Within-session Response Patterns On Conjoint Variable-interval Variable-time Schedules

Operant responding often changes within sessions, even when factors such as rate of reinforcement remain constant. The present study was designed to determine whether within-session response patterns are determined by the total number of reinforcers delivered during the session or only by the reinforcers earned by the operant response. Four rats pressed a lever and 3 pigeons pecked a key for food reinforcers delivered by a conjoint variable-interval variable-time schedule. The overall rate of reinforcement of the conjoint schedule varied across conditions from 15 to 480 reinforcers per hour. When fewer than 120 reinforcers were delivered per hour, the within-session patterns of responding on conjoint schedules were similar to those previously observed when subjects received the same total number of reinforcers by responding on simple variable-interval schedules. Response patterns were less similar to those observed on simple variable-interval schedules when the overall rate of reinforcement exceeded 120 reinforcers per hour. These results suggest that response-independent reinforcers can affect the within-session pattern of responding on a response-dependent schedule. The results are incompatible with a response-based explanation of within-session changes in responding (e.g., fatigue), but are consistent with both reinforcer-based (e.g., satiation) and stimulus-based (e.g., habituation) explanations.     

Within-session rates of responding when reinforcer magnitude is changed within the session

In the present experiment, the authors investigated the idea that within-session changes in operant response rates occur because subjects sensitize and then habituate to the reinforcer. If that is true, then altering an aspect of the reinforcer within the session should alter the observed within-session responding. The authors tested that idea by having rats press a lever for 2 food-pellet reinforcers delivered by a variable-interval 120-s schedule during 60-min baseline sessions. In treatment conditions, the magnitude of the reinforcer was halved (1 pellet) or doubled (4 pellets) 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 min into the session. That magnitude of reinforcement then remained in effect for the rest of the session. Altering reinforcer magnitude altered the rates of responding within the session in a fashion consistent with the habituation explanation, that is, response rates increased, relative to baseline, when the magnitude of reinforcement was increased. They decreased when the magnitude was decreased. Those results were seemingly inconsistent with the competing idea that within-session decreases in responding rates are produced by satiation.     

Within-Session Patterns of Pigeons'' General Activity

The study investigates the idea that within-session changes in responding are produced by arousal and satiation. General activity, measured by the displacement of floor panels, was used as an index of these variables. In Experiment 1, pigeons pecked a key on a simple variable-interval schedule and general activity was also recorded. In Experiment 2, pigeons received response-independent reinforcers. In Experiment 3, the pigeons' general activity was reinforced on a variable-interval schedule. Although significant within-session changes in operant key pecking were observed in Experiment 1, within-session changes in general activity were seldom observed in either Experiment 1 or Experiment 2. Significant within-session changes in general activity were observed in Experiment 3, when activity was the operant. The present results can potentially be explained by arousal and satiation. However, the predictive power of this explanation is severely limited. Regardless of whether one accepts arousal and satiation as the theoretical explanation for within-session changes in responding, the present results suggest that aspects of the response–reinforcer relation may determine the within-session pattern of responding.     

Altering Reinforcer Variety or Intensity Changes the Within-Session Decrease in Responding

Operant responding often changes systematically within experimental sessions. McSweeney, Hinson, and Cannon (1996) argued that sensitization and habituation produce within-session changes in responding. The present study tested two predictions of the sensitization–habituation explanation. In two experiments, rats pressed a lever for reinforcers delivered by a multiple variable interval 15-s variable interval 15-s schedule. In Experiment 1, the variety of reinforcers delivered during the session was manipulated by varying the percentage of programmed reinforcers replaced with qualitatively different reinforcers from 0 to 75%, in five different conditions. In Experiment 2, the intensity of the reinforcer was manipulated by varying the concentration of sucrose in the sucrose and water solution used as the reinforcer from 0 to 30%, in five different conditions. Increasing the variety or the intensity of the reinforcers slowed the within-session decrease in responding. The results are consistent with the predictions of a sensitization–habituation explanation of within-session changes in responding.     

Responding changes systematically within sessions during conditioning procedures.

When the procedure is held constant within an experimental session, responding often changes systematically within that session. Many of these within-session changes in responding cannot be dismissed as learning curves or by-products of satiation. They have been observed in studies of positive reinforcement, avoidance, punishment, extinction, discrimination, delayed matching to sample, concept formation, maze and alley running, and laboratory analogues of foraging, as well as in the unconditioned substrates of conditioned behavior. When aversive stimuli are used, responding usually increases early in the session. When positive reinforcers are used, responding changes in a variety of ways, including increasing, decreasing, and bitonic functions. Both strong and minimal reinforcement procedures produce within-session decreases in positively reinforced behavior. Within-session changes in responding have substantial theoretical and methodological implications for research in conditioning.     

Within-session Analysis Of Visual Discrimination

Within-session changes in responding by pigeons during a maintained successive discrimination procedure were examined in four experiments. In the first two experiments, which involved discrimination of visual flicker rate, within-session changes in responding were minimal or absent. A third experiment, which examined discrimination of rectangular forms, demonstrated that the absence of within-session changes in responding was not limited to flicker-rate stimuli. A fourth experiment showed that the absence of within-session changes in responding was not due to high task difficulty in the previous experiments. For the group of subjects in each experiment, within-session changes in responding did not influence discrimination performance. Therefore, measures of overall response rate accurately represented responding both within and across sessions. The occasional appearance of within-session decreases in responding for a few birds may be attributable to satiation.     

Within-session changes in responding during concurrent schedules with different reinforcers in the components.

Rats and pigeons responded on several concurrent schedules that provided different reinforcers in the two components (food and water for rats, Experiment 1; wheat and mixed grain for pigeons, Experiment 2). The rate of responding and the time spent responding on each component usually changed within the session. The within-session changes in response rates and time spent responding usually followed different patterns for the two components of a concurrent schedule. For most subjects, the bias and sensitivity to reinforcement parameters of the generalized matching law, as well as the percentage of the variance accounted for, decreased within the session. Negative sensitivity parameters were sometimes found late in the session for the concurrent food-water schedules. These results imply that within-session changes in responding could cause problems for assessing the validity of quantitative theories of concurrent-schedule responding when the components provide different reinforcers. They question changes in a general motivational state, such as arousal, as a complete explanation for within-session changes in responding. The results are compatible with satiation for, or sensitization-habituation to, the reinforcers as explanations.     

Sensitization and habituation regulate reinforcer effectiveness

We argue that sensitization and habituation occur to the sensory properties of reinforcers when those reinforcers are presented repeatedly or for a prolonged time. Sensitization increases, and habituation decreases, the ability of a reinforcer to control behavior. Supporting this argument, the rate of operant responding changes systematically within experimental sessions even when the programmed rate of reinforcement is held constant across the session. These within-session changes in operant responding are produced by repeated delivery of the reinforcer, and their empirical characteristics correspond to the characteristics of behavior undergoing sensitization and habituation. Two characteristics of habituation (dishabituation, stimulus specificity) are particularly useful in separating habituation from alternative explanations. Arguing that habituation occurs to reinforcers expands the domain of habituation. The argument implies that habituation occurs to biologically important, not just to neutral, stimuli. The argument also implies that habituation may be observed in “voluntary” (operant), not just in reflexive, behavior. Expanding the domain of habituation has important implications for understanding operant and classical conditioning. Habituation may also contribute to the regulation of motivated behaviors. Habituation provides a more accurate and a less cumbersome explanation for motivated behaviors than homeostasis. Habituation also has some surprising, and easily testable, implications for the control of motivated behaviors.     

Concurrent access to two concentrations of orally delivered phencyclidine: effects of feeding conditions.

Two experiments addressed the effects of food satiation and deprivation on oral self-administration of two concurrently available phencyclidine concentrations. In the first experiment, 8 rhesus monkeys self-administered either of two concentrations of phencyclidine ("PCP, angel dust") and water under concurrent fixed-ratio 16 schedules. One concentration was always held constant (0.25 mg/mL) while a series of other phencyclidine concentrations, ranging from 0 (water) to 1.0 mg/mL, was presented in a nonsystematic order. Initially the monkeys were tested while food satiated, and the procedure was then repeated during food deprivation. The monkeys usually selected the higher concentration within the first few minutes of the session, indicating that taste and/or other immediate postingestional effects were important factors. Contrary to a number of previous reports, there were no consistent differences across subjects in the mean number of liquid deliveries or mean drug intake (mg/kg) during food satiation and deprivation. However, for all monkeys the within-session time course of responding during food satiation consistently differed from that during deprivation. A second experiment assessed whether the failure to find consistent differences in drug intake during food satiation and deprivation had been due to the history of concurrent access to different phencyclidine concentrations or to the extended experience with phencyclidine under food-satiation conditions. Six additional monkeys (Group 2) were exposed to the phencyclidine self-administration procedure (during food satiation and deprivation) for the same length of time as the monkeys in Experiment 1 (Group 1), except they received only concurrent access to phencyclidine (0.25 mg/mL) and water. Both groups then received concurrent access to phencyclidine and water during five repeated cycles of food deprivation and satiation. There were also marked individual differences in Group 2: During food satiation, 2 of the monkeys' responding increased, 1 showed no change, and 3 decreased. Examination of a number of historical variables indicated that the greater the percentage of total sessions spent during food satiation with phencyclidine available (before these experiments began), the greater the amounts of phencyclidine consumed during food satiation and the smaller the differences in phencyclidine intake when the two feeding conditions were compared.     

Running and responding reinforced by the opportunity to run: effect of reinforcer duration.

The present study investigated the effect of reinforcer duration on running and on responding reinforced by the opportunity to run. Eleven male Wistar rats responded on levers for the opportunity to run in a running wheel. Opportunities to run were programmed to occur on a tandem fixed-ratio 1 variable-interval 30-s reinforcement schedule. Reinforcer duration varied across conditions from 30 to 120 s. As reinforcer duration increased, the rates of running and lever pressing declined, and latency to lever press increased. The increase in latency to respond was consistent with findings that unconditioned inhibitory aftereffects of reinforcement increase with reinforcer magnitude. The decrease in local lever-pressing rates, however, was inconsistent with the view that response strength increases with the duration of the reinforcer. Response rate varied inversely, not directly, with reinforcer duration. Furthermore, within-session data challenge satiation, fatigue, and response deprivation as determinants of the observed changes in running and responding. In sum, the results point to the need for further research with nonappetitive forms of reinforcement.     

Age differences in within-session habituation of exploratory behavior: effects of stimulus complexity

The effects of age on the habituation of exploratory behavior of 8-month- and 28-month-old male C57BL/NNia mice were examined under three different stimulus complexity conditions. Increases in the degree of stimulus complexity resulted in an attenuation of between-session habituation and an initial disruption of within-session habituation by 8-month-old mice. Although increases in stimulus complexity also resulted in an increase in the overall level of exploration by aged mice, stimulus complexity was not found to have a systematic effect on between- or within-session habituation by aged mice. No between-session habituation was observed in aged mice under any of the stimulus complexity conditions. Further, aged mice exhibited significant within-session increases, rather than decreases, in exploration under each stimulus complexity condition. This disruption of within-session habituation in aged mice was found to persist over four daily test sessions. In view of the specific patterns of exploration by aged mice, the disruption of within-session habituation was attributed to age-related differences in reactivity to the arousal-inducing properties of novel stimuli.     

Dynamic changes in reinforcer effectiveness: satiation and habituation have different implications for theory and practice

Reinforcers lose their effectiveness when they are presented repeatedly. Early researchers labeled this loss of effectiveness as satiation without conducting an experimental analysis. When such an analysis is conducted, habituation provides a more precise and empirically accurate label for the changes in reinforcer effectiveness. This paper reviews some of the data that suggest that habituation occurs to repeatedly presented reinforcers. It also argues that habituation has surprisingly different implications than satiation for theory and practice in behavior analysis. For example, postulating that habituation occurs to repeatedly presented reinforcers suggests ways for maintaining the strength of an existing reinforcer and for weakening the strength of a problematic reinforcer that differ from those implied by an account in terms of satiation. An habituation account may also lead to different ways of conceptualizing the regulation of behavior. For example, habituation may be a single-process contributor to the termination of behaviors that are usually attributed to satiation (e.g., ingestive behaviors such as eating and drinking), fatigue (e.g., energetic behaviors such as running), the waning of attention (e.g., cognitive behaviors such as studying), and pharmacodynamic factors (e.g., drug taking).     

Towards a mathematical model of within-session operant responding

Operant response rate changes within the course of a typical free-operant experimental session. These changes are orderly, and reliably demonstrated with subjects from different species, responding under different experimental conditions. Killeen (1995) postulated that the response rate changes are a function of the interplay between arousal and satiation and offered a mathematical model for this hypothesis. Here we analyze Killeen's model, demonstrating that, although solid in its principles, it presents some flaws in its implementation. Then, based on the same principles, we build and test a new model of within-session motivation dynamics. We also demonstrate that, by representing arousal as a variable that ranges between 0 and 1, we can obtain a surprisingly simple model of free-operant response rate.     

Dishabituation produces interactions during multiple schedules

McSweeney and Weatherly (1998) argued that differential habituation to the reinforcer contributes to the behavioral interactions observed during multiple schedules. The present experiment confirmed that introducing dishabituators into one component of a multiple schedule increases response rate in the other, constant, component. During baseline, pigeons and rats responded on multiple variable interval 30-s variable interval 30-s schedules. During experimental conditions, subjects responded on the same schedule except that a dishabituating stimulus (manipulation of a light) was also presented randomly during one of the components. Constant-component responding was faster during the experimental than during the baseline conditions. This difference in responding grew larger across the session. The within-session pattern of responding was similar for the two components of each multiple schedule. Qualitatively similar results were observed for rats and pigeons. These results suggest that behavioral interactions sometimes arise from a change in reinforcer effectiveness between the baseline and experimental phases of the experiment, rather than from an assessment of reinforcer relativity (a comparison of reinforcers delivered during the two components in the experimental phase). Behavioral contrast and induction are sometimes produced by similar factors.     

Effects of post-session wheel running on within-session changes in operant responding

This study tested the effects of post-session wheel running on within-session changes in operant responding. Lever-pressing by six rats was reinforced by a food pellet under a continuous reinforcement (CRF) schedule in 30-min sessions. Two different flavored food pellets were used as reinforcers. In the wheel conditions, 30-min operant-sessions with one of the flavored pellets were followed by 30-min free-wheel running sessions. Meanwhile, in the home conditions, rats’ operant responding was reinforced by the other flavored pellets during 30-min operant-sessions, and the rats were then returned to their homecages. All rats were exposed to 4 wheel and 4 homecage sessions. Operant responding was lowered during the wheel conditions. However, post-session running did not alter the within-session pattern of operant responding. These effects were practically identical to the effects of drug-induced taste-aversion learning on within-session changes in operant responding, suggesting similar mechanisms in both taste-aversion preparations.     

Satiation, capacity, and within-session responding

Responding may change substantially over the course of a session (McSweeney, Hinson, & Cannon, 1996). The role of satiation in this effect was investigated in three experiments. Experiment 1 showed that the capacity of pigeons to consume milo over a 1-hr period was relatively stable across three different methods of measurement. In Experiment 2, pigeons were divided into two groups that differed in their capacity based on one of those measures. Key pecking was then reinforced under a variable-interval 30-s schedule with hopper durations of 2 or 5 s. According to the satiation hypothesis, subjects with small capacities should satiate faster and therefore show greater decreases in food-reinforced responding than would subjects with larger capacities. The results confirmed this prediction and showed that the magnitudes of within-session decreases were better predicted by the amount an animal consumed relative to its capacity than by absolute amount alone. In Experiment 3, each pigeon was prefed 0, 5, 15, or 25 g of milo prior to each session. Consistent with the satiation hypothesis, increases in prefeeding produced lower overall response rates in the smaller capacity subjects than in the larger capacity subjects at each level of prefeeding. These experiments demonstrate the importance of a new variable in the control of behavior, and provide a recommended technique for its measurement.     

Reinforcer value may change within experimental sessions

Large and systematic changes in response rates often occur within sessions during operant conditioning procedures. In the present experiment, we asked whether the value of the reinforcer that supports responding also changes within sessions. Pigeons pecked a key for mixed grain available throughout the session. Occasionally, wheat was also provided for pecking a second key. The ratio of the rates of responding for mixed grain and wheat, a frequently used measure of relative reinforcer value, changed significantly within sessions when mixed grain was provided at high, but not at low, rates. Habituation to the reinforcer provides the most likely explanation for these changes in reinforcer value. Eventually, habituation may provide a unified explanation for the within-session changes in behavior that occur when many species of subjects respond on a wide variety of tasks.     

Within-Session Changes in Adjunctive and Instrumental Responding

Rats pressed levers for food delivered by several fixed interval schedules. A drinking spout or running wheel was also available during some conditions, but not during others. The rate of lever pressing, drinking and running often changed within experimental sessions. The within-session patterns of lever pressing did not differ when drinking or running was available and when it was not. The correlation between the amount of lever pressing and the amount of drinking or running at a particular time in the session was inconsistently positive or negative. Finding within-session changes in responding for adjunctive behaviors implies that the factors that produce these changes are present for both adjunctive and instrumental behavior. Finding inconsistent correlations between instrumental responding and adjunctive behaviors questions arousal and interference from adjunctive behaviors as explanations for within-session changes in instrumental responding.