Cooperative responding in rats maintained by fixed‐ and variable‐ratio schedules

The present study investigated the effects of fixed‐ratio (FR) and variable‐ratio (VR) reinforcement schedules on patterns of cooperative responding in pairs of rats. Experiment 1 arranged FR 1, FR 10, and VR 10 schedules to establish cooperative responding (water delivery depended on the joint responding of two rats). Cooperative response rates and proportions were higher under intermittent schedules than under continuous reinforcement. The FR 10 schedule generated a break‐and‐run pattern, whereas the VR 10 schedule generated a relatively high and constant rate pattern. Experiment 2 evaluated the effects of parametric manipulations of FR and VR schedules on cooperative responding. Rates and proportions of cooperative responding generally increased between ratio sizes of 1 and 5 but showed no consistent trend as the ratio increased from 5 to 10. Experiment 3 contrasted cooperative responding between an FR6 schedule and a yoked control schedule. Coordinated behavior occurred at a higher rate under the former schedule. The present study showed that external consequences and the schedules under which the delivery of these consequences are based, select patterns of coordinated behavior.     

A comparison of token and tandem schedules of reinforcement on response patterns for adolescents with autism

Token schedules of reinforcement are ubiquitous in clinical settings, yet little research has thoroughly evaluated the effects of token schedules on responding in clinical settings. Basic research has shown token schedules of reinforcement produce lower response rates and larger pre‐ratio pauses compared to tandem schedules. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether the same effects are produced with adolescents with autism or related disorders. We examined response patterns under otherwise identical FR token and FR tandem schedules. Tokens suppressed responding for one participant only under high schedule values and for a second participant under common clinical schedule values; no difference in responding occurred between token and tandem schedules for two participants. These results support the systematic evaluation of token schedules of reinforcement in clinical settings. Additional applied research is needed on token schedules to further our understanding of the underlying mechanisms that contribute to the overall effectiveness of token economies.     

Effects of reinforcement context on choice

Two experiments investigated the effects of successive reinforcement contexts on choice. In the first, concurrent variable-interval schedules of primary reinforcement operated during the initial links of concurrent chains. The rate of this reinforcement arranged by the concurrent schedules was decreased across conditions: When it was higher than the terminal-link rate, preference for the higher frequency initial-link schedule increased relative to baseline. (During baseline, a standard concurrent-schedule procedure was in effect). When the initial-link reinforcement rate was lower than the terminal-link rate, preference converged toward indifference. In the second experiment, a chain schedule was available on a third key while a concurrent schedule was in effect on the side keys. When the terminal link of the chain schedule was produced, the side keys became inoperative. Availability of the chain schedule did not affect choice between the concurrent schedules. These results show that only when successive reinforcement contexts are produced by choice responding do those successive contexts affect choice in concurrent schedules.     

Exclusive preference develops less readily on concurrent ratio schedules with wheel-running than with sucrose reinforcement

Previous research suggested that allocation of responses on concurrent schedules of wheel‐running reinforcement was less sensitive to schedule differences than typically observed with more conventional reinforcers. To assess this possibility, 16 female Long Evans rats were exposed to concurrent FR FR schedules of reinforcement and the schedule value on one alternative was systematically increased. In one condition, the reinforcer on both alternatives was .1 ml of 7.5% sucrose solution; in the other, it was a 30‐s opportunity to run in a wheel. Results showed that the average ratio at which greater than 90% of responses were allocated to the unchanged alternative was higher with wheel‐running reinforcement. As the ratio requirement was initially increased, responding strongly shifted toward the unchanged alternative with sucrose, but not with wheel running. Instead, responding initially increased on both alternatives, then subsequently shifted toward the unchanged alternative. Furthermore, changeover responses as a percentage of total responses decreased with sucrose, but not wheel‐running reinforcement. Finally, for some animals, responding on the increasing ratio alternative decreased as the ratio requirement increased, but then stopped and did not decline with further increments. The implications of these results for theories of choice are discussed.     

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN SINGLE VERSUS DAILY PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES AND REINFORCER EFFICACY UNDER PROGRESSIVE‐RATIO SCHEDULES

Research has suggested that a daily multiple‐stimulus‐without‐replacement (MSWO) preference assessment may be more sensitive to changes in preference than other assessment formats, thereby resulting in greater correspondence with reinforcer efficacy over time ( DeLeon et al., 2001 ). However, most prior studies have measured reinforcer efficacy using rate of responding under single‐operant arrangements and dense schedules or under concurrent‐operants arrangements. An alternative measure of reinforcer efficacy involves the evaluation of responding under progressive‐ratio (PR) schedules. In the present study, 7 participants were given a single paired‐stimulus (PS) preference assessment followed by daily MSWO preference assessments. After each daily MSWO, participants responded for each stimulus on a PR schedule. The correspondence between break points and preferences, as assessed by the 2 assessment formats, was examined. Results demonstrated that both preference assessments did equally well at predicting reinforcer efficacy, although the PS more consistently identified the most effective reinforcer.     

Unit price and choice in a token-reinforcement context

Pigeons were exposed to multiple and concurrent second-order schedules of token reinforcement, with stimulus lights serving as token reinforcers. Tokens were produced and exchanged for food according to various fixed-ratio schedules, yielding equal and unequal unit prices (responses per unit food delivery). On one schedule (termed the standard schedule), the unit price was held constant across conditions. On a second schedule (the alternative schedule), the unit price was either the same or different from the standard. Under conditions with unequal unit prices, near-exclusive preference for the lower unit price was obtained. Under conditions with equal unit prices, the direction and degree of preference depended on ratio size (number of responses per exchange period). When this ratio differed, strong preferences for the smaller ratio were observed. When this ratio was equal, preferences were nearer indifference. Response rates on the multiple schedule were generally consistent with the preference data in showing sensitivity to ratio size. Results are discussed in terms of a unit-price model that includes handling and reinforcer immediacy as additional costs. On the whole, results show that preferences were determined primarily by delay to the exchange period.     

Preferences for token exchange‐production schedules: Effects of task difficulty and token‐production schedules

Previous research suggests that accumulated exchange‐production schedules promote increased work completion and are more preferred than distributed exchange‐production schedules. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the response effort or token‐production schedules associated with token delivery influenced preferences for exchange‐production schedules. Tokens exchanged under accumulated schedules were more preferred, relative to distributed schedules, when tokens were earned for completing easy tasks. When participants earned tokens for completing difficult tasks, two of three participants preferred accumulated exchange‐production schedules (Experiment 1). Under dense token‐production schedules, accumulated exchange‐production schedules were preferred, but participant's preferences switched to distributed schedules under increasing token‐production (i.e., leaner) schedules (Experiment 2).     

On the relation between preference and resistance to change

Nevin (1979) noted that preference in concurrent chains and resistance to change in multiple schedules were correlated, in that both measures were affected similarly by variations in parameters of reinforcement such as rate, immediacy, and magnitude. To investigate the relationship between preference and resistance to change directly, we used a within-session procedure that arranged concurrent chains in one half of the session and a multiple schedule in the other half. The same variable-interval schedules served as terminal links in concurrent chains and as the components of the multiple schedule, and were signaled by the same stimuli. After performances had stabilized, responding in the multiple schedule was disrupted by delivering response-independent reinforcement during the blackout periods between components. Both preference in concurrent chains and relative resistance to change of multiple-schedule responding were well described as power functions of relative reinforcement rate, as predicted by current quantitative models (Grace, 1994; Nevin, 1992b). In addition, unsystematic variation in preference and resistance to change was positively correlated, which suggests that preference and resistance to change are independent measures of a single construct. That construct could be described as the learning that occurs regarding the prevailing conditions of reinforcement in a distinctive stimulus situation.     

Stock optimizing in choice when a token deposit is the operant.

Each of 2 monkeys typically earned their daily food ration by depositing tokens in one of two slots. Tokens deposited in one slot dropped into a bin where they were kept (token kept). Deposits to a second slot dropped into a bin where they could be obtained again (token returned). In Experiment 1, a fixed-ratio (FR) 5 schedule that provided two food pellets was associated with each slot. Both monkeys preferred the token-returned slot. In Experiment 2, both subjects chose between unequal FR schedules with the token-returned slot always associated with the leaner schedule. When the FRs were 2 versus 3 and 2 versus 6, preferences were maintained for the token-returned slot; however, when the ratios were 2 versus 12, preference shifted to the token-kept slot. In Experiment 3, both monkeys chose between equal-valued concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules. Both monkeys preferred the slot that returned tokens. In Experiment 4, both monkeys chose between FRs that typically differed in size by a factor of 10. Both monkeys preferred the FR schedule that provided more food per trial. These data show that monkeys will choose so as to increase the number of reinforcers earned (stock optimizing) even when this preference reduces the rate of reinforcement (all reinforcers divided by session time).     

Drug discrimination under concurrent variable-ratio variable-ratio schedules

Pigeons were trained to discriminate 5 mg/kg pentobarbital from saline under concurrent variable-ratio (VR) VR schedules, in which responses on the pentobarbital-biased lever were reinforced under the VR schedule with the smaller response requirements when pentobarbital was given before the session, and responses on the saline-biased key were reinforced under the VR schedule with the larger response requirements. When saline was administered before the session, the reinforcement contingencies associated with the two response keys were reversed. When responding stabilized under concurrent VR 20 VR 30, concurrent VR 10 VR 40, or concurrent VR 5 VR 50 schedules, pigeons responded almost exclusively on the key on which fewer responses were required to produce the reinforcer. When other doses of pentobarbital and other drugs were substituted for the training dose, low doses of all drugs produced responding on the saline-biased key. Higher doses of pentobarbital and chlordiazepoxide produced responding only on the pentobarbital-biased key, whereas higher doses of ethanol and phencyclidine produced responding only on this key less often. d-Amphetamine produced responding primarily on the saline-biased key. When drugs generalized to pentobarbital, the shape of the generalization curve under concurrent VR VR schedules was more often graded than quantal in shape. Thus, drug discrimination can be established under concurrent VR VR schedules, but the shapes of drug-discrimination dose-response curves under concurrent VR VR schedules more closely resemble those seen under interval schedules than those seen under fixed-ratio schedules. Graded dose-response curves under concurrent VR VR schedules may relate to probability matching and difficulty in discriminating differences in reinforcement frequency.     

Children's preference for mixed‐ versus fixed‐ratio schedules of reinforcement: A translational study of risky choice

Laboratory research has shown that when subjects are given a choice between fixed‐ratio and bi‐valued mixed‐ratio schedules of reinforcement, preference typically emerges for the mixed‐ratio schedule even with a larger ratio requirement. The current study sought to replicate and extend these findings to children's math problem completion. Using an ABCBC reversal design, four fourth‐grade students were given the choice of completing addition problems reinforced on either a fixed‐ratio 5 schedule or one of three mixed‐ratio schedules; an equivalent mixed‐ratio (1, 9) schedule, a mixed‐ratio (1, 11) schedule with a 20% larger ratio requirement, and an equally lean mixed‐ratio (5, 7) schedule without the small fixed‐ratio 1 component. This was followed by a reversal back to the preceding phase in which preference for the mixed‐ratio schedule had been observed, and a final reversal back to the mixed‐ratio (5, 7) phase. Findings were consistent with previous research in that all children preferred the mixed‐ratio (1, 9) schedule over the equivalent fixed‐ratio 5 schedule. Preference persisted for the leaner mixed‐ratio (1, 11) schedule for three of the four children. Indifference or preference for the fixed‐ratio 5 alternative was observed in phases containing the mixed‐ratio (5, 7) schedule. These results extend previous research on risky choice to children's math problem completion and highlight the importance of a small ratio component in the emergence of preference for bi‐valued mixed‐ratio schedules. Implications of these results for arranging reinforcement to increase children's academic responding are discussed.     

EMERGENCE OF REINFORCER PREFERENCE AS A FUNCTION OF SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS AND STIMULUS SIMILARITY

Tustin (1994) recently observed that an individual's preference for one of two concurrently available reinforcers under low schedule requirements (concurrent fixed-ratio [FR] 1) switched to the other reinforcer when the schedule requirements were high (concurrent FR 10). We extended this line of research by examining preference for similar and dissimilar reinforcers (i.e., those affecting the same sensory modality and those affecting different sensory modalities). Two individuals with developmental disabilities were exposed to an arrangement in which pressing two different panels produced two different reinforcers according to progressively increasing, concurrent-ratio schedules. When two dissimilar stimuli were concurrently available (food and a leisure item), no clear preference for one item over the other was observed, regardless of the FR schedules in effect (FR 1, 2, 5, 10, and 20). By contrast, when two similar stimuli were concurrently available (two food items), a clear preference for one item emerged as the schedule requirements were increased from FR 1 to FR 5 or FR 10. These results are discussed in terms of implications for conducting preference assessments and for selecting reinforcers to be used under training conditions in which response requirements are relatively high or effortful.     

Pentobarbital and d-amphetamine effects on concurrent performances.

The effects of pentobarbital and d-amphetamine were studied in pigeons responding under several concurrent fixed-ratio variable-interval and concurrent fixed-ratio fixed-interval schedules of food presentation. Drug effects were compared with different fixed ratios, fixed and variable intervals, changeover delays, and with the schedules operating singly. Doses of d-amphetamine that increased or did not affect responding under the interval schedules decreased responding under the fixed-ratio schedule, whereas doses of pentobarbital that increased responding under the fixed-ratio schedule decreased or eliminated responding under the interval schedules. These effects depended both on the schedule of food delivery and the parameters of schedules arranged concurrently. Pentobarbital increased responding under the fixed-ratio schedule with 4-minute and 10-minute interval schedules arranged concurrently, but not with 1.5-minute schedules. d-Amphetamine decreased concurrent ratio and interval responding with the 1.5-minute interval schedules, but either increased or did not affect responding with the longer intervals. Changes in the parameter of one schedule altered responding controlled by that schedule and also other concurrent performances. As a consequence, the effects of drugs on each behavior were altered.     

The effect of conditioned reinforcement rate on choice: a review

We review the nature of conditioned reinforcement, including evidence that conditioned reinforcers maintain choice behavior in concurrent schedules and that they elevate responding in the terminal links of concurrent‐chains schedules. A question has resurfaced recently: Do theories of choice in concurrent‐chains schedules need to include a term reflecting greater preference for higher rates of conditioned reinforcement? The review of several studies addressing this point suggests that such a term is inappropriate. Elevated rates of conditioned reinforcement (and responding) in the terminal links of concurrent‐chains schedules do not lead to greater preference in the initial link leading to the higher rate of conditioned reinforcement. If anything, the opposite preference is likely to occur. This result is not surprising, since the additional putative conditioned reinforcers in the terminal link are not correlated with a reduction in time to primary reinforcement nor with an increase in value.     

Matching under nonindependent variable-ratio schedules of drug reinforcement.

Response-contingent deliveries of oral pentobarbital maintained responding of 3 rhesus monkeys during daily 3-hr sessions. Deliveries of pentobarbital were arranged under nonindependent concurrent variable-ratio variable-ratio schedules. Responses to either schedule counted toward completion of both variable-ratio schedule requirements. This schedule is similar in some respects to conventional concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules, in which passage of time counts toward completion of the interval value on both schedules. Restricted nonindependent concurrent variable-ratio variable-ratio schedules were also studied. On that schedule, when a drug delivery was assigned to one spout, it had to be collected before responses on the opposite spout again counted toward completion of the schedule requirements. Relative reinforcer magnitude was varied by changing the drug concentration on one schedule while keeping the drug concentration constant on the other variable-ratio schedule. Under both types of concurrent variable-ratio schedules, the relative rate of responding corresponded to the relative drug intake. Unlike earlier studies of concurrent variable-interval variable-interval intravenous cocaine reinforcement, preference was proportionate to concentration, and exclusive preferences did not develop. The relationship between relative rate of responding and relative drug intake was well described by the generalized matching law.     

Reinforcement uncertainty enhances preference for choice in humans

Under concurrent‐chains schedules of reinforcement, participants often prefer situations that allow selection among alternatives (free choice) to situations that do not (forced choice). The present experiment examined the effects of reinforcement probability on choice preferences. Preferences for free versus forced choice were measured under a condition in which participants' choices were always reinforced (reinforcement probability of 1.0) and a condition in which outcomes were uncertain (reinforcement probability of 0.5). Forty‐four college students participated and preferences were examined under a concurrent‐chains schedule of reinforcement. Participants preferred free choice under uncertain reinforcement, but a bias toward free choice was not observed when reinforcement was certain. These results align with previous findings of preference for free choice under conditions of uncertainty, but suggest that preference may be dependent upon probabilistic reinforcement contingencies in the terminal links of the concurrent‐chains arrangement. Thus, reinforcement probability is an important variable to consider when conducting similar studies on the value of choice.     

Preference for reinforcers under progressive- and fixed-ratio schedules: a comparison of single and concurrent arrangements

Progressive-ratio (PR) schedules were used to identify the break point (i.e., the last schedule value completed) for 2 reinforcers under single and concurrent schedules. After the respective break points were established, the same reinforcers were presented under concurrent fixed-ratio (FR) schedules that were yoked to the break points obtained with the PR schedules. Results suggested that the participants responded more for the high-preference item than for the low-preference item, regardless of the presentation arrangement (single or concurrent presentations). This pattern of responding was maintained when the reinforcers were presented under dissimilar FR schedules. The results suggest that responding for differentially preferred stimuli may vary as a function of differences in schedule requirements.     

INFLUENCES ON COCAINE TOLERANCE ASSESSED UNDER A MULTIPLE CONJUNCTIVE SCHEDULE OF REINFORCEMENT

Under multiple schedules of reinforcement, previous research has generally observed tolerance to the rate‐decreasing effects of cocaine that has been dependent on schedule‐parameter size in the context of fixed‐ratio (FR) schedules, but not under the context of fixed‐interval (FI) schedules of reinforcement. The current experiment examined the effects of cocaine on key‐pecking responses of White Carneau pigeons maintained under a three‐component multiple conjunctive FI (10 s, 30 s, & 120 s) FR (5 responses) schedule of food presentation. Dose‐effect curves representing the effects of presession cocaine on responding were assessed in the context of (1) acute administration of cocaine (2) chronic administration of cocaine and (3) daily administration of saline. Chronic administration of cocaine generally resulted in tolerance to the response‐rate decreasing effects of cocaine, and that tolerance was generally independent of relative FI value, as measured by changes in ED50 values. Daily administration of saline decreased ED50 values to those observed when cocaine was administered acutely. The results show that adding a FR requirement to FI schedules is not sufficient to produce schedule‐parameter‐specific tolerance. Tolerance to cocaine was generally independent of FI‐parameter under the present conjunctive schedules, indicating that a ratio requirement, per se, is not sufficient for tolerance to be dependent on FI parameter.     

Variable-ratio schedules as variable-interval schedules with linear feedback loops.

The mathematical theory of linear systems has been used successfully to describe responding on variable-interval (VI) schedules. In the simplest extension of the theory to the variable-ratio (VR) case, VR schedules are treated as if they were VI schedules with linear feedback loops. The assumption entailed by this approach, namely, that VR and VI-plus-linear-feedback schedules are equivalent, was tested by comparing responding on the two types of schedule. Four human subjects' lever pressing produced monetary reinforcers on five VR schedules, and on five VI schedules with linear feedback loops that reproduced the feedback properties of the VR schedules. Pressing was initiated by instructions in 2 subjects, and was shaped by successive approximation in the other 2. The different methods of response initiation did not have differential effects on behavior. For each of the 4 subjects, the VR and the comparable VI-plus-linear-feedback schedules generated similar average response rates and similar response patterns. The subjects' behavior on both types of schedule was similar to that of avian and rodent species on VR schedules. These results indicate that the assumption entailed by the VI-plus-linear-feedback approach to the VR case is valid and, consequently, that the approach is worth pursuing. The results also confute interresponse-time theories of schedule performance, which require interval and ratio contingencies to produce different response rates.     

Matching and maximizing with concurrent ratio-interval schedules.

Animals exposed to standard concurrent variable-ratio variable-interval schedules could maximize overall reinforcement rate if, in responding, they showed a strong response bias toward the variable-ratio schedule. Tests with the standard schedules have failed to find such a bias and have been widely cited as evidence against maximization as an explanation of animal choice behavior. However, those experiments were confounded in that the value of leisure (behavior other than the instrumental response) partially offsets the value of reinforcement. The present experiment provides another such test using a concurrent procedure in which the confounding effects of leisure were mostly eliminated while the critical aspects of the concurrent variable-ratio variable-interval contingency were maintained: Responding in one component advanced only its ratio schedule while responding in the other component advanced both ratio schedules. The bias toward the latter component predicted by maximization theory was found.