Sample-stimulus discriminability and sensitivity to reinforcement in delayed matching to sample

Five pigeons were trained in a delayed matching-to-sample task with red and green stimuli. The retention interval between sample-stimulus presentation and the availability of the choice stimuli was varied between 0.01 s and 12 s within each session. The probability of food produced by correct-red and correct-green responses was varied across conditions. Sample-stimulus discriminability and response bias were measured at four different retention intervals. The results of these analyses showed an interaction between the discriminability of the sample stimuli and the control exerted by differential reinforcement. At longer retention intervals, sample discriminability decreased and sensitivity of choice behavior to changes in the red/green reinforcer ratio increased. An analogous relation has been reported in conditional discriminations in which the physical disparity of stimuli has been varied. This correspondence suggests that increasing the delay between presentation of one of two stimuli and an opportunity to respond discriminatively to it may be functionally similar to increasing the physical similarity of the two stimuli.     

Delayed signal detection, differential reinforcement, and short-term memory in the pigeon.

In two discrete-trial delayed-detection experiments, six pigeons were trained on dependent concurrent variable-interval schedules. Pecking a red side key was reinforced when the brighter of two white lights (S1) had been presented on the center key, and pecking a green side key was reinforced when the duller of two white lights (S2) had been presented on the center key. Incorrect responses were red side-key pecks following S2 presentations and green side-key pecks following S1 presentations; these resulted in three-second blackouts. In Experiment 1, the time between presentation of S1 or S2 on the center key and the onset of the red and green side keys was varied nonsystematically from 0.06 seconds to 19.69 seconds across experimental conditions. Stimulus discriminability decreased as the stimulus-choice delay increased. A rectangular-hyperbolic function better described this decrease in discriminability over time than did a negative-exponential function. In Experiment 2, at each of three stimulus-choice delays (0.06, 3.85, and 10.36 seconds), relative reinforcer frequency for correct responses to the red and green side keys was varied by changing the values of the dependent concurrent variable-interval schedules. The sensitivity of choice to relative reinforcer frequency was independent of the decrease in stimulus discriminability with increasing stimulus-choice delay.     

Within-session delay-of-reinforcement gradients

Within-session delay-of-reinforcement gradients were generated with pigeons by progressively increasing delays to reinforcement within each session. In Experiment 1, the effects of imposing progressive delays on variable-interval and fixed-interval schedules were investigated while controlling for simultaneous decreases in reinforcer rate across the session via a within-subject yoked-control procedure. Rate of key pecking decreased as a negatively decelerated function of delay of reinforcement within a session. These rate decreases were greater than those during a yoked-interval session in which the rate of immediate reinforcement decreased at the same rate as it did under the progressive-delay procedure. In Experiment 2, delay-of-reinforcement gradients were shallower when the progressive delay intervals were signaled by a blackout than when they were unsignaled. The delay gradients obtained in each experiment were similar to those generated under conditions in which different delays of reinforcement are imposed across blocks of sessions. The present procedure offers a technique for rapidly generating delay-of-reinforcement gradients that might serve as baselines for assessing the effects of other behavioral and pharmacological variables.     

Delayed reinforcement and delayed choice in symbolic matching to sample: Effects on stimulus discriminability

Six pigeons were trained to peck a red side key when the brighter of two white lights (S₁) had been presented on the center key, and to peck a green side key when the dimmer of two white lights (S₂) had been presented on the center key. Equal frequencies of reinforcers were provided for the two types of correct choice. Incorrect choices, red side-key pecks following S₂ presentations and green side-key pecks following S₁ presentations, resulted in blackout. With 0-s delay between choice and reinforcement, the delay between sample presentation and choice was varied from 0 to 20 s. Then, with 0-s delay between sample presentation and choice, the delay between choice and reinforcement was varied from 0 to 20 s. Both types of delay resulted in decreased discriminability (defined in terms of a signal-detection analysis) of the center-key stimuli, but delayed choice had more effect on discriminability than did delayed reinforcement. These data are consistent with the view that the two kinds of delay operate differently. The effect of a sample-choice delay may result from a degradation of the conditional discriminative stimuli during the delay; the effect of a choice-reinforcer delay may result from a decrement in control by differential reinforcement.     

On the form of the forgetting function: the effects of arithmetic and logarithmic distributions of delays

Forgetting functions with 18 delay intervals were generated for delayed matching-to-sample performance in pigeons. Delay interval variation was achieved by arranging five different sets of five delays across daily sessions. In different conditions, the delays were distributed in arithmetic or logarithmic series. There was no convincing evidence for different effects on discriminability of the distributions of different delays. The mean data were better fitted by some mathematical functions than by others, but the best-fitting functions depended on the distribution of delays. In further conditions with a fixed set of five delays, discriminability was higher with a logarithmic distribution of delays than with an arithmetic distribution. This result is consistent with the treatment of the forgetting function in terms of generalization decrement.     

The interaction between stimulus and reinforcer control on remembering.

In a symbolic matching-to-sample task, 6 pigeons obtained food by pecking a red side key when the brighter of two white lights had been presented on the center key and by pecking a green side key when the dimmer of two white lights had been presented on the center key. Across Part 1 and Parts 6 to 10, the delay between sample-stimulus presentation and the availability of the choice keys was varied between 0 s and 25 s. Across Parts 1 to 5, the delay between the emission of a correct choice and the delivery of a reinforcer was varied between 0 s and 30 s. Although increasing both types of delay decreased stimulus discriminability, lengthening the stimulus-choice delay produced a greater decrement in choice accuracy than did lengthening the choice-reinforcer delay. Additionally, the relative reinforcer rate for correct choice was varied across both types of delay. The sensitivity of behavior to the distribution of reinforcers decreased as discriminability decreased under both procedures. These data are consistent with the view, based on the generalized matching law, that sample stimuli and reinforcers interact in their control over remembering.     

Choice with delayed and probabilistic reinforcers: effects of variability, time between trials, and conditioned reinforcers.

In a discrete-trials procedure with pigeons, a response on a green key led to a 4-s delay (during which green houselights were lit) and then a reinforcer might or might not be delivered. A response on a red key led to a delay of adjustable duration (during which red houselights were lit) and then a certain reinforcer. The delay was adjusted so as to estimate an indifference point--a duration for which the two alternatives were equally preferred. Once the green key was chosen, a subject had to continue to respond on the green key until a reinforcer was delivered. Each response on the green key, plus the 4-s delay that followed every response, was called one "link" of the green-key schedule. Subjects showed much greater preference for the green key when the number of links before reinforcement was variable (averaging four) than when it was fixed (always exactly four). These findings are consistent with the view that probabilistic reinforcers are analogous to reinforcers delivered after variable delays. When successive links were separated by 4-s or 8-s "interlink intervals" with white houselights, preference for the probabilistic alternative decreased somewhat for 2 subjects but was unaffected for the other 2 subjects. When the interlink intervals had the same green houselights that were present during the 4-s delays, preference for the green key decreased substantially for all subjects. These results provided mixed support for the view that preference for a probabilistic reinforcer is inversely related to the duration of conditioned reinforcers that precede the delivery of food.     

Delay or rate of food delivery as determiners of response rate

Pigeons were confronted with two keys: a green food key and a white changeover key. Food became available for a peck to the green key after variable intervals of time (mean = 113 seconds). A single peck on the changeover key changed the color of the food key to red for a fixed period of time during which the timing of the variable-interval schedule in green was suspended and the switching option eliminated and after which the conditions associated with green were reinstated. In Experiment 1 a single food presentation was obtainable during each red-key period after a minimum delay timed from the switch. This delay and the duration of the red-key period were held constant during a condition but varied between conditions (delay = 2.5, 7.5, 15, or 30 seconds; red-period duration = 30, 60, 120, 240, or 480 seconds). In Experiment 2 additional food presentations were scheduled during a 240-second red-key period with the delay to the first food delivery held constant at 30 seconds, and the delays to later food deliveries varied over conditions. Considering the data from both experiments, the rate of switching to red was a decreasing function of the delay to the first food, the delay to the second food, and perhaps the delay to the third food after a switch. There was no clear evidence that the rate of food in the red-key period made an independent contribution. The ordering of response rates among conditions was consistent with the view that each food presentation after a response adds an incremental effect to the rate of the response and that each food presentation's contribution is a decreasing function of its delay timed from the response.     

Choice with delayed and probabilistic reinforcers: effects of prereinforcer and postreinforcer stimuli.

In Experiment 1, pigeons' pecks on a green key led to a 5-s delay with green houselights, and then food was delivered on 20% (or, in other conditions, 50%) of the trials. Pecks on a red key led to an adjusting delay with red houselights, and then food was delivered on every trial. The adjusting delay was used to estimate indifference points: delays at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. Varying the presence or absence of green houselights during the delays that preceded possible food deliveries had large effects on choice. In contrast, varying the presence of the green or red houselights in the intertrial intervals had no effects on choice. In Experiment 2, pecks on the green key led to delays of either 5 s or 30 s with green houselights, and then food was delivered on 20% of the trials. Varying the duration of the green houselights on nonreinforced trials had no effect on choice. The results suggest that the green houselights served as a conditioned reinforcer at some times but not at others, depending on whether or not there was a possibility that a primary reinforcer might be delivered. Given this interpretation of what constitutes a conditioned reinforcer, most of the results were consistent with the view that the strength of a conditioned reinforcer is inversely related to its duration.     

Effects of signaled versus unsignaled delay of reinforcement on choice

Pigeons chose between 5-s and 15-s delay-of-reinforcement alternatives. The first key peck to satisfy the choice schedule began a delay timer, and food was delivered at the end of the interval. Key pecks during the delay interval were measured, but had no scheduled effect. In Experiment 1, signal conditions and choice schedules were varied across conditions. During unsignaled conditions, no stimulus change signaled the beginning of a delay interval. During differential and nondifferential signal conditions, offset of the choice stimuli and onset of a delay stimulus signaled the beginning of a delay interval. During differential signal conditions, different stimuli were correlated with the 5-s and 15-s delays, whereas the same stimulus appeared during both delay durations during nondifferential signal conditions. Pigeons showed similar, extreme levels of preference for the 5-s delay alternative during unsignaled and differentially signaled conditions. Preference levels were reliably lower with nondifferential signals. Experiment 2 assessed preference with two pairs of unsignaled delays in which the ratio of delays was held constant but the absolute duration was increased fourfold. No effect of absolute duration was found. The results highlight the importance of delayed primary reinforcement effects and challenge models of choice that focus solely on conditioned reinforcement.     

Theories of probabilistic reinforcement.

In three experiments, pigeons chose between two alternatives that differed in the probability of reinforcement and the delay to reinforcement. A peck at a red key led to a delay of 5 s and then a possible reinforcer. A peck at a green key led to an adjusting delay and then a certain reinforcer. This delay was adjusted over trials so as to estimate an indifference point, or a duration at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. In Experiments 1 and 2, the intertrial interval was varied across conditions, and these variations had no systematic effects on choice. In Experiment 3, the stimuli that followed a choice of the red key differed across conditions. In some conditions, a red houselight was presented for 5 s after each choice of the red key. In other conditions, the red houselight was present on reinforced trials but not on nonreinforced trials. Subjects exhibited greater preference for the red key in the latter case. The results were used to evaluate four different theories of probabilistic reinforcement. The results were most consistent with the view that the value or effectiveness of a probabilistic reinforcer is determined by the total time per reinforcer spent in the presence of stimuli associated with the probabilistic alternative. According to this view, probabilistic reinforcers are analogous to reinforcers that are delivered after variable delays.     

Response patterns and cardiovascular effects during response sequence acquisition by humans.

The effects of temporal delays imposed between successive responses and of vitamin C administration were examined on the acquisition of response sequences and on cardiovascular reactivity during sequence acquisition. Thirteen adult subjects (6 female, 7 male), in good health, gave written consent prior to participating in 12 weekly 45-min sessions. Points, exchanged for money after each session, were presented when subjects completed 15-response sequences on a touch-sensitive three-response keypad. A position counter increased from 0 to 14 as subjects emitted correct responses in the sequence. Four novel 15-response sequences were presented each session. No delays were imposed between successive responses during the acquisition of one sequence; delays were imposed immediately following each response during the acquisition of a second sequence, thereby delaying response feedback; delays were imposed following feedback during acquisition of a third sequence, resulting in the removal of the stimulus correlated with sequence position; and, as a control condition, delays were imposed following feedback, but stimuli correlated with sequence position were reinstated prior to the next response during acquisition of a fourth sequence. Subjects were exposed to one of two delay durations (0.2 and 0.5 or 0.5 and 1.0 s) each session, and delay durations alternated every session. During Weeks 5 to 8, subjects received 3 grams of vitamin C per day, whereas during Weeks 1 to 4 and 9 to 12, subjects received placebo under single-blind conditions. All subjects acquired the sequences, as evidenced by decreasing percentages of incorrect responses across trials. When temporal delays were imposed between successive responses during sequence acquisition, acquisition efficiency was enhanced. Examination of response latencies suggested that the status of preceding responses (i.e., correct or incorrect) rather than the status of the position counter influenced subsequent responding. Cardiovascular effects were inversely related to the length of the temporal delay. Neither cardiovascular reactivity or sequence acquisition were related to vitamin C administration.     

Choice between single and multiple delayed reinforcers.

Pigeons chose between alternatives that differed in the number of reinforcers and in the delay to each reinforcer. A peck on a red key produced the same consequences on every trial within a condition, but between conditions the number of reinforcers varied from one to three and the reinforcer delays varied between 5 s and 30 s. A peck on a green key produced a delay of adjustable duration and then a single reinforcer. The green-key delay was increased or decreased many times per session, depending on a subject's previous choices, which permitted estimation of an indifference point, or a delay at which a subject chose each alternative about equally often. The indifference points decreased systematically with more red-key reinforcers and with shorter red-key delays. The results did not support the suggestion of Moore (1979) that multiple delayed reinforcers have no effect on preference unless they are closely grouped. The results were well described in quantitative detail by a simple model stating that each of a series of reinforcers increases preference, but that a reinforcer's effect is inversely related to its delay. The success of this model, which considers only delay of reinforcement, suggested that the overall rate of reinforcement for each alternative had no effect on choice between those alternatives.     

Unsignalled delay of reinforcement in variable-interval schedules

Three pigeons responded on several tandem variable-interval fixed-time schedules in which the value of the fixed-time component was varied to assess the effects of different unsignalled delays of reinforcement. Actual (obtained) delays between the last key peck in an interval and reinforcement were consistently shorter than the nominal (programmed) delay. When nominal delays were relatively short, response rates were higher during the delay condition than during the corresponding nondelay condition. At longer nominal delay intervals, response rates decreased monotonically with increasing delays. The results were consistent with those obtained from delay-of-reinforcement procedures that impose either a stimulus change (signal) or a no-response requirement during the delay interval.     

Timing, remembering, and discrimination

Four pigeons were first trained in a timing procedure. In one condition, each trial began with the presentation of an X on the center key, followed by a delay (short or long), after which two side keys were lit. If the delay was short, pecks to the red side key were reinforced. If the delay was long, pecks to the green side key were reinforced. In a second condition, the opposite contingencies applied following presentation of a square on the center key. Choice responses were then tested at 10 time intervals ranging from short to long (1 to 4 s and 4 to 7 s in different conditions). The two timing conditions were combined to create a remembering condition in which correct responding depended upon discrimination of both the sample stimulus (X or square) and the delay interval (short or long). Choices varied systematically across delay in timing conditions, but in remembering conditions, accurate choice at the training delays did not initially generalize to intermediate delays. However, with prolonged training in the remembering task, the response pattern began to resemble that of the timing conditions. Generalization gradients were asymmetrical, in accordance with Weber's Law, in that greater generalization occurred with longer delays than with shorter delays.     

Probability and delay of reinforcement as factors in discrete-trial choice.

Pigeons chose between two alternatives that differed in the probability of reinforcement and the delay to reinforcement. A peck on the red key always produced a delay of 5 s and then a possible reinforcer. The probability of reinforcement for responding on this key varied from .05 to 1.0 in different conditions. A response on the green key produced a delay of adjustable duration and then a possible reinforcer, with the probability of reinforcement ranging from .25 to 1.0 in different conditions. The green-key delay was increased or decreased many times per session, depending on a subject's previous choices. The purpose of these adjustments was to estimate an indifference point, or a delay that resulted in a subject's choosing each alternative about equally often. In conditions where the probability of reinforcement was five times higher on the green key, the green-key delay averaged about 12 s at the indifference point. In conditions where the probability of reinforcement was twice as high on the green key, the green-key delay at the indifference point was about 8 s with high probabilities and about 6 s with low probabilities. An analysis based on these results and those from studies on delay of reinforcement suggests that pigeons' choices are relatively insensitive to variations in the probability of reinforcement between .2 and 1.0, but quite sensitive to variations in probability between .2 and 0.     

Characteristics of forgetting functions in delayed matching to sample

Performance of pigeons in delayed matching-to-sample procedures was measured in terms of an index of discriminability derived from the difference between logarithms of ratios of choice responses to comparison stimuli following the different sample stimuli. Forgetting functions that plotted discriminability as a function of delay-interval duration were well described by a simple negative exponential function with two parameters, one describing initial discriminability of sample stimuli at zero delay (log d₀) and the other describing rate of decrement in discriminability with increasing delay-interval duration (b). With the difference between wavelength values of the comparison stimuli held constant, a large difference between wavelengths of the sample stimuli resulted in a higher log d₀ value than that for a small difference between sample stimuli, without changing the rate of decrement in discriminability, b. An increase in the fixed-ratio requirement for sample-key responding produced an increase in log d₀ without affecting b, and interpolation of ambient illumination in the delay interval increased b without influencing log d₀. Both parameters changed when intertrial-interval duration was varied. The result of variation in the point of interpolation of ambient illumination in the delay interval indicated that levels of discriminability at longer delays were independent of discriminability levels at earlier delays, consistent with the properties of the exponential function. Functions relating performance to delay-interval duration were suggested to have two characteristics: discriminability of the sample stimuli in the absence of a delay between the stimuli and the behavior they occasion, and rate of attenuation in discriminability with increasing delay-interval duration.     

Pigeons' memory for number of events: Effects of intertrial interval and delay interval illumination

In Experiment 1, pigeons were trained at a 0-s baseline delay to discriminate sequences of light flashes (illumination of the feeder) that varied in number but not time (2f/4s and 8f/4s). During training, the intertrial interval was illuminated by the houselight for Group Light, but it was dark for Group Dark. Testing conducted with dark delay intervals produced a strong choose-small bias in both groups. All birds then received baseline training with a 5-s dark delay and were subsequently tested at shorter and longer dark delays. A choose-small bias was again observed at delays longer than the training delay, while a choose-large bias occurred at delays shorter than the training delay. Differentiating the ambient chamber illumination during the intertrial interval and the delay interval did not attenuate choose-small or choose-large effects. In Experiment 2, all birds received baseline training with a 5-s illuminated delay and were subsequently tested at shorter and longer illuminated delays. A choose-large bias was observed at delays longer than the training delay, while a choose-small bias occurred at delays shorter than the training delay. In Experiment 3, on intermittent test trials, when the duration of the second flash on small-sample trials was equal to the total flash duration on large-sample trials (i.e., 1600 ms), accuracy fell to approximately chance. These results suggest that pigeons discriminated the sequences of light flashes that varied in number but not in total duration of the sequence by relying on other temporal properties of the sequence rather than by using an event switch to count flashes.     

Local effects of delayed food

Five pigeons were trained on a procedure in which seven concurrent variable-interval schedules arranged seven different food-rate ratios in random sequence in each session. Each of these components lasted for 10 response-produced food deliveries, and components were separated by 10-s blackouts. We varied delays to food (signaled by blackout) between the two response alternatives in an experiment with three phases: In Phase 1, the delay on one alternative was 0 s, and the other was varied between 0 and 8 s; in Phase 2, both delays were equal and were varied from 0 to 4 s; in Phase 3, the two delays summed to 8 s, and each was varied from 1 to 7 s. The results showed that increasing delay affected local choice, measured by a pulse in preference, in the same way as decreasing magnitude, but we found also that increasing the delay at the other alternative increased local preference. This result casts doubt on the traditional view that a reinforcer strengthens a response depending only on the reinforcer's value discounted by any response-reinforcer delay. The results suggest that food guides, rather than strengthens, behavior.