14977028
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Resistance to extinction following habituation to behaviourally disruptive novel stimuli.
Haggbloom SJ; Brewer VR
Q J Exp Psychol B; 1989 Nov; 41(4):369-80. PubMed ID: 2595008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Gestational exposure to methylmercury retards choice in transition in aging rats.
Newland MC; Reile PA; Langston JL
Neurotoxicol Teratol; 2004; 26(2):179-94. PubMed ID: 15019952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The role of place of reinforcer delivery in the appearance of positive induction when rats respond for 1% sucrose.
Weatherly JN; Nurnberger JT; Kristiansen-Moen LA
Behav Processes; 2006 Sep; 73(2):156-63. PubMed ID: 16782285
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Habituation contributes to the decline in wheel running within wheel-running reinforcement periods.
Belke TW; McLaughlin RJ
Behav Processes; 2005 Feb; 68(2):107-15. PubMed ID: 15686821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Sensitization and habituation regulate reinforcer effectiveness.
McSweeney FK; Murphy ES
Neurobiol Learn Mem; 2009 Sep; 92(2):189-98. PubMed ID: 18674628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Responses eliminated by noncontingent or negatively contingent reinforcement recover in extinction.
Lindblom LL; Jenkins HM
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 1981 Apr; 7(2):175-90. PubMed ID: 7241053
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Investigating retrospective influences on induction in rats' responding for 1% sucrose when food-pellet reinforcement is upcoming.
Weatherly JN; Arthur EI
J Gen Psychol; 2006 Jan; 133(1):81-95. PubMed ID: 16475670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Operant behavior in dwarf hamsters (Phodopus campbelli): Effects of rate of reinforcement and reinforcer flavor variety.
Lupfer-Johnson G; Murphy ES; Blackwell LC; LaCasse JL; Drummond S
Behav Processes; 2010 Jun; 84(2):573-80. PubMed ID: 20188801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Varying reinforcer duration produces behavioral interactions during multiple schedules.
McSweeney FK; Murphy ES; Kowal BP
Behav Processes; 2004 May; 66(2):83-100. PubMed ID: 15110911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effects of partial reinforcement and time between reinforced trials on terminal response rate in pigeon autoshaping.
Gottlieb DA
Behav Processes; 2006 Mar; 72(1):6-13. PubMed ID: 16413974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Food-paired stimuli as conditioned reinforcers: effects of d-amphetamine.
Cohen SL; Branch MN
J Exp Anal Behav; 1991 Sep; 56(2):277-88. PubMed ID: 1955817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effect of contingent auditory stimuli on concurrent schedule performance: an alternative punisher to electric shock.
Reed P; Yoshino T
Behav Processes; 2008 Jul; 78(3):421-8. PubMed ID: 18406078
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Is induction produced by upcoming food-pellet reinforcement the outcome of an increase in overall activity or in operant responding?
Weatherly JN; Arthur EI; Nurnberger JT
J Gen Psychol; 2006 Jan; 133(1):97-111. PubMed ID: 16475671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Responding for sucrose and wheel-running reinforcement: effect of body weight manipulation.
Belke TW
Behav Processes; 2004 Feb; 65(2):189-99. PubMed ID: 15222966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The neurotensin receptor agonist NT69L suppresses sucrose-reinforced operant behavior in the rat.
Boules M; Iversen I; Oliveros A; Shaw A; Williams K; Robinson J; Fredrickson P; Richelson E
Brain Res; 2007 Jan; 1127(1):90-8. PubMed ID: 17113052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Marking effects in instrumental performance on DRH schedules.
Reed P
Q J Exp Psychol B; 1989 Nov; 41(4):337-53. PubMed ID: 2595006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
