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.     

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.     

Human choice in concurrent ratio-interval schedules of reinforcement.

Seven undergraduates participated in a concurrent-choice experiment with monetary reinforcers. Response-independent analogues of variable-interval and variable-ratio schedules were used to assess whether subjects would maximize reinforcement rate. The optimal pattern of behavior, in terms of maximizing reinforcement rate, involved a large bias toward the ratio alternative, with only occasional sampling of the interval schedule. Most experiments with pigeons, however, demonstrate matching of response rates to reinforcement rates, with only slight biases for the ratio schedule. Although subjects in the present experiment allocated more time to the ratio alternative than required by matching, the magnitude of the bias did not approximate that predicted by a maximizing account. After exposure to clock stimuli correlated with the operation of each schedule, 1 subject's behavior did show a substantial level of bias, increasing the total number of reinforcers obtained, and lay at a point between the predictions of matching and maximizing. The other subjects, however, continued to respond less optimally. The present results can be accounted for by a view of matching that incorporates the effects of delayed reinforcement.     

Dissociation of theories of choice by temporal spacing of choice opportunities.

Rats were trained on a discrete-trial version of a concurrent variable-interval (VI) variable-ratio (VR) schedule in which the relative reinforcement rates were varied across conditions. Subjects with the shorter intertrial interval (ITI) had a significant bias toward the VR alternative, as predicted by optimality theory, and were also more likely to choose the VI alternative with longer times since responses to the VI alternative, as predicted by momentary-maximizing theory. Subjects with the longer ITI failed to show either of these effects. Approximation to the matching law was greater with the longer ITI. Thus, matching is not derivative of the processes postulated by optimality or momentary-maximizing theory but instead is in competition with those processes.     

Optimality And Concurrent Variable-interval Variable-ratio Schedules

Despite claims to the contrary, all leading theories about operant choice may be seen as models of optimality. Although melioration is often contrasted with global maximization, both make the same core assumptions as other versions of optimality theory, including momentary maximizing, hill climbing, and the various versions of optimal foraging theory. The present experiment aimed to test melioration against more global optimality and to apply the visit-by-visit analysis suggested by foraging theory. Rats were exposed to concurrent schedules in which one alternative was always variable-ratio 10 and the other alternative was a variable-interval schedule. Although choice relations varied from rat to rat, the overall results roughly confirmed the matching law, a result often taken to support melioration. Pooling the data across sessions and across rats, however, resulted in no increment in unsystematic variance, lending support to the contention by Ziriax and Silberberg (1984) that the choice relation is partly constrained. When the data were analyzed at the level of visits, the results either disconfirmed predictions of melioration or showed regularities about which melioration is silent. Instead, performance tended toward a rough optimization, in which responding favored the variable ratio, but with relatively brief visits to the variable interval. There were no asymmetries in travel or variability that would indicate that different processes were involved in generating visits at the two different schedules. The findings point toward a more global optimality model than melioration and demonstrate the value of per-visit analysis in the study of concurrent performances.     

Response-rate differences in variable-interval and variable-ratio schedules: An old problem revisited

In Experiment 1, a variable-ratio 10 schedule became, successively, a variable-interval schedule with only the minimum interreinforcement intervals yoked to the variable ratio, or a variable-interval schedule with both interreinforcement intervals and reinforced interresponse times yoked to the variable ratio. Response rates in the variable-interval schedule with both interreinforcement interval and reinforced interresponse time yoking fell between the higher rates maintained by the variable-ratio schedule and the lower rates maintained by the variable-interval schedule with only interreinforcement interval yoking. In Experiment 2, a tandem variable-interval 15-s variable-ratio 5 schedule became a yoked tandem variable-ratio 5 variable-interval x-s schedule, and a tandem variable-interval 30-s variable-ratio 10 schedule became a yoked tandem variable-ratio 10 variable-interval x-s schedule. In the yoked tandem schedules, the minimum interreinforcement intervals in the variable-interval components were those that equated overall interreinforcement times in the two phases. Response rates did not decline in the yoked schedules even when the reinforced interresponse times became longer. Experiment 1 suggests that both reinforced interresponse times and response rate–reinforcement rate correlations determine response-rate differences in variable-ratio 10 and yoked variable-interval schedules in rats. Experiment 2 suggests a minimal role for the reinforced interresponse time in determining response rates on tandem variable-interval 30-s variable-ratio 10 and yoked tandem variable-ratio 10 variable-interval x-s schedules in rats.     

Concurrent-schedule performance in dairy cows: persistent undermatching.

Performance of dairy cows responding under concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules of food delivery was examined, with results analyzed in terms of the generalized matching equation. In Experiment 1, bias measures indicated that crushed barley was preferred over meatmeal when these foods were available under the alternative schedules. For whole-session data, substantial undermatching of response and time-allocation ratios to obtained reinforcement ratios was evident. Postreinforcement pause time ratios approximately matched obtained reinforcement rates. Subtracting these times from total time-allocation values yielded net time-allocation ratios that undermatched obtained reinforcement ratios to a greater degree than did whole-session time-allocation ratios. In Experiment 2, substantial undermatching was evident when the same foods (hay for 2 cows, crushed barley for 2 others) were available under the alternative schedules. Food-related activities and other defined behavior not related to food were quantified by direct observation, and were found to occupy a substantial proportion (roughly 40% to 80%) of experimental sessions. Subtracting the time spent in these activities from the time allocated to each component schedule did not reduce the degree of undermatching obtained. Across all conditions in both experiments, slopes of regression lines relating behavioral outputs to environmental inputs characteristically were below 0.6, which agrees with prior findings and suggests that, contrary to suggestions in the literature, undermatching in dairy cows is not the result of using different foods under alternative schedules or differential pausing under those schedules.     

IS THERE A DECISIVE TEST BETWEEN MATCHING AND MAXIMIZING?

Reinforcers under typical concurrent variable-interval, variable-ratio schedules may be (a) earned and obtained during the variable-interval component, (b) earned and obtained during the variable-ratio component, or (c) earned during the variable-ratio component and obtained during the variable-interval component. Categories a and b, which have no bearing on matching versus maximizing accounts of choice, were set at zero. The rate of Category c reinforcers and the duration of a changeover delay were varied. Simple matching, which predicts exclusive choice of the variable-interval component, and strict maximizing of overall reinforcement rate, which predicts a bias towards the variable-ratio component, were both disconfirmed: Subjects spent approximately 25% of their time in the variable-ratio component, contrary to the matching prediction, but earned only about one third of the reinforcers predicted by strict maximizing. However, maximizing describes the findings functionally in terms of discounting of delayed reinforcers; matching may describe the data in terms of a restructuring of the alternatives. Matching and maximizing are not competing theories about the fundamental nature of choice, but compatible points of view that may reveal environmental function and behavioral structure.     

Human choice on concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio schedules.

Each of 5 adult male humans sat in a 4 degrees C room where they could warm themselves by illuminating six heat lamps for 10-second periods according to a concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio schedule. Left-button presses on a response panel switched between the schedules and started a 2-second changeover delay. Right-button presses illuminated the heat lamps if assigned by the associated schedule and if the changeover delay had timed out. Panel lights identified the schedule in effect and each effective right-button press. A discrimination procedure--either a multiple variable-interval variable-ratio schedule or the presentation of each schedule individually on alternate days--preceded exposure to the choice procedure for some subjects. For subjects not exposed to a discrimination procedure prior to exposure to choice, or if such exposure failed to result in higher rates to the ratio than to the interval schedule, relative response rates matched relative reinforcement rates. However, if subjects responded at higher rates to the ratio schedule than to the interval schedule during a prior discrimination procedure, relative rates on a subsequent choice procedure deviated from matching in the direction of reinforcement-rate maximizing. In eight of 11 conditions, choice appeared to be governed by maximizing processes. In all cases, human concurrent ratio-interval performances differed from those of nonhumans in that matching was never obtained with local ratio-interval rate differences.     

How to maximize reward rate on two variable-interval paradigms

Without assuming any constraints on behavior, we derive the policy that maximizes overall reward rate on two variable-interval paradigms. The first paradigm is concurrent variable time-variable time with changeover delay. It is shown that for nearly all parameter values, a switch to the schedule with the longer interval should be followed immediately by a switch back to the schedule with the shorter interval. The matching law does not hold at the optimum and does not uniquely specify the obtained reward rate. The second paradigm is discrete trial concurrent variable interval-variable interval. For given schedule parameters, the optimal policy involves a cycle of a fixed number of choices of the schedule with the shorter interval followed by one choice of the schedule with the longer interval. Molecular maximization sometimes results in optimal behavior.     

Hill-climbing by pigeons

Pigeons were exposed to two types of concurrent operant-reinforcement schedules in order to determine what choice rules determine behavior on these schedules. In the first set of experiments, concurrent variable-interval, variable-interval schedules, key-peck responses to either of two alternative schedules produced food reinforcement after a random time interval. The frequency of food-reinforcement availability for the two schedules was varied over different ranges for different birds. In the second series of experiments, concurrent variable-ratio, variable-interval schedules, key-peck responses to one schedule produced food reinforcement after a random time interval, whereas food reinforcement occurred for an alternative schedule only after a random number of responses. Results from both experiments showed that pigeons consistently follow a behavioral strategy in which the alternative schedule chosen at any time is the one which offers the highest momentary reinforcement probability (momentary maximizing). The quality of momentary maximizing was somewhat higher and more consistent when both alternative reinforcement schedules were time-based than when one schedule was time-based and the alternative response-count based. Previous attempts to provide evidence for the existence of momentary maximizing were shown to be based upon faulty assumptions about the behavior implied by momentary maximizing and resultant inappropriate measures of behavior.     

More on concurrent interval-ratio schedules: a replication and review.

It has been suggested that the failure to maximize reinforcement on concurrent variable-interval, variable-ratio schedules may be misleading. Inasmuch as response costs are not directly measured, it is possible that subjects are optimally balancing the benefits of reinforcement against the costs of responding. To evaluate this hypothesis, pigeons were tested in a procedure in which interval and ratio schedules had equal response costs. On a concurrent variable time (VT), variable ratio-time (VRT) schedule, the VT schedule runs throughout the session and the VRT schedule is controlled by responses to a changeover key that switches from one schedule to the other. Reinforcement is presented independent of response. This schedule retains the essential features of concurrent VI VR, but eliminates differential response costs for the two alternatives. It therefore also eliminates at least one significant ambiguity about the reinforcement maximizing performance. Pigeons did not maximize rate of reinforcement on this procedure. Instead, their times spent on the alternative schedules matched the relative rates of reinforcement, even when schedule parameters were such that matching earned the lowest possible overall rate of reinforcement. It was further shown that the observed matching was not a procedural artifact arising from the constraints built into the schedule.     

Undermatching on concurrent variable-interval schedules and the power law.

The phenomenon of undermatching on concurrent variable-interval schedules is shown to be derivable by transforming the individual interreinforcement intervals of each variable-interval schedule and averaging the transformed values to produce an "estimate" of the rate of reinforcement the schedules deliver. If the transformation is based on a power function with a fractional exponent, such as is found in many studies of temporal control in animals, matching response rations to the ratios of these estimated rates of reinforcement yields undermatching. If the concurrent variable-interval schedules are arranged such that the individual intervals in each schedule have a constant proportionality (a procedure found in many commonly used variable-interval schedules) the slope of the line relating logarithms of response ratios and of programmed reinforcement ratios is identical to the exponent of the power transformation applied to the individual time intervals in the variable-interval schedules. In other cases this simple relation does not hold but the degree of undermatching is greater the lower the value of the exponent of the power function. This account of undermatching predicts values similar to those typically observed.     

Matching and maximizing with variable-time schedules.

Pigeons were offered choices between a variable-time schedule that arranged reinforcers throughout the session and a variable-time schedule that arranged reinforcers only when the pigeon was spending time on it. The subjects could maximize the overall rate of reinforcement in this situation by biasing their time allocation towards the latter schedule. This arrangement provides an alternative to concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio schedules for testing whether animals maximize overall rates or match relative rates, and has the advantage of being free of the asymmetrical response requirements present with those schedules. The results were contrary to those predicted by maximizing: The bias it predicts did not appear.     

An analytic comparison of Herrnstein's equations and a multivariate rate equation

Herrnstein's equations are approximations of the multivariate rate equation at ordinary rates of reinforcement and responding. The rate equation is the result of a linear system analysis of variable-interval performance. Rate equation matching is more comprehensive than ordinary matching because it predicts and specifies the nature of concurrent bias, and predicts a tendency toward undermatching, which is sometimes observed in concurrent situations. The rate equation contradicts one feature of Herrnstein's hyperbola, viz., the theoretically required constancy of k. According to the rate equation, Herrnstein's k should vary directly with parameters of reinforcement such as amount or immediacy. Because of this prediction, the rate equation asserts that the conceptual framework of matching does not apply to single alternative responding. The issue of the constancy of k provides empirical grounds for distinguishing between Herrnstein's account and a linear system analysis of single alternative variable-interval responding.     

Molar And Molecular Control In Variable-interval And Variable-ratio Schedules

Response rates are typically higher under variable-ratio than under variable-interval schedules of reinforcement, perhaps because of differences in the dependence of reinforcement rate on response rate or because of differences in the reinforcement of long interresponse times. A variable-interval-with-added-linear-feedback schedule is a variable-interval schedule that provides a response rate/reinforcement rate correlation by permitting the minimum interfood interval to decrease with rapid responding. Four rats were exposed to variable-ratio 15, 30, and 60 food reinforcement schedules, variable-interval 15-, 30-, and 60-s food reinforcement schedules, and two versions of variable-interval-with-added-linear-feedback 15-, 30-, and 60-s food reinforcement schedules. Response rates on the variable-interval-with-added-linear-feedback schedule were similar to those on the variable-interval schedule; all three schedules led to lower response rates than those on the variable-ratio schedules, especially when the schedule values were 30. Also, reinforced interresponse times on the variable-interval-with-added-linear-feedback schedule were similar to those on variable interval and much longer than those produced by variable ratio. The results were interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that response rates on variable-interval schedules in rats are lower than those on comparable variable-ratio schedules, primarily because the former schedules reinforce long interresponse times.     

Choice behavior in a discrete-trial concurrent VI-VR: A test of maximizing theories of matching

Rats were trained on a discrete-trial procedure in which one alternative (VR) was correlated with a constant probability of reinforcement while the other was correlated with a VI schedule which ran during the intertrial intervals and held the scheduled reinforcer until they were obtained by the next VI response. Relative reinforcement rate was varied in series of conditions in which the VR schedule was varied and in series in which the VI was varied. Choice behavior was described well by the generalized matching law, although moderate undermatching occurred for all subjects. Contrary to the predictions of molar maximizing (optimality) theories, there was no consistent bias in favor of the ratio alternative, and the sensitivity to reinforcement allocation was not systematically affected by whether the ratio or interval schedule was varied. The results were also contrary to momentary maximizing accounts, as there was no correspondence between the probability of a changeover to the VI behavior and the time since the last response to the VI alternative. Neither variety of maximizing theory appears to provide a general explanation of matching in concurrent schedules.     

Concurrent choice: Effects of overall reinforcer rate and the temporal distribution of reinforcers

Six pigeons responded on a series of concurrent exponential variable-interval schedules, offering a within-subject comparison with previously published data from concurrent arithmetic variable-interval schedules. Both relative and overall reinforcer rates were varied between conditions. The generalized matching law described the data well, with undermatching much more frequent than strict matching. Time-allocation sensitivity consistently exceeded response-allocation sensitivity for both schedule types, and exponential-schedule sensitivity exceeded arithmetic-schedule sensitivity for both measures of choice. A further set of conditions using variable-interval schedules whose shortest interval was correlated with the mean interval, like arithmetic schedules, but that provided a constant conditional probability of reinforcement, like exponential schedules, produced sensitivities between those produced by conventional arithmetic and exponential schedules. Unlike previous arithmetic-schedule results, exponential sensitivity changed nonmonotonically with changes in overall reinforcer rate. The results clarify our knowledge of the effects of arithmetic and exponential schedules but confuse our understanding of the effects of overall reinforcer rate on concurrent choice.     

DEVIATIONS FROM MATCHING AS A MEASURE OF PREFERENCE FOR ALTERNATIVES IN PIGEONS

Preferences for larger or smaller formally defined response classes were investigated in a concurrent schedule procedure. Twelve pigeons were run on a series of concurrent variable-interval reinforcement schedules, from which baseline matching functions were obtained. An experimental phase followed, in which a second response key was available in one concurrent schedule alternative. For half the birds, the second key was programmed identically with the first; for the other half, the added key was programmed for extinction, with position irrelevant. Comparison of baseline and experimental matching functions revealed no systematic changes in either slope or intercept for birds in the latter group. Systematic shifts in function intercepts in the former group indicate a response bias toward the response-constrained (single-key) schedule alternative. Although contrary to the literature of preference for choice, this finding may be interpretable through an account dealing with imposed variability of responding.     

Choice dynamics in concurrent ratio schedules of reinforcement

The generalized matching law predicts performance on concurrent schedules when variable-interval schedules are programmed but is trivially applicable when independent ratio schedules are used. Responding usually is exclusive to the schedule with the lowest response requirement. Determining a method to program concurrent ratio schedules such that matching analyses can be usefully employed would extend the generality of matching research and lead to new avenues of research. In the present experiments, ratio schedules were programmed dependently such that responses to either of the two options progressed the requirement on both schedules. Responding is not exclusive because the probability of reinforcement increases on both schedules as responses are allocated to either schedule. In Experiment 1, performance on concurrent variable-ratio schedules was assessed, and reinforcer ratios were varied across conditions to investigate changes in sensitivity. Additionally, the length of a changeover delay was manipulated. In Experiment 2, performance was compared under concurrently available, dependently programmed variable-ratio and fixed-ratio schedules. Performance was well described by the generalized matching law. Increases in the changeover delay decreased sensitivity, whereas sensitivity was higher when variable-ratio schedules were employed, compared with fixed-ratio schedules. Concurrent ratio schedules can be a viable approach to studying functional differences between ratio and interval schedules.