Buy essay on Learning methods and behavior of live creatures

The exploration of learning methods and behavior of live creatures is one of the important and fruitful directions of research. The results of studies concerning behavior modification can be used in various spheres of science, for example, in psychology, cybernetics, robotics, artificial adaptive systems design etc.
There are two types of behavior conditioning: classic (Pavlovian) conditioning and operant conditioning. In classical conditioning, new reactions develop as a response to previously neutral stimuli in the environment; meanwhile, operant behavior is maintained by its consequences (Cohen, 1969). The latter type is more efficient in terms of learning and adjusting the behavior to the desired pattern; also, operant conditioning explains the process of getting new knowledge and behavior patterns. Operant conditioning and shaping is also efficient for producing new learning in humans and animals. Studies of operant behavior started from Thorndike’s problem solving experiments (Sonderegger, 1998); well-known results have also been achieved by B.F. Skinner, who formalized the principles of operant conditioning and identified many variables involved in this form of learning (Savage, 1998).
Thus, operant conditioning examines how consequences form subsequent behavior. In cases when the desired behavior occurs quite seldom, shaping methods are used. Shaping is the process when successively closer approximations to the target response are reinforced while previous approximations are extinguished (Sonderegger, 1998). The techniques of shaping are used by psychologists as a means of generating new responses and modifying existing behaviors; such techniques are effective for generating and modeling adaptive behaviors close to real life situations.
Recent studies concerning shaping are directed towards exploring behavioral variability (Machado, 1989), (Neuringer & Deiss & Olson, 2000), contingency analysis and its possible applications to robotics (Savage, 2001), application of shaping towards learning and cybernetics areas (Sonderegger, 1998).
There is a number of laboratory simulation programs that increase the speed and efficiency of studying shaping techniques; such programs imitate operant conditioning behavior of laboratory mice. Examples of such software are “Behavior on a Disk”, “Sniffy the Virtual Rat” and “The Box” (Graf, 1995). Every program has its own features; however, for practicing shaping techniques “Sniffy the Virtual Rat” is one of the best choices since it has a user-friendly interface, allows to train by successive approximations in real-time, establishing operations and saving results of simulation.
The study will be executed using above mentioned software. The goal of the study is to explore shaping mechanisms and compare the impact and efficiency of appetitive and aversive operant consequences. The study will be divided into 2 shaping procedures, one of which will be guided by appetitive consequences (positive reinforcement), and the second one will be guided by aversive consequences (negative punishment). The researchers (Savage, 1998) state that positive reinforcement leads to faster shaping procedure than negative one. The hypothesis is that both procedures will lead to the necessary result; however, the first one will take less time and show quicker progress at showing required behavior. The results of the study can be used for determining methods of treating maladaptive behaviors and estimating time period for various shaping methods.
Procedure
Shaping involves three phases:
 evaluation and description of the organism’s existing behavioral repertoire;
 defining a target behavior;
 identifying and reinforcing a series of closer approximations to the final response.
Since basic behaviors are already implemented in the software, it is enough to trace the experimental rat for a certain time and outline its unconditional activity. Target behavior is to press the lever by the left paw (for example). Then, the series of approximation should follow. For the suggested example (pressing the bar by the left paw) the sequence of actions is the following:
1. Turn towards bar
2. Move in the direction of bar
3. Approach to the bar
4. Raise left paw to bar
5. Touch bar
6. Press bar down
The rat will be reinforced each time it performs the required response 1. When the response to level 1 becomes stable, reinforcement should proceed to step 2, etc. The same process should take place with punishment – when the rat does not show the required response, it receives punishment; when the necessarily response is “learned”, punishment takes place when step 2 is not fulfilled. Below is the detailed description of the procedure (algorithm):
Series 1.
1. Open Sniffy Lite
2. Choose Experiment – Design operant conditioning experiment
3. Set parameters of the experiment: Fixed/Variable, 3, responses, and reinforcement schedule
4. Open reinforcement parameters and choose the reinforcement action as target behavior (for each step of shaping target behavior will be different)
5. Windows – Cumulative records
6. Start the process of shaping the behavior – reinforce the rat each time it gives the necessary response (at different steps it will be different)
7. After fulfilling one step return to point 4
8. Experiment – Isolate Sniffy
9. Leave Sniffy for 30 seconds
10. Show Sniffy
11. Set the reinforcement parameters as 1 instead of 3 and check the result.
Series 2.
It is done analogously to Series 1, however, reinforcement is replaced to punishment, and punishment takes place when required behavior does not take place.
Then the time and efficiency of shaping of these two series have to be compared in order to check the hypothesis and make conclusions.

Sources
Cohen, Josef. (1969).Operant behavior and operant conditioning. Rand McNally.
Jakubow, J.J. (2007). Review of the book Sniffy the Virtual Rat Pro Version 2.0. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 317–323.
Graf, S.A. (1995). Three nice labs, no real rats: a review of three operant laboratory simulations. The behavior Analyst, 18, 301–306.
Graham, J., Alloway, T., & Krames, L. (1994). Sniffy, the virtual rat: simulated operant conditioning. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers, 26, 134-141.
Machado, A. (1989). Operant conditioning of behavioral variability using a percentile reinforcement schedule. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52,155-166.
Neuringer, A., Deiss, C., & Olson, G. (2000). Reinforced variability and operant learning.
Sandy S., Venneman S.S., & Knowles, L.R. (1987). Sniffing out efficacy: sniffy lite, a virtual animal lab. Teaching of psychology, 47, 241-247.
Savage, T. (1998). Shaping: the link between rats and robots. Connection Science, 10, 321-340.
Savage, T. (2001). Shaping: a multiple contingencies analysis and its relevance to behaviour-based robotics. Connection Science, 13, 199-234.
Sonderegger, Theo. (1998). Psychology. John Wiley and Sons.