Share
𝕏 Facebook LinkedIn

Behavioral effects of microwave reinforcement schedules and variations in microwave intensity on albino rats.

PAPER pubmed Perceptual and motor skills 1987 Animal study Effect: mixed Evidence: Very low

Abstract

The objective of this exploratory investigation was to determine the interactive effects of fixed-ratio scheduling of microwave reinforcement in tandem with changes in microwave intensity. Nine albino rats were conditioned to regulate their thermal environment with microwave radiation while living in a Skinner (operant conditioning) Box in which the ambient temperature was about 27.13 degrees F at the beginning of the session. Each rat obtained a 6-sec. exposure of microwave radiation on a fixed-ratio schedule of MW reinforcement, the values of which varied from FR-1 to FR-30. Intensities of MW radiation were 62.5 W, 125 W, 250 W, and 437.5 W. Sessions lasted for 8 to 9 hr. over an approximate 13-mo. period. The effects of the intensity of microwave reinforcement varied as a function of the ratio value of the schedule used. Continuous reinforcement (FR-1) produced the lowest over-all rates, whereas FR-15, and FR-25 produced the highest over-all rates. Relatively higher thermal-behavior rates occurred under 62.5 W than under any of the other MW intensities for FR-1, FR-15, and FR-25, whereas FR-10 and FR-30 ratios produced intermediate rates of thermal responding which were constant for all values of MW intensity. These data are explained in terms of interactive effects between the "local" satiation or deprivation properties of the MW intensity and the ratio requirements of the schedule of MW reinforcement.

AI evidence extraction

At a glance
Study type
Animal study
Effect direction
mixed
Population
Albino rats
Sample size
9
Exposure
microwave other · 6-sec exposures on fixed-ratio schedules; sessions 8–9 hr over ~13 months
Evidence strength
Very low
Confidence: 74% · Peer-reviewed: yes

Main findings

Behavioral (thermal responding) rates depended on an interaction between fixed-ratio schedule value and microwave intensity. FR-1 produced the lowest overall rates, while FR-15 and FR-25 produced the highest. Higher responding occurred at 62.5 W than at higher intensities for FR-1, FR-15, and FR-25; FR-10 and FR-30 produced intermediate rates that were constant across intensities.

Outcomes measured

  • Thermal-behavior/operant responding rates under microwave reinforcement schedules

Limitations

  • Exploratory investigation
  • Small sample size (n=9)
  • Microwave frequency and dosimetry metrics (e.g., SAR) not reported in abstract
View raw extracted JSON
{
    "study_type": "animal",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "microwave",
        "source": "other",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": "6-sec exposures on fixed-ratio schedules; sessions 8–9 hr over ~13 months"
    },
    "population": "Albino rats",
    "sample_size": 9,
    "outcomes": [
        "Thermal-behavior/operant responding rates under microwave reinforcement schedules"
    ],
    "main_findings": "Behavioral (thermal responding) rates depended on an interaction between fixed-ratio schedule value and microwave intensity. FR-1 produced the lowest overall rates, while FR-15 and FR-25 produced the highest. Higher responding occurred at 62.5 W than at higher intensities for FR-1, FR-15, and FR-25; FR-10 and FR-30 produced intermediate rates that were constant across intensities.",
    "effect_direction": "mixed",
    "limitations": [
        "Exploratory investigation",
        "Small sample size (n=9)",
        "Microwave frequency and dosimetry metrics (e.g., SAR) not reported in abstract"
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "very_low",
    "confidence": 0.7399999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "keywords": [
        "microwave radiation",
        "operant conditioning",
        "fixed-ratio schedule",
        "reinforcement",
        "thermal behavior",
        "rats",
        "intensity (W)"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": []
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract/metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This content is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice.

Comments

Log in to comment.

No comments yet.