Hi David, if you are interested about responses to palatable rewards, firstly I would consider the neophobia reaction to new flavors. So, even if you can control the previous preferences for differents types of rewards and to expose animals to an unexpected change of reward without changing its magnitud, there would be a rejection response at the very beginning because of the novelty. 

Dear David,

This question does not exactly enter into my field of expertise, I am afraid. But it points to something important, i.e., whether the difference between expected and obtained value is precisely dimensional. In other words how to consider the reinforcement value of the mismatch expressed by this difference. The question is as whether the change in reinforcement category can add to this assessment, in the sense of the "good enough mother" (Winnicott) where a slight mismatch adds to the result value..

This suggestion is a response to Lucas, since any novelty is not disruptive, as we know it from curiosity responses.

Hope this means something to you, If not, I would be glad to better understand what you look after!

Françoise

I agree that novelty in and of itself is not aversive--i.e., selectively bred high novelty seeking rodents.  There is a fair literature on neuro-behavioral economics and addiction, especially as it relates to neuroimaging of humans and animals.

You use determination of indifference or willingness to pay to establish (approximate) equivalence.

Then the expectation can be determined by making a cue a reliable predictor of a reward of a certain size. So if 3 seconds after the bell rings, I always get 5mls of glucose infusion, say, then I come to expect that much glucose that long after the bell.

I view this question to mirror the comparison between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. One concept that would be interesting to see further research on is the actual measurable brain changes with the different types of rewards (including expected versus realistic rewards). David, with the remarks about glucose infusion, is that an actual measurement in a laboratory (i.e. Pavlov's experiment)?

A key early experiment in this area is Schultz (1997) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9054347]. There are many experiments on reward prediction errors (RPEs), using many reward types. Infusions of some sugar solution are a common reward type in experiments with non-human subjects, but I only used that as an example/illustration. I've not encountered a study where we might expect an RPE in type of reward (or punishment) but not magnitude, and that is what I'm curious about.

Why "she"? David...is there a purpose in that?

I’m a person with eclectic TAFE and life education (none medical other than all forms of advanced first aid) with vertebrates during ag science. At ACU right now I am just a postgrad student in OHSE/WHSE who came in from Industry without prior university training. In the 1980’s during my Ag Science and Horse Management I worked over some years with the most outstanding horse trainer/educator Australia, perhaps the world has seen in its global memory.

 Amongst my own memories are that a more than a decade after the horses last performed the old fellow could blow the bugle, all would come in and line up in correct ’military’ order and follow instructions when their name was called.

They were not rewarded for it and when each had done its task and re-entered the line-up whence left, and stayed without dissent whilst one was organised to stand on top of a 9&1/4 inch strainer post. Then they were dismissed and went on about the business they’d left before the call.

Is ‘assimilation’ the answer to that?...or some form of internally promoted pleasure? or memory of rewards?...each had to make a response-decision to come from where it was on the property to a particular spot and line up perfectly, calmly and attentively.

I think the depersonalisation of humans through reward concepts has a not-unlimited application. I think that achieving a particular response from a particular prompt is one which hovers over many others which ae less predictable.

In the example given my thoughts are these. If indifferent to the reward there’s an absence of the intellectual. The glucose gives a “hit”, may even promote thinking… as the brain requires sucrose glucose or fructose…to function well. The glucose fundamentally however is a single pleasure reward.

For a human, very differently from any animal unless chimps have been trained in exchanging coloured paper for bananas or other “feat success”, the money offers a human an intellectual extension to ‘pleasure’ and that is ‘how can I enjoy this money’. That will not come from a glucose hit.

The old Horse-breaker taught me this…Horses do not love humans. That is a human delusion. They like you because you feed them or they think you will. They do not like their ears fondled or being smacked on the neck. They tolerate it. They only do one’s bidding as/if/when they lose sight of the fact they are bigger and stronger than we are. They do not ‘enjoy’ jumping' as is often promenaded …in nature horses will only jump obstacles if no immediate alternative (existing or in their perception)is available. Jumping is always a risk and they know it.

We teach them that with hobbles, blindfold, whip-training (which has nothing to do with flogging or infliction of such ‘horsie type’ fantasies but is critical to best comportment), neck roping and the use of soft cotton ropes in many aspects and never using halters. The horse will learn best what it learns for itself, so the most effective trainer will change a horse’s behaviour by safely and expertly presenting it with a situation in which the solution the horse finds to its predicament is the one the trainer wants, there will be no alternatives. If there are alternatives and failures eventuating in the ‘self training’ the horse will always be unpredictable. There MUST also truly be a solution the horse can find from its nature and experiences and which do not revolve around strength.  The horse will think about its predicament as it goes along trying its 'natural' reactions and escapes.

The horse has five alternatives, fight, flight, defeat, comply or sour up/become utterly frustrated and ultimately throw itself on the ground, which is why expertise has to be employed as that can break its neck

In the human example given, the person has alternatives which are graded by more than just a sensibility...unless one has capitulated to pleasure as with sensual or nodal addictions...and desires the short term pleasure of glucose. In the case of indifference in money Vs glucose those alternatives include imagination.

Along the lines of an old saucy Charlie Brown cartoon in which the last frame shows Lucy saying to Charlie “I’ve got one of these and with one of these I can get all of those I want” ..the human intellect if functioning without addiction can see that with a cash reward it can negotiate on getting even more glucose or finding perhaps several other pleasurable or pain relieving present or future alternatives.

That's my thinking on the question.  [email protected]