EFFECTS OF A SIGNALED DELAY TO REINFORCEMENT IN THE PREVIOUS AND UPCOMING RATIOS ON BETWEEN-RATIO PAUSING IN FIXED-RATIO SCHEDULES

Domestic hens responded under multiple fixed‐ratio fixed‐ratio schedules with equal fixed ratios. One component provided immediate reinforcement and the other provided reinforcement after a delay, signaled by the offset of the key light. The components were presented quasirandomly so that all four possible transitions occurred in each session. The delay was varied over 0, 4, 8, 16, and 32 s with fixed‐ratio 5 schedules, and over 0, 8 and 32 s with fixed‐ratio 1, 15 and 40 schedules. Main effects of fixed‐ratio value and delay duration were detected on between‐ratio pauses. Pauses were longer when the multiple‐schedule stimulus correlated with a delayed‐reinforcer component was presented, with the longest pauses occurring at the transition from a component with an immediate reinforcer to one with a delayed reinforcer. Pause durations were shortest during immediate components. Overall, both the presence or absence of a delay in the upcoming component, and the presence or absence of a delay in the preceding component affected pause length, but the upcoming delay had the larger effect. Thus changes in delay had similar effects to past reports of the effects of changes in response force, response requirement, and reinforcer magnitude in multiple fixed‐ratio fixed‐ratio schedules.     

EFFECT OF REINFORCER MAGNITUDE ON PERFORMANCE MAINTAINED BY PROGRESSIVE‐RATIO SCHEDULES

This experiment examined the relationship between reinforcer magnitude and quantitative measures of performance on progressive‐ratio schedules. Fifteen rats were trained under a progressive‐ratio schedule in seven phases of the experiment in which the volume of a 0.6‐M sucrose solution reinforcer was varied within the range 6–300 μl. Overall response rates in successive ratios conformed to a bitonic equation derived from Killeen's (1994) Mathematical Principles of Reinforcement. The “specific activation” parameter, a, which is presumed to reflect the incentive value of the reinforcer, was a monotonically increasing function of reinforcer volume; the “response time” parameter, δ, which defines the minimum response time, increased as a function of reinforcer volume; the “currency” parameter, b, which is presumed to reflect the coupling of responses to the reinforcer, declined as a function of volume. Running response rate (response rate calculated after exclusion of the postreinforcement pause) decayed monotonically as a function of ratio size; the index of curvature of this function increased as a function of reinforcer volume. Postreinforcement pause increased as a function of ratio size. Estimates of a derived from overall response rates and postreinforcement pauses showed a modest positive correlation across conditions and between animals. Implications of the results for the quantification of reinforcer value and for the use of progressive‐ratio schedules in behavioral neuroscience are discussed.