Some determinants of inhibitory stimulus control

Interspersed reinforcement and extinction during discrimination learning generate a U-shaped gradient of inhibition about the stimulus correlated with extinction. The present work showed that extinction is not a necessary determinant of inhibitory stimulus control. In Exp. I, a reduction in the rate of reinforcement, through a shift from a multiple variable-interval 1-min variable-interval 1-min schedule to a multiple variable-interval 1-min variable-interval 5-min schedule, resulted in a post-discrimination line orientation gradient of inhibition about the stimulus correlated with the variable-interval 5-min schedule. In Exp. II, the rates of reinforcement, correlated with a pair of stimuli, were held constant during a shift from a multiple variable-interval 1-min variable-interval 1-min schedule to a multiple variable-interval 1-min differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule. Inhibitory stimulus control about the stimulus correlated with the differential reinforcement of low rate was obtained. In both experiments, a reduction in the rate of responding during one stimulus and behavioral contrast during the other stimulus preceded the observation of inhibitory stimulus control.     

Dimensional stimulus control following brief wavelength training

Pigeons with extensive training pecking a key illuminated by a white line then had brief training with the key illuminated by 555 nanometers. This was immediately followed by a wavelength generalization test in extinction. Dimensional stimulus control about the training wavelength increased with the duration and number of reinforcements given on variable-interval 30-sec and variable-interval 10-sec schedules in Experiment I. In Experiment II, dimensional stimulus control was obtained after only 4 min of wavelength training from birds with prior and independent discrimination training. Experiment III provided groups equated in number of reinforcers with groups in Experiment I and two 8-min duration groups. Analyses, which included results from both Experiments I and III, showed that dimensional stimulus control increased: (a) more rapidly as a function of the duration of variable-interval 10-sec than variable-interval 30-sec reinforcement; (b) at the same rate across variable-interval reinforcement schedules, as a function of the number of reinforcers available during brief wavelength training.     

Discrimination of a response-independent component in a multiple schedule

Pigeons were trained to respond in non-differential reinforcement pre-discrimination training, with a multiple variable-interval 1-min variable-interval 1-min schedule. Each bird then received discrimination training with a multiple variable-interval 1-min variable-time 1-min schedule. Thus, discrimination training was between response-dependent (variable-interval) and response-independent (variable-time) schedules with the rate of reinforcement equated. In Experiment I, only three sessions of non-differential reinforcement preceded discrimination training and for half the birds, a 0° line was correlated with the response-dependent schedule; for the remaining birds the 0° line was correlated with the response-independent schedule. Post-discrimination gradients of excitatory stimulus control were obtained from the former group, while the latter group showed little evidence of post-discrimination stimulus control by the 0° line. Differential responding to the variable-time schedule was not accompanied by behavioral contrast to the variable-interval schedule. In Experiment II, 20 sessions of non-differential reinforcement preceded discrimination training and the 0° line was correlated with variable-time reinforcement for each bird. Differential responding to the 0° line was accompanied by negative induction to the variable-interval schedule and by inhibitory stimulus control about the 0° line during a post-discrimination generalization test.     

Variable-interval schedules of timeout from avoidance

Rats were trained on concurrent schedules in which pressing one lever postponed shock and pressing the other occasionally produced a 2-min timeout during which the shock-postponement schedule was suspended and its correlated stimuli were removed. Throughout, the shock-postponement schedule maintained proficient levels of avoidance. Nevertheless, in Experiment 1 responding on the timeout lever was established rapidly, was maintained at stable levels on variable-interval schedules, was extinguished by withholding timeout, was reestablished when timeout was reintroduced, and was brought under discriminative control with a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule of timeout. These results are in contrast with Verhave's (1962) conclusion that timeout is an ineffective reinforcer when presented to rats on intermittent schedules. In Experiment 2 the consequence of responding on the timeout lever was altered so that the shock-postponement schedule remained in effect even though the stimulus conditions associated with timeout were produced for 2 min. Responding extinguished, indicating that suspension of the shock-postponement schedule, not stimulus change, was the source of reinforcement. By establishing the reinforcing efficacy of timeout with standard variable-interval schedules, these experiments illustrate a procedure for studying negative reinforcement in the same way as positive reinforcement.     

Concurrent schedules of reinforcement: effects of gradual and abrupt increases in changeover delay

Pigeons' pecks were maintained on concurrent variable-interval 1-min variable-interval 3-min schedules of reinforcement, with a changeover delay of 2 sec. When changeover delay was increased successively to 5.0, 7.5, and 12.5 sec (Exp. I) the actual relative rate of reinforcement for the variable-interval 3-min key decreased progressively for two birds, abruptly for two other birds, and the subjects devoted proportionately less of their time and responding to that key. However, the relative performance measures (relative time and relative responding) approximated the actual relative rate of reinforcement, with a maximum discrepancy of 11%, over all changeover delay values investigated. Experiment II attempted to lengthen response-run durations on the variable-interval 3-min key so that they were long enough to meet the changeover delay requirement at each new changeover delay value, by progressively increasing the changeover delay by 0.5-sec increments. With this procedure the actual relative rate of reinforcement approximated more closely the scheduled relative rate as changeover delay increased. As in Exp. I, relative performance measures approximated the actual relative reinforcement rate (maximum discrepancy 17%).     

Frequency of reinforcement as a determinant of extinction-induced aggression during errorless discrimination learning.

Seven pigeons were trained to discriminate without errors between a green keylight and a dark key. The key-pecking response was reinforced in the presence of green, and extinction was in effect in the presence of the dark key. The opportunity to attack a restrained target pigeon was present only during extinction. Both variable-interval 30-sec and fixed-ratio 1 schedules of reinforcement during the positive stimulus induced a higher rate of attack during extinction than a variable-interval 5-min schedule. The highest rate of attack during extinction occurred during the first 20 sec after the positive stimulus terminated. Hence, the withdrawal of the positive condition, rather than the consequences of the pecking response during extinction, appears to be one of the primary factors responsible for attack between pigeons during extinction. Behavioral contrast, defined as a decrease in the rate of responding when the positive stimulus was presented alone, was obtained from the four birds that displayed the lowest overall rates of attack while the three birds with the highest attack rates did not display behavioral contrast. For the birds without contrast, components of the attack response during the positive stimulus presumably competed with and reduced the rate of pecking the key, thereby recluding behavioral contrast.     

Control of responding by stimulus duration

Pigeons were trained on a procedure in which the key was white for 30 sec, alternating with periods of darkness, or timeout. In a nondifferential training procedure, timeout duration was held constant at either 9 or 21 sec for different animals, and pecks on the white key were reinforced on a variable-interval 36-sec schedule. After 30 sessions an extinction generalization test was conducted where the duration of the timeout was varied from 3 to 27 sec. This test showed no differences in responding following timeouts of different durations. In a differential training procedure, timeout durations of either 9 or 21 sec were randomly scheduled for each animal. The variable-internal schedule was in effect following the same timeout duration as in the prior nondifferential procedure. No pecks were reinforced after the other timeout duration. In 40 sessions, differences in response rates following the two durations gradually developed. A maintained generalization procedure was then imposed in which timeout durations were varied from 3 to 27 sec, with the variable-interval schedule in effect following only the same duration as in the previous procedures. The first maintained generalization session showed that the prior differential training had established control of the animals' behavior by the timeout duration. In continued training on the maintained generalization procedure, control by the timeout duration decreased.     

Behavioral contrast without response-rate reduction

Behavioral contrast was obtained in two experiments, which both employed a standard free-operant successive discrimination (a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule), without the occurrence of reductions of response rate in the extinction component. In Experiment I, one group of four pigeons was trained on a multiple schedule in which one stimulus was associated with a variable-interval schedule and the second stimulus with response-independent reinforcement on a free variable-interval schedule. Though by the end of this training three pigeons were responding very little to the second stimulus, when this stimulus was associated with extinction all subjects showed a contrast effect. In Experiment II, eight pigeons were trained extensively to respond to a single stimulus on a variable-interval schedule, before a second stimulus associated with extinction was introduced. This second stimulus was dissimilar to the initial stimulus and five pigeons never responded in its presence. Nevertheless, all pigeons showed a contrast effect and there was no evidence that the effect was smaller in errorless subjects or smaller than in a subsequent discrimination where all subjects made many errors. Both experiments indicated that response reduction in one component of a multiple schedule is not a necessary condition for the occurrence of contrast.     

Peak shift as a function of multiple schedules of reinforcement

Pigeons were trained to respond to two stimuli on the wavelength continuum, 550 nm and 570 nm, each correlated with an independent schedule of reinforcement. The multiple schedule component in effect during 550 nm (S1) was always a variable-interval 1-min. During the 570-nm stimulus (S2) the second component of the schedule was either variable-interval 30-sec, 1-min, 2-min, 5-min, or extinction for different groups of birds. Generalization gradients were obtained after this training, with the following results: (1) response rate to S1 during training was related to the reinforcement frequency associated with S2; the distribution of responding during generalization testing was a function of the schedules of reinforcement used during training and the response rates they produced. Decreases in the relative frequency of reinforcement correlated with S2 resulted in increases in the distribution shift of responses away from S2 during generalization testing.     

Interactions in multiple schedules: negative induction with squirrel monkeys

In Experiment I, lever pressing by squirrel monkeys was maintained under a sequence of variable-interval, multiple variable-interval variable-interval, and multiple variable-interval extinction schedules of food presentation. Negative induction (decreased responding in the unchanged component) occurred when one component of the multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule was changed to extinction. Negative induction was transient over sessions; responding in the unchanged component usually recovered to a rate similar to that under the multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule. Negative induction was not accompanied by consistent changes in the patterns of local responding within the unchanged component, and did not depend on whether component schedules were associated with localized (lever lights) or diffuse visual stimuli (houselights), or on whether the unchanged component was a 60- or 180-sec variable-interval schedule. In Experiment II, responding was maintained under a sequence of variable-interval and multiple variable-interval timeout schedules of food presentation. Negative induction occurred when responding declined gradually in the timeout component but not when responding declined abruptly. The nature of interactions in multiple schedules may depend on the species; negative induction was observed with squirrel monkeys under conditions similar to those that produce positive contrast with pigeons.     

Preference and resistance to change in concurrent variable-interval schedules

Pigeons were trained on a multiple schedule in which separate concurrent schedules were presented in the two components of the schedule. During one component, concurrent variable-interval 40-sec variable-interval 80-sec schedules operated. In the second component, concurrent variable-interval 40-sec variable-interval 20-sec schedules operated. After stable baseline performance was obtained in both components, extinction probe choice tests were presented to assess preference between the variable-interval 40-sec schedules from the two components. The variable-interval 40-sec schedule paired with the variable-interval 80-sec schedule was preferred over the variable-interval 40-sec schedule paired with the variable-interval 20-sec schedule. The subjects were also exposed to several resistance-to-change manipulations: (1) prefeeding prior to the experimental session, (2) a free-food schedule added to timeout periods separating components, and (3) extinction. The results indicated that preference and resistance to change do not necessarily covary.     

The role of autopecking in behavioral contrast

Four groups of four pigeons each were studied on two different multiple schedules. The cues correlated with the schedule components were localized on the response key for two groups and were not localized for the others. Two groups worked on multiple schedules with variable interval 15-sec in both components, and variable interval 15-sec in one component and extinction in the other. The other two groups had identical procedures except that food was presented on a response-independent variable-time schedule. Variable-interval birds with localized stimuli showed marked behavioral contrast; variable-interval birds with non-localized stimuli showed no behavioral contrast. Variable-time birds with key-light stimuli acquired high rates of autopecking, which changed as treatment changed in a manner that paralleled rate changes, resulting in behavioral contrast for variable-interval birds. Variable-time birds with non-localized stimuli key pecked only at a low rate. The findings indicate that behavioral contrast in pigeons may result from the autopecking that is obtained with stimulus-contingent food presentation.     

Self-imposed timeouts under increasing response requirements

Self-imposed timeouts by pigeons working under a progressive-ratio food schedule were studied under different conditions. The main findings were (1) continued production of timeouts over an extended series of sessions, (2) more frequent responding on the key with the timeout consequence than on a key having no consequence, (3) an inverse relationship between number of timeouts and level of body weight, (4) production of timeouts when the timeout duration was brief, lengthy, or controlled by the pigeon, and (5) dependence of self-imposed timeouts on variables controlling responding under the progressive-ratio schedule. Under all experimental conditions, with the exception of performances at the high body weight, timeouts were more frequent during the longer progressive-ratio steps and usually were localized in the post-reinforcement pause or the early part of the step. The timeout behavior could be interpreted as either an escape from aversive stimuli generated by the progressive-ratio schedule or as a response reinforced by the consequent stimulus change.     

Concurrent schedules of primary and conditioned reinforcement in rats

Rats responded on a fixed-interval schedule during which a 3-sec stimulus preceded each water reinforcement. The stimulus was then scheduled concurrently for responses on the same lever according to either a variable ratio. Although water reinforcement continued on a fixed-interval schedule, the pattern of responding became typical of a variable-interval or variable-ratio schedule. When the 3-sec stimulus was presented on a variable-interval or variable-ratio schedule, but was omitted on the fixed-interval schedule, the response rate decreased. When the stimulus occurred after the same time periods as those of the variable-interval schedule, but at least 7-sec after the last response, the rate decreased. The rate became higher when the fixed-interval schedule was discontinued and each presentation of the 3-sec stimulus was followed by water on a variable-interval schedule. When both water and the 3-sec stimulus were discontinued for a period of time, resulting in extinction of the lever response, and the 3-sec stimulus alone then presented on a variable-interval or variable-ratio schedule after lever responses, rate increased and then gradually decreased.     

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.     

Behavioral contrast in one component of a multiple schedule as a function of the reinforcement conditions operating in the following component

The key pecks of four pigeons were reinforced on a variable-interval 5-min schedule which operated in each of the four components of a multiple schedule, indicated by red, green, yellow, and blue stimuli and presented in such an order that the red stimulus always preceded the yellow and the green stimulus always preceded the blue. After establishing baseline rates, the reinforcement schedule associated with the blue and yellow components was altered so that one was now an extinction schedule and the other was a variable-interval 1-min schedule. In a second experimental stage, the blue stimulus was interchanged with the yellow so that the red stimulus preceded the blue and the green stimulus preceded the yellow. In both experimental stages the response rate in the variable-interval 5-min component that preceded the extinction component was higher than the response rate in the variable-interval 5-min component that preceded the variable-interval 1-min component. The results were discussed in relation to the importance of stimulus ordering in experiments concerned with investigating behavioral contrast.     

Testing for inhibitory stimulus control with S- superimposed on S+

Pigeons learned a successive discrimination between a positive stimulus (red) correlated with a variable-interval 1-min reinforcement schedule and a negative stimulus (vertical line) correlated with either a variable-interval 5-min schedule or extinction. Transfer tests measured the rate of responding to the positive stimulus alone, to various orientations of the negative stimulus, and to the same line orientations superimposed on the positive stimulus. Although there were no gradients with minima at the training value for the negative stimulus dimension, the addition of the negative stimulus dimension to the positive stimulus always resulted in a lower response rate than that for the positive stimulus alone. The results demonstrate that an operational definition of inhibitory stimulus control that requires increased responding to stimuli more distant from a negative stimulus (along some dimension) is not always consistent with a definition that requires the suppression of responding in the presence of one stimulus, the positive stimulus, by the simultaneous presentation of another, the negative stimulus.     

Response-produced timeouts under a progressive-ratio schedule with a punished reset option

Three behavioral options were available to food-deprived pigeons: (1) pecking one key resulted in food reinforcement according to a 50-response progressive-ratio schedule, (2) pecking a second key reset the progressive-ratio schedule to the initial progressive-ratio step, and (3) pecking a third key produced a 3-min timeout period. Pecks on the reset key were shocked. Under low and intermediate shock intensities, timeouts were not produced; under high shock levels, timeouts were produced regularly. Timeouts occurred during the initial period of a progressive-ratio step and were more frequent during the longer steps of the progressive-ratio schedule. Response-produced timeouts under these experimental conditions could be interpreted either as an escape from aversive behavioral options or as a low-probability behavior emerging when the food reinforcement schedule exerted weaker control.     

Some effects of response independent reinforcers in multiple schedules

In Exp. I, rats' lever presses were conditioned on multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedules. Changing one of the multiple schedule components to variable time reduced responding in that component. Further reductions in responding occurred in both components when the schedule was changed to multiple variable-time variable-time. After reinstating the multiple variable-interval variable-time schedule, lower response rates were maintained in the variable-time component during a series of stimulus reversals. In Exp. II, replacement of extinction components of multiple variable-interval extinction or multiple extinction extinction with variable-time schedules for single sessions (probe) resulted in response rate increments in those components. In the former schedule these increases were concomitant with response decreases during the variable-interval components. Response increases in the variable-time probes were related to conditioning history and, as a result, to response probability at the time of the probe.     

Positive contrast, negative induction, and inhibitory stimulus control in the rat

In Experiment I, 24 rats were trained on a multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule with a doorlight and white noise serving as component cues. Two groups were then shifted to a multiple extinction variable-interval schedule, and a third group was maintained on the multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule. The multiple extinction variable-interval condition produced positive contrast when either the light or noise signalled extinction, and both of these cues acquired inhibitory stimulus control as measured by a combined cue test. In Experiment II, the multiple variable-interval variable-interval condition was shifted to multiple extinction variable-interval for one group, to multiple variable-time variable-interval for a second group, and was unchanged for the third group. The two experimental conditions produced identical patterns of response-rate reduction in the altered component, but the multiple extinction variable-interval condition produced positive contrast, whereas the multiple variable-time variable-interval condition did not. Subsequent combined cue and resistance to reinforcement tests revealed that the cue signalling extinction acquired stronger inhibitory stimulus control than the cue signalling variable time.