Delayed alternation in the pigeon

Pigeons were studied in a delayed-response task requiring alternation of key pecks on two response keys. Blackouts of from 1 to 10 sec intervened between successive choices on the two keys.

The following results were obtained: (1) Birds performed at well above chance accuracy on all the delays tested. Accuracy was generally lowest at 1- and 10-sec delays. (2) Overt postural orientations during the delay interval appeared to mediate accurate key-pecking behavior. (3) The shape of the delay vs. accuracy function was discussed in terms of the possibly confounding influences of (a) stimulus “trace” variables, and (b) aversive effects of the time outs produced by incorrect responding.

     

Effect of reinforcement duration on fixed-interval responding

Five different reinforcement durations occurred randomly within each session on fixed interval 60-sec. Postreinforcement pause was directly related (and “running” rate inversely related) to the duration of reinforcement initiating each fixed interval.     

Collateral behavior of the pigeon during conditioned suppression of key pecking

Ethological recording procedures measured collateral behavior in pigeons whose key-pecking performance was suppressed during a tone that ended with unavoidable electric shock. Independent recordings of gross behavior were made by two observers throughout 60-sec intervals immediately before, during, and after tone presentation. Results indicated significant reductions in the frequency of collateral movements and an increase in the time between successive movements during tone presentations. These effects were observed in all subjects, despite differences in the sequential patterns of behavior. Only partial recovery of the behavior evidenced before tone presentation was found during a 60-sec interval following shock. It was concluded that conditioned suppression procedures caused the bird to “freeze” during tone presentation and in this fashion produced a general inhibitory effect on ongoing overt activity, including key pecking.     

Conditioned reinforcement in second-order schedules

Pigeons responded under a schedule in which food was presented only after a fixed number of fixed-interval components were completed. Two such second-order schedules were studied: under one, 30 consecutive 2-min fixed-interval components were required; under the other, 15 consecutive 4-min fixed-interval components were required. Under both schedules, when a 0.7-sec stimulus light was presented at completion of each fixed interval, positively accelerated responding developed in each component. When no stimulus change occurred at completion of each fixed interval, relatively low and constant rates of responding prevailed in each component; a similar result was obtained when a 0.7-sec stimulus change occurred at completion of each fixed interval except the one which terminated with primary reinforcement. The 0.7-sec stimulus correlated with food delivery was an effective conditioned reinforcer in maintaining patterns of responding in fixed-interval components despite low average frequencies of food reinforcement.     

Delayed escape from light by the albino rat

Two albino rats were trained to terminate an aversive light for 1 min by pressing a bar. After 19 hr of conditioning they were exposed to successive delays of 1, 2, 5, and 10 sec imposed between occurrence of the escape response and light termination. No stimulus change accompanied the delay interval, and any additional responses made at this time reset the delay timer. For both rats the relative frequency of escape responses with very long latencies increased as the delay interval increased. The modal escape latency, however, remained essentially unchanged for all delay values of greater than 1 sec. “Superstitious” responding was observed during the delay interval.     

Average uncertainty as a determinant of observing behavior

After discrimination training on a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule of food reinforcement, pigeons were placed on the uncued or mixed version of the same schedule and allowed to make an optional “observing response” that converted the uncued schedule to the corresponding cued schedule by providing a 20-sec exposure to the appropriate discriminative stimulus. The schedule consisted of one hundred 40-sec components, and the probability that any one of them would be a variable-interval component was systematically varied between 0.00 and 1.00. The results showed that the amount of observing behavior was an inverted “U” function of the probability of the variable-interval component. Few observing responses occurred at probabilities of 0.00 or 1.00, and maximum responding occurred at a value less than 0.50.     

Behavioral definition of minimal reaction time in monkeys

Two monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were trained to press a key after onset of a tone and to release it after a 1-sec fixed foreperiod terminated by a light. The effects of imposing temporal contingencies on key release reaction times were determined by reinforcing only those releases whose latencies from the light fell within a “payoff band”, two time limits 50 msec apart located at some delay following the light. Over several days this delay was first gradually decreased, shortening the interval between light and payoff band, and then gradually increased again. For each delay, the median reaction time and a measure of variability were obtained from the latency distribution. For both animals, median latency could be decreased to 180 msec with the variability remaining small. Moving the payoff band still closer to the light resulted in further decrease in median latency but an abrupt increase in variability. This is in agreement with a model for simple reaction time derived from human research which suggests that this increased variability results from the inclusion of high-variability foreperiod time estimations in the latency distribution. These results indicate that interpretation of monkey response latencies as “minimal reaction times” requires examination of temporal reinforcement contingencies and variability of latencies.     

Reinforcement duration and the peak shift in post-discrimination gradients

Pigeons were trained to key-peck for food, first with single-stimulus training and then with successive discrimination (multiple schedule) training. In the multiple schedule, two different wavelengths were each correlated with equally frequent variable-interval reinforcement but different durations (6 sec vs. 2 sec) of access to grain. For some birds, the different durations of feeding cycle were cued by different intensities of the food hopper light. For some of these “cued” birds, single-stimulus training had been carried out with 6-sec feedings and when multiple-schedule training was introduced, the novel stimulus was correlated with 2-sec feedings. For the others, 2-sec feedings were originally used, and the novel stimulus was then present during the 6-sec reinforcement duration. The cueing procedure enhanced discrimination performance, and was necessary for the consistent production of a peak shift. In addition, the condition in which original training had been carried out with 6-sec feedings, and thus reinforcement duration was reduced in the presence of the novel stimulus, led to the best performance.     

Effects of a DRL contingency added to a fixed-interval reinforcement schedule

Following 30 days of reinforcement for the bar press response of two white rats on 30-sec fixed-interval (FI), a DRL component was added so that a minimal interresponse time (IRT) for the reinforced response, in addition to the FI variable, was necessary for reinforcement. Marked control over response rate by the superimposed DRL requirement was demonstrated by an inverse hyperbolic function as the DRL component was increased from 1 to 24 sec within the constant 30-sec FI interval. Interresponse time and post-reinforcement (post-S^R) “break” distributions taken at one experimental point (DRL = 24 sec) suggested that a more precise temporal discrimination was initiated by an S^R than by a response, since the relative frequency of a sequence of two reinforced responses appeared greater than that of a sequence of a non-reinforced response followed by a reinforced one. This latter finding was confirmed with new animals in a follow-up experiment employing a conventional 24-sec DRL schedule.     

Rapid acquisition of discrete-trial lever-press avoidance: effects of signal-shock interval

Acquisition of discrete-trial lever-press avoidance learning was studied in three experiments. Experiment I compared a new training procedure, which produces rates of lever-press avoidance learning comparable to those obtained in shuttle boxes, with a “conventional”, less efficient training procedure. A factorial design was used to compare continuous versus intermittent shock and a long-variable versus a short-fixed signal-shock interval. Learning was best in the groups trained with the long and variable interval and poorest in those trained with the short and fixed interval. Type of shock had no effect. Experiment II separated the effects of duration from those of variability of the signal-shock interval. Fixed and variable intervals of 10 and 60 sec were tested and duration was the only significant factor. Experiment III addressed the effect of the differential opportunity to avoid provided by long signal-shock intervals by varying this interval from 10 to 60 sec in 10-sec steps. Only the 10-sec group showed slow acquisition relative to the others. Analysis of avoidance response latencies showed that the distributions for all groups were positively skewed and that skewness increased with increasing duration of the signal-shock interval. At intervals longer than 20 sec, the animals made progressively less use of their increased opportunity to respond. The data do not support the opportunity-to-respond interpretation of the effects of duration of signal-shock interval and suggest that some type of inhibitory process may block lever-press avoidance learning at intervals as short as 10 sec. The significance of these findings for species-specific defense reaction and preparedness theories was emphasized.     

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO): a yoked-control comparison

After training to press a lever on a variable-interval 30-sec schedule, one group of rats was shifted to a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior 10-sec schedule, while a second group was shifted to a noncontingent yoked-control schedule that provided the same frequency and distribution of reinforcement. Then, both groups were extensively retrained on the variable-interval schedule, after which the first group was shifted to a series of differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior 30-sec sessions alternating daily with variable-interval 30-sec sessions, while the second group was treated like the first on variable-interval days and yoked with the first as before on differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior days. In both phases, response-decrement was more rapid and more marked in the differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior animals than in the controls. The difference was due, at least in large measure, to sustainment of response in the control animals by adventitious reinforcement. All the differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior animals developed “other” behavior—the same distinctive pattern of waiting at the foodcup—but there was no direct evidence that it contributed in any way to the decrement in lever pressing.     

Escape from SD associated with fixed-ratio reinforcement

Throughout ascending and descending fixed-ratio (FR) sequences, rats were allowed to terminate the FR stimulus control by pressing a time-out (TO) lever. To minimize chance or accidental responses on this second lever, three presses were required to produce the 30-sec S^Δ period. As FR performance became more “strained,” there was an increased predisposition to escape from the time-in stimulus complex. The generality of this finding was extended by obtaining recoverability (independent of the direction of stimulus change) of the FR-TO function in the descending series. Typically, escapes were produced only during the post-reinforcement pause; however, under a mixed FR FR schedule, their occurrence shifted to a point within the inter-reinforcement interval corresponding to the unreinforced completion of the lower ratio component. It appears that the point where the rat can discriminate the size of the ratio requirement will be the place where TOs are imposed. This inference was supported by a substantial increase in TO frequency accompanying a shift from CRF to extinction on the FR lever. Finally, the escape lever was placed on a progressively increasing FR schedule and later extinguished to demonstrate that the TO condition was in fact reinforcing.     

Multiple fixed-interval schedules: transient contrast and temporal inhibition

Pigeons were exposed to four cycles per session of a multiple schedule in which each cycle involved twelve 60-sec fixed intervals followed by four 180-sec intervals [(12 FI 60-sec)(4 FI 180-sec) schedule]. Post-reinforcement pauses were shorter during the first few short intervals of each cycle than during later short intervals, and increased over the four long intervals of each cycle (positive and negative transient contrast). A (12 FI 15-sec)(4 FI 45-sec) schedule showed similar results. These two schedules differed in some other respects indicating effects of absolute FI duration on stimulus control. Differences in contrast properties between both these procedures and multiple variable-interval schedules were related to the pause-producing property of reinforcement on FI (temporal inhibition). Behavior under two other multiple fixed-interval schedules—(2 FI 360-sec)(1 FI 720-sec) and (3 FI 360-sec)(1 FI 720-sec)—differed in certain respects from both the (12 FI x-sec)(4 FI 3x-sec) schedules. These differences may be related to differences in the number of successive fixed intervals within a component (run length).     

A test of the reinforcing properties of stimuli correlated with nonreinforcement

The information hypothesis of conditioned reinforcement predicts that a stimulus that “reduces uncertainty” about the outcome of a trial will acquire reinforcing properties, even when the stimulus reliably predicts nonreinforcement. Four pigeons' key pecks produced one of two 5-sec stimuli with 0.50 probability according to a discriminated variable-interval schedule. One stimulus was followed by reinforcement; a second stimulus was followed by blackout. To the same extent, therefore, both stimuli reduced uncertainty about the possibility that food would arrive at the termination of the schedule interval. When a second key in the chamber was lighted, each peck on it could produce the stimulus preceding reinforcement, the stimulus preceding nonreinforcement, a novel stimulus, or no stimulus, across separate conditions. The stimulus preceding food maintained responding at substantial levels on the second, stimulus-producing, key. Such responding was not maintained by other stimuli. These data, replicated when the stimuli were reversed on the variable-interval schedule, do not support the prediction that uncertainty-reducing stimuli are necessarily conditioned reinforcers.     

Activation of Locations in Working Memory in Cats

Cats saw an object appear and disappear at two successive locations; the movement of the object from one location to the other was not perceived but was indicated by indirect cues and the two disappearances were separated by a 0-sec or a 20-sec interval. Performance was poorer with the 0-sec than with the 20-sec interval. With the 0-sec interval, the percentages of search attempts made at the object's initial and final hiding locations did not differ whereas with the 20-sec interval, more search attempts were made at the final than at the initial location. These results provide additional support to Goulet, Dore and Rousseau's (1994) interpretation of cats' search behaviour in terms of activation of spatial locations in working memory.     

Recognition by the pigeon of stimuli varying in two dimensions

Pigeons served in four experiments, each of which involved about 44,000 discrete 1.2-sec trials under steady-state conditions. The first experiment scaled a short segment of the visual wavelength continuum; this dimension was then combined in a conditional discrimination with each of three others; time after reinforcement, tone frequency, and line tilt. In the two-stimulus experiments, the birds' responses were reinforced in the presence of only one stimulus combination: “582 nm” together with “2 min after reinforcement”, “3990 Hz”, or “vertical line”. Many other stimulus combinations also appeared equally often and went without reinforcement. The wavelength stimuli conformed to an equal-interval scale, and per cent response was generally linear with wavelength, when scaled on cumulative normal coordinates. The components of the compound stimulus were found to interact in a multiplicative fashion; when one component differed greatly from its reinforcement value, changes in the other component had relatively little effect. For the “time”-“wavelength” compound, this interaction appeared to be modified by the effects of set or attention. Certain response latency data are reported, and other combination rules are discussed.     

Responding under discrete-trial fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement

A fixed-interval schedule of reinforcement was modified by dividing each interval into 4-sec trial periods. No more than one response could occur during each trial because the operandum was inactivated for the remainder of any trial in which a response occurred. For example, under a 28-sec schedule, no more than seven responses could be emitted between reinforcements. Probabilities of responding by pigeons under six values of this discrete-trial fixed-interval schedule were best described by a two-state model: responding was either absent or infrequent immediately after reinforcement; then, at some variable time after reinforcement, there was an abrupt transition to a high and constant probability of responding on each trial. Performances under the discrete-trial procedure were less affected by uncontrolled sources of variance than performances under equivalent free-operant fixed-interval schedules.     

Effects of signaled and unsignaled shock on schedule-controlled lever pressing and schedule-induced licking: Shock intensity and body weight

Schedule-controlled lever pressing and schedule-induced licking were studied in rats under a multiple fixed-interval fixed-interval schedule of food reinforcement. Following acquisition of stable rates of pressing and licking, a multiple variable-time variable-time schedule of electric-shock delivery was superimposed upon the baseline schedule. In only one component of the multiple schedule, a 5-sec stimulus preceded each shock (signaled shock). In the other component shock was unsignaled. Several shock intensities (Experiment 1) and body weights (Experiment 2) were studied. Lever pressing and licking were affected similarly by experimental manipulations, although with parametric differences. Depending upon shock intensity and body weight, rates of lever pressing and licking were hardly suppressed, suppressed primarily in the unsignaled shock component (differential suppression), or markedly suppressed in both components. Differential suppression during components with signaled and unsignaled shock and conditioned suppression of responding during the preshock stimulus appeared not to be functionally related. Differential suppression depended more on the discriminability of shock-free time, and on shock intensity, body weight, and the type of response than on the “preparatory” behavior preceding shock.     

Varying temporal placement of an added stimulus in a fixed-interval schedule

One paradigm for exploring stimulus effects on behavior is defined for steady state experiments. The paradigm is illustrated by a 60-sec fixed-interval reinforcement schedule wherein a 6-sec light is introduced into each interval. The temporal relation of this stimulus to the reinforcer is the independent variable that is systematically explored. Two experiments studied this temporal relation under two parametric conditions: (a) when the 6-sec light occurs once in each 60-sec interval, (b) when the 6-sec light occurs twice in each interval, the second time always during the 6 sec immediately preceding the reinforcer. Functions are presented showing the effect of the 6-sec light on responding at all points in the fixed-interval.     

Effects of manipulating incentive visibility during the baiting phase of delayed-response problems

Rhesus monkeys were given 960 delayed response (DR) problems. The incentive was either visible or not visible during the baiting phase of each problem, and a 0-, 5-, 10-, or 20-sec intraproblem delay was imposed. Performance was substantially better when the incentive could be seen during the baiting phase. When the incentive was visible during baiting, at all stages of training performance decreased as a function of increased chance levels after short delays, and the rate of improvement with training was comparable after each of the four intraproblem delays. When the incentive was not visible during the baiting phase, an inverse relationship between performance and delay duration became evident only during the later stages of training. On the initial problems performance was at chance levels, and although improvement with training was evident, the rate of this improvement was inversely related to delay duration. The findings were interpreted in terms of Fletcher's orienting response analysis of DR performance.