Competitive fixed-interval performance in humans

Two persons responded in the same session in separate cubicles, but under a single schedule of reinforcement. Each time reinforcement was programmed, only the first response to occur, that is, the response of only one of the subjects, was reinforced. “Competitive” behavior that developed under these conditions was examined in three experiments. In Experiment 1 subjects responded under fixed-interval (FI) 30-s, 60-s, and 90-s schedules of reinforcement. Under the competition condition, relative to baseline conditions, the response rates were higher and the pattern was “break-and-run.” In Experiment 2, subjects were exposed first to a conventional FI schedule and then to an FI competition schedule. Next, they were trained to respond under either a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) or fixed-ratio (FR) schedule, and finally, the initial FI competition condition was reinstated. In this second exposure to the FI competition procedure, DRL subjects responded at lower rates than were emitted during the initial exposure to that condition and FR subjects responded at higher rates. For all subjects, however, responding gradually returned to the break-and-run pattern that had occurred during the first FI competition condition. Experiment 3 assessed potential variables contributing to the effects of the competitive FI contingencies during Experiments 1 and 2. Subjects were exposed to FI schedules where (a) probability of reinforcement at completion of each fixed interval was varied, or (b) a limited hold was in effect for reinforcement. Only under the limited hold was responding similar to that observed in previous experiments.     

Probability learning as a function of momentary reinforcement probability

Pigeons were trained on a probability learning task where the overall reinforcement probability was 0.50 for each response alternative but where the momentary reinforcement probability differed and depended upon the outcome of the preceding trial. In all cases, the maximum reinforcement occurred with a “win-stay, lose-shift” response pattern. When both position and color were relevant cues, the optimal response pattern was learned when the reinforcement probability for repeating the just-reinforced response was 0.80 but not when the probability was 0.65. When only color was relevant, learning occurred much more slowly, and only for subjects trained on large fixed ratio requirements.     

Maximizing present value: A model to explain why moderate response rates obtain on variable-interval schedules

In Phases 1 and 3, two Japanese monkeys responded on a multiple variable-ratio 80 variable-interval X schedule, where the value of X was adjusted to ensure equal between-schedule reinforcement rates. Components strictly alternated following the delivery of a food pellet, and each session ended following 50 components. Phase 2 differed from the others only in that the 50 pellets previously earned during the session were delivered together at session's end. Variable-ratio response rates did not decrease across phases, but variable-interval response rates decreased substantially during the Phase 2 procedure. This rate decrease was attributed to the food-at-session's-end manipulation removing the greater immediacy of reinforcement provided by short interresponse times relative to long interresponse times. Without this time preference for short interresponse times, the variable-interval interresponse-time reinforcement feedback function largely controlled response emission, dictating a response-rate reduction. This result was explained in terms of the economic notion of “maximizing present value.”     

Effects of stimulus frequency and reinforcement variables on reaction time

Pigeons pecked at one of two black forms, “+” or “O,” either of which could appear alone on a white computer monitor screen. In baseline series of sessions, each form appeared equally often, and two pecks at it produced food reinforcement on 10% of trials. Test series varied the relative probability or duration of reinforcement or frequency of appearance of the targets. Peck reaction times, measured from target onset to the first peck, were found to vary as a function of reinforcement probability but not as a function of relative target frequency or of reinforcement duration. Reaction times to the two targets remained approximately equal as long as the probability of reinforcement, per trial, was equal for the targets, even if the relative frequency of the targets differed by as much as 19 to 1. The results address issues raised in visual search experiments and indicate that attentional priming is unimportant when targets are easy to detect. The results also suggest that equalizing reinforcement probability per trial for all targets removes differential reinforcement as an important variable. That reaction time was sensitive to the probability but not the duration of reinforcement raises interesting questions about the processes reflected in reaction time compared with rate as a response measure.     

Effects of response variability on the sensitivity of rule-governed behavior

Two experiments examined the relation between response variability and sensitivity to changes in reinforcement contingencies. In Experiment 1, two groups of college students were provided complete instructions regarding a button-pressing task; the instructions stated “press the button 40 times for each point” (exchangeable for money). Two additional groups received incomplete instructions that omitted the pattern of responding required for reinforcement under the same schedule. Sensitivity was tested in one completely instructed and one incompletely instructed group after responding had met a stability criterion, and for the remaining two groups after a short exposure to the original schedule. The three groups of subjects whose responding was completely instructed or who had met the stability criterion showed little variability at the moment of change in the reinforcement schedule. The responding of these three groups also was insensitive to the contingency change. Incompletely instructed short-exposure responding was more variable at the moment of schedule change and was sensitive to the new contingency in four of six cases. In Experiment 2, completely and incompletely instructed responding first met a stability criterion. This was followed by a test that showed no sensitivity to a contingency change. A strategic instruction was then presented that stated variable responding would work best. Five of 6 subjects showed increased variability after this instruction, and all 6 showed sensitivity to contingency change. The findings are discussed from a selectionist perspective that describes response acquisition as a process of variation, selection, and maintenance. From this perspective, sensitivity to contingency changes is described as a function of variables that produce response variability.     

Short-term memory in the pigeon: the previously reinforced response

Eighteen pigeons served in a discrete-trials short-term memory experiment in which the reinforcement probability for a peck on one of two keys depended on the response reinforced on the previous trial: either the probability of reinforcement on a trial was 0.8 for the same response reinforced on the previous trial and was 0.2 for the other response (Group A), or, it was 0 or 0.2 for the same response and 1.0 or 0.8 for the other response (Group B). A correction procedure ensured that over all trials reinforcement was distributed equally across the left and right keys. The optimal strategy was either a winstay, lose-shift strategy (Group A) or a win-shift, lose-stay strategy (Group B). The retention interval, that is the intertrial interval, was varied. The average probability of choosing the optimal alternative reinforced 80% of the time was 0.96, 0.84, and 0.74 after delays of 2.5, 4.0, and 6.0 sec, respectively for Group A, and was 0.87, 0.81, and 0.55 after delays of 2.5, 4.0, and 6.0 sec, respectively, for Group B. This outcome is consistent with the view that behavior approximated the optimal response strategy but only to an extent permitted by a subject's short-term memory for the cue correlated with reinforcement, that is, its own most-recently reinforced response. More generally, this result is consistent with “molecular” analyses of operant behavior, but is inconsistent with traditional “molar” analyses holding that fundamental controlling relations may be discovered by routinely averaging over different local reinforcement contingencies. In the present experiment, the molar results were byproducts of local reinforcement contingencies involving an organism's own recent behavior.     

Partial avoidance contingencies: Absolute omission and punishment probabilities

Avoidance contingencies were defined by the absolute probability of the conjunction of responding or not responding with shock or no shock. The “omission” probability (ρ₀₀) is the probability of no response and no shock. The “punishment” probability (ρ₁₁) is the probability of both a response and a shock. The traditional avoidance contingency never omits shock on nonresponse trials (ρ₀₀=0) and never presents shock on response trials (ρ₁₁=0). Rats were trained on a discrete-trial paradigm with no intertrial interval. The first lever response changed an auditory stimulus for the remainder of the trial. Shocks were delivered only at the end of each trial cycle. After initial training under the traditional avoidance contingency, one group of rats experienced changes in omission probability (ρ₀₀>0), holding punishment probability at zero. The second group of rats were studied under different punishment probability values (ρ₁₁>0), holding omission probability at zero. Data from subjects in the omission group looked similar, showing graded decrements in responding with increasing probability of omission. These subjects approximately “matched” their nonresponse frequencies to the programmed probability of shock omission on nonresponse trials, producing a very low and approximately constant conditional probability of shock given no response. Subjects in the punishment group showed different sensitivity to increasing absolute punishment probability. Some subjects decreased responding to low values as punishment probability increased, while others continued to respond at substantial levels even when shock was inevitable on all trials (noncontingent shock schedule). These results confirm an asymmetry between two dimensions of partial avoidance contingencies. When the consequences of not responding included occasional omission of shock, all subjects showed graded sensitivity to changes in omission frequency. When the consequences of responding included occasional shock delivery, some subjects showed graded sensitivity to punishment frequency while others showed control by overall shock frequency as well.     

Performances on ratio and interval schedules of reinforcement: Data and theory

Two differences between ratio and interval performance are well known: (a) Higher rates occur on ratio schedules, and (b) ratio schedules are unable to maintain responding at low rates of reinforcement (ratio “strain”). A third phenomenon, a downturn in response rate at the highest rates of reinforcement, is well documented for ratio schedules and is predicted for interval schedules. Pigeons were exposed to multiple variable-ratio variable-interval schedules in which the intervals generated in the variable-ratio component were programmed in the variable-interval component, thereby “yoking” or approximately matching reinforcement in the two components. The full range of ratio performances was studied, from strained to continuous reinforcement. In addition to the expected phenomena, a new phenomenon was observed: an upturn in variable-interval response rate in the midrange of rates of reinforcement that brought response rates on the two schedules to equality before the downturn at the highest rates of reinforcement. When the average response rate was corrected by eliminating pausing after reinforcement, the downturn in response rate vanished, leaving a strictly monotonic performance curve. This apparent functional independence of the postreinforcement pause and the qualitative shift in response implied by the upturn in variable-interval response rate suggest that theoretical accounts will require thinking of behavior as partitioned among at least three categories, and probably four: postreinforcement activity, other unprogrammed activity, ratio-typical operant behavior, and interval-typical operant behavior.     

Quantification of rats' behavior during reinforcement periods

What is treated as a single unit of reinforcement often involves what could be called a reinforcement period during which two or more acts of ingestion may occur, and each of these may have associated with it a series of responses, some reflexive, some learned, that lead up to ingestion. Food-tray presentation to a pigeon is an example of such a “reinforcement period.” In order to quantify this behavior, a continuous-reinforcement schedule was used as the reinforcement period and was chained to a fixed-ratio schedule. Both fixed-ratio size and reinforcement-period duration were manipulated. Rats were used as subjects, food as reinforcement, and a lever press as the operant. Major findings included (a) a rapid decline in response rates during the first 15 to 20 seconds of the reinforcement periods, and (b) a strong positive relationship between these response rates and the size of the fixed ratio. Also revealed was a short scallop not normally found in fixed-ratio response patterns, whose length was a function of fixed-ratio size and reinforcement-period duration. It is suggested that rapidly fluctuating excitatory processes can account for many of these findings and that such processes are functionally significant in terms of behavioral compensation.     

Interaction of methadone, reinforcement history, and variable-interval performance.

In the present study, we examined how a reinforcement schedule history that generated high or low rates of responding influenced the effects of acute (Experiment 1) and chronic (Experiment 2) methadone administration. Initially, key-peck responses of pigeons were maintained under a variable-interval 90-s schedule of food presentation, and a methadone dose-response curve was determined with doses of 0.6, 1.2, and 2.4 mg/kg. The pigeons were then exposed, for at least 40 sessions, to either a fixed-ratio 50 schedule or a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 10-s schedule, or were given continued exposure to the variable-interval schedule. The methadone dose-response curve was redetermined after all pigeons again were responding under the variable-interval schedule. The effects of two different daily methadone doses (9.0 and 12.0 mg/kg/day) and withdrawal precipitated by naloxone also were assessed. Experience with a fixed-ratio or differential reinforcement of low rate schedule did not result in significantly different response rates under the variable-interval schedule and, in general, the acute effects of methadone did not have differential effects correlated with schedule history. However, for 2 of 4 subjects the rate-decreasing effects of methadone on rates of key pecking were greater following a history of low-rate responding, suggesting a possible interaction between schedule history and effects of methadone. Daily methadone administration under the variable-interval schedule revealed that pigeons with experience under the differential reinforcement of low rate schedule developed more rapid and complete tolerance to the rate-decreasing effects of methadone. Three of the 4 subjects in this group showed rate increases above drug-free baselines during chronic methadone dosing. Pigeons with a history of fixed-ratio responding also developed tolerance to the rate-decreasing effects of methadone but without the subsequent rate increases seen by subjects with low-rate histories. No subjects with variable-interval histories showed complete recovery of drug-free baselines, suggesting that interpolated training under other schedules may attenuate the rate-altering effects of chronically administered drugs. Naloxone (1.0 mg/kg), administered during the chronic methadone phase, resulted in greater disruption of responding by pigeons with a history of low-rate responding, as compared to subjects in the other two groups.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

The role of verbal behavior in human learning: II. Developmental differences

When children in four different age ranges operated a response device, reinforcers were presented according to fixed-interval schedules ranging in value from 10 to 70 seconds. Only the behavior of the subjects in the youngest of the four groups, the preverbal infants, resembled that of other animal species. The children in age ranges 5 to 6½ and 7½ to 9 years exhibited either the low-rate or high-rate response patterns typical of human adults. Those who showed the low-rate pattern reported a time-based formulation of the contingencies and some of them were observed to occasionally count out the interval before responding. The performance of children aged 2½ to 4 years differed from that of both infants and older children, though containing some patterning elements similar to those produced by the older and younger subjects. The predominant response pattern of the infants consisted of a pause after reinforcement followed by an accelerated rate of responding that terminated when the next reinforcer was delivered. Analysis of postreinforcement-pause duration and response rate showed that infant performance, but not that of the older children, consistently exhibited the same kinds of schedule sensitivity observed in animal behavior. The evidence supports the suggestion that the development of verbal behavior greatly alters human operant performance and may account for many of the differences found between human and animal learning.     

Residence time and choice in concurrent foraging schedules

Five pigeons were trained on a concurrent-schedule analogue of the “some patches are empty” procedure. Two concurrently available alternatives were arranged on a single response key and were signaled by red and green keylights. A subject could travel between these alternatives by responding on a second yellow “switching” key. Following a changeover to a patch, there was a probability (p) that a single reinforcer would be available on that alternative for a response after a time determined by the value of λ, a probability of reinforcement per second. The overall scheduling of reinforcers on the two alternatives was arranged nonindependently, and the available alternative was switched after each reinforcer. In Part 1 of the experiment, the probabilities of reinforcement, ρ_red and ρ_green, were equal on the two alternatives, and the arranged arrival rates of reinforcers, λ_red and λ_green, were varied across conditions. In Part 2, the reinforcer arrival times were arranged to be equal, and the reinforcer probabilities were varied across conditions. In Part 3, both parameters were varied. The results replicated those seen in studies that have investigated time allocation in a single patch: Both response and time allocation to an alternative increased with decreasing values of λ and with increasing values of ρ, and residence times were consistently greater than those that would maximize obtained reinforcer rates. Furthermore, both response- and time-allocation ratios undermatched mean reinforcer-arrival time and reinforcer-frequency ratios.     

The effects of punishment intensity on squirrel monkeys

Responses of squirrel monkeys were maintained by a variable-interval schedule of food reinforcement. Concurrently, punishment consisting of a brief electric shock followed each response. As has been found for pigeons and rats, punishment did not produce extreme, all-or-none reactions. By gradually increasing the punishment intensity it was possible to produce response rates intermediate to no suppression and complete suppression. Similarly, the moment-to-moment response rate was free of extreme fluctuations. A “warm-up” effect occurred in which the punished responses were especially suppressed during the initial part of a session. The pre-punishment performance was negatively accelerated within a session, and punishment reduced the degree of negative acceleration. When punishment was discontinued, responding recovered immediately except when suppression had been complete or prolonged. When the punishment intensity was decreased gradually, more suppression resulted at a given intensity than when intensity was increased gradually. This suggests a “behavioral inertia” effect wherein behavior at a new punishment intensity is biased toward the behavior at the previous value. A corollary generalization is that the larger the change in intensity, the less the behavior at the new value will be biased toward the behavior at the previous value.     

Choice behavior on discrete trials: a demonstration of the occurrence of a response strategy

Three pairs of pigeons were trained to peck at two keys presented simultaneoulsy in discrete trials with intertrial intervals of 1, 22, or 120 sec. Left-key responses incremented the probability of reinforcement for the first right-key response and, conversely, right-key responses incremented the probability of reinforcement for the first left-key response. In terms of relative response rates, it was found that all birds' choices were described by a momentary maximizing strategy, but this fact was not reflected in the detailed sequential statistics for birds with the longer (22 or 120 sec) intertrial intervals. It was hypothesized that choice behavior, in general, may be accurately described by a momentary maximizing sequence, but that prior failures to demonstrate this were due to “errors” in executing the momentary maximizing sequence. These misappropriated responses, which are hypothesized to be randomly distributed among the responses defining the momentary maximizing sequence, caused successive choices to appear to be statistically independent when, in fact, they were not.     

The role of contingencies and "principles of behavioral variation" in pigeons' pecking

Staddon and Simmelhag's proposal that behavior is produced by “principles of behavioral variation” instead of contingencies of reinforcement was tested in two experiments. In the first experiment pigeons were exposed to either a fixed-interval schedule of response-contingent reinforcement, an autoshaping schedule of stimulus-contingent reinforcement, or a fixed-time schedule of noncontingent reinforcement. Pigeons exposed to contingent reinforcement came to peck more rapidly than those exposed to noncontingent reinforcement. Staddon and Simmelhag's “principles of behavioral variation” included the proposal that patterns (interim and terminal) were a function of momentary probability of reinforcement. In the second experiment pigeons were exposed to either a fixed-time or a random-time schedule of noncontingent reinforcement. Pecking showed a constant frequency of occurrence over postfood time on the random-time schedule. Most behavior showed patterns on the fixed-time schedule that differed in overall shape (i.e., interim versus terminal) from those shown on the random-time schedule. It was concluded that both the momentary probability of reinforcement and postfood time can affect patterning.     

Reinforcement omission on temporal go-no-go schedules

Either a partial blackout, or the blackout plus a “feeder flash”, occurred in lieu of reinforcement on two procedures that produced opposite patterns of responding after reinforcement. Response rate was elevated after reinforcement omission on the procedure that produced a “pause-and-respond” pattern following reinforcement, but depressed after reinforcement omission on the procedure that produced a “respond-and-pause” pattern. The effect of blackout plus feeder flash was generally intermediate between the effects of blackout and the effects of reinforcement. These results are consistent with an interpretation of reinforcement omission effects in terms of the discriminative temporal control exerted by reinforcement and stimuli similar to it.     

Species differences in temporal control of behavior II: human performance

Human subjects responded on two panels. A differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule with a limited-hold contingency operated on Panel A. In Condition 1, responses on Panel B produced a stimulus on the panel that signalled whether reinforcement was available on Panel A. In Condition 2, responses on Panel B briefly illuminated a digital clock. In both conditions, performance on Panel A was very efficient; with few exceptions, Panel A was pressed only when reinforcement was available. Thus, in effect, a fixed-interval schedule operated on Panel B. In Condition 1, a “break-and-run” response pattern occurred on Panel B; with increasing temporal parameters, the duration of the postreinforcement pause on Panel B increased linearly while overall response rate and running rate (calculated by excluding the postreinforcement pauses) remained approximately constant. In Condition 2, the response pattern on Panel B was scalloped; the postreinforcement pause was a negatively accelerated increasing function of schedule value, while overall response rate and running rate were negatively accelerated decreasing functions of schedule value. The performance of subjects in Condition 2, but not in Condition 1, was highly sensitive to the contingencies in operation, and resembled that of other species on the fixed-interval schedule.     

Effects of hunger and VI value on VI pacing

In two experiments, each involving four rats, responses preceded by an inter-response time between 8 and 10 sec in duration were intermittently reinforced. In Experiment I, final performance was compared under two hunger levels, while the frequency of reinforcement was held constant by a VI 5 schedule. In Experiment II, hunger was held constant and VI 3 was compared with VI 8. Both hunger and frequency of reinforcement increased the over-all rate of response, but the exact effects of these operations on temporal discrimination were different for different rats. Usually, a peak “response probability” (IRTs/Op ratio) was obtained 8 to 10 sec after the preceding response, indicating adaptation to the reinforcement contingency, but in some cases this peak was about 2 sec earlier. One rat exhibited unusually pronounced bursting which seemed to alternate with adaptive temporally spaced responding. Prolonged pauses, observable in the cumulative records, particularly following reinforcement, were attributed to the fact that inter-response times greater than 10 sec were not reinforced, so that as the interval of time since the preceding response became discriminably greater than 10 sec, the probability of a response became small.     

The matching law in and within groups of rats

In each of the two experiments, a group of five rats lived in a complex maze containing four small single-lever operant chambers. In two of these chambers, food was available on variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment I, nine combinations of variable intervals were used, and the aggregate lever-pressing rates (by the five rats together) were studied. The log ratio of the rates in the two chambers was linearly related to the log ratio of the reinforcement rates in them; this is an instance of Herrnstein's matching law, as generalized by Baum. Summing over the two food chambers, food consumption decreased, and response output increased, as the time required to earn each pellet increased. In Experiment II, the behavior of individual rats was observed by time-sampling on selected days, while different variable-interval schedules were arranged in the two chambers where food was available. Individual lever-pressing rates for the rats were obtained, and their median bore the same “matching” relationship to the reinforcement rates as the group aggregate in Experiment I. There were differences between the rats in their distribution of time and responses between the two food chambers; these differences were correlated with differences in the proportions of reinforcements the rats obtained from each chamber.     

Teaching serial position sequences to monkeys with a delayed matching-to-sample procedure

Comparison was made of two methods for training monkeys to “observe” a two-member serial position sequence by pressing two consecutively lighted keys and then to “report” the sequence by pressing the same two keys in the same order but without the lights. A fading technique involving gradual elimination of brightness cues from “reporting” keys was found more effective than a no-fading procedure in which the cues remained bright during training and then were suddenly removed. Animals that failed to learn to report a new sequence with the no-fading procedure sometimes developed behavior incompatible with that desired. They made repeated and specific errors that prematurely terminated trials of the sequence to-be-learned, even though the correct key was cued by a bright light. They behaved appropriately, however, on succeeding trials of other sequences. Thus, the errors were followed by trials on which reinforcement occurred. Manipulation of this contingency indicated its importance in maintaining the stereotyped error patterns.