Four pigeons were trained to peck a key for reinforcement. Two were prepared for stomach-fistula feeding and two were sham-operated. The fistulated birds were reinforced with 7 drops of 5% dextrose solution per minute, and the sham-operated birds did not receive any reinforcement. All the birds extinguished rather rapidly. There did not seem to be any difference between the stomach-injection reinforced birds and the nonreinforced birds. This was taken to indicate the absence of a stomach-feed-back system, such as has been demonstrated in the rat.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerkunM. M.KessenM. L.MillerN. E.Hunger-reducing effects of food by stomach fistula vs food by mouth measured by a consummatory response. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1952, 45, 550–554.
2.
EpsteinA. N.Water intake without the act of drinking. Science, 1960, 131, 497–498.
3.
HullC. L.LivingstonJ. R.RouseR. O.BarkerA. N.True, sham, and esophageal feeding as reinforcements. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1951, 44, 236–245.
4.
JamesW. T.An analysis of esophageal feeding as a form of operant reinforcement in the dog. Psychol. Rep., 1963, 12, 31–39.
5.
MillerN. E.SamplerR. I.WoodrowP.Thirst-reducing effects of water by stomach vs water by mouth measured by both a consummatory and instrumental response. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1957, 50, 1–5.
