Unsignaled delay of reinforcement, relative time, and resistance to change

Two experiments with pigeons examined the effects of unsignaled, nonresetting delays of reinforcement on responding maintained by different reinforcement rates. In Experiment 1, 3-s unsignaled delays were introduced into each component of a multiple variable-interval (VI) 15-s VI 90-s VI 540-s schedule. When considered as a proportion of the preceding immediate reinforcement baseline, responding was decreased similarly for the three multiple-schedule components in both the first six and last six sessions of exposure to the delay. In addition, the relation between response rates and reinforcement rates was altered such that both parameters of the single-response version of the matching law (i.e., k and Re) were decreased. Experiment 2 examined the effects of unsignaled delays ranging from 0.5 s to 8.0 s on responding maintained by a multiple VI 20-s VI 120-s schedule of reinforcement. Response rates in both components increased with brief unsignaled delays and decreased with longer delays. As in Experiment 1, response rates as a proportion of baseline were affected similarly for the two components in both the first six and last six sessions of exposure to the delay. Unlike delays imposed between two stimulus events, the effects of delays between responses and reinforcers do not appear to be attenuated when the average time between reinforcers is longer. In addition, the disruptions produced by unsignaled delays appear to be inconsistent with the general finding that responding maintained by higher rates of reinforcement is less resistant to change.     

Responding of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of unsignaled, briefly signaled, and completely signaled delays to reinforcement

In Experiment 1, three pigeons' key pecking was maintained under a variable-interval 60-s schedule of food reinforcement. A 1-s unsignaled nonresetting delay to reinforcement was then added. Rates decreased and stabilized at values below those observed under immediate-reinforcement conditions. A brief stimulus change (key lit red for 0.5 s) was then arranged to follow immediately the peck that began the delay. Response rates quickly returned to baseline levels. Subsequently, rates near baseline levels were maintained with briefly signaled delays of 3 and 9 s. When a 27-s briefly signaled delay was instituted, response rates decreased to low levels. In Experiment 2, four pigeons' responding was first maintained under a multiple variable-interval 60-s (green key) variable-interval 60-s (red key) schedule. Response rates in both components fell to low levels when a 3-s unsignaled delay was added. In the first component delays were then briefly signaled in the same manner as Experiment 1, and in the second component they were signaled with a change in key color that remained until food was delivered. Response rates increased to near baseline levels in both components, and remained near baseline when the delays in both components were lengthened to 9 s. When delays were lengthened to 27 s, response rates fell to low levels in the briefly signaled delay component for three of four pigeons while remaining at or near baseline in the completely signaled delay component. In Experiment 3, low response rates under a 9-s unsignaled delay to reinforcement (tandem variable-interval 60 s fixed-time 9 s) increased when the delay was briefly signaled. The role of the brief stimulus as conditioned reinforcement may be a function of its temporal relation to food, and thus may be related to the eliciting function of the stimulus.     

Effects of cocaine on briefly signaled versus completely signaled delays to reinforcement.

Key pecking by 4 pigeons was maintained by a multiple schedule consisting of two variable-interval 60-s schedules wherein each food presentation followed a nonresetting 27-s delay that was either briefly signaled at its outset or completely signaled. Brief-signal duration was adjusted so that response rates maintained by the briefly and completely signaled delays of reinforcement were similar. In general, acute administration of small to intermediate doses (0.3 to 3.0 mg/kg) of cocaine produced either small increases in response rates in both components or no change, and larger doses (5.6 to 13.0 mg/kg) decreased response rates. Chronic (i.e., daily) cocaine administration (10.0 mg/kg) resulted in tolerance to the rate-decreasing effects in both components. Cocaine's effects were generally similar whether delays were completely or briefly signaled. Discontinuation of cocaine administration and subsequent removal of the delay signals also had similar effects in both components of the multiple schedule. Taken together, these results are consistent with the view that the two types of delay signals were equally effective in maintaining responding during the variable-interval schedules.     

A pharmacological examination of the resistance-to-change hypothesis of response strength.

The effects of d-amphetamine sulfate, sodium pentobarbital, haloperidol, and cholecystokinin-octapeptide were examined within the context of Nevin's (1974, 1979) resistance-to-change hypothesis of response strength. In three experiments, rats' responding was reinforced by delivery of food under chained random-interval 30-s random-interval 30-s, multiple fixed-interval 30-s fixed-interval 120-s, or multiple random-interval 30-s random-interval 120-s schedules. Each rat received several doses of each drug and changes in response rate were measured. The resistance-to-change hypothesis predicts greater disruption of response rate relative to baseline in the initial component of the chained schedule and in the 120-s component of the multiple schedules. In the chained schedule cholecystokinin-octapeptide produced greater reductions in response rate relative to baseline in the initial component. However, no differences between components were observed with haloperidol or sodium pentobarbital, and high doses of d-amphetamine reduced response rate in the terminal component relatively more than in the initial component. In the multiple schedules either no differences were observed between components or response rate was reduced more relative to baseline in the 30-s component. The data fail to support the notion that drugs may be viewed within the same context as other response disruptors such as extinction, satiation, and the presentation of alternative reinforcement.     

Responding of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of signaled-delayed reinforcement: effects of delay-signal duration.

Two experiments with pigeons examined the relation of the duration of a signal for delay ("delay signal") to rates of key pecking. The first employed a multiple schedule comprised of two components with equal variable-interval 60-s schedules of 27-s delayed food reinforcement. In one component, a short (0.5-s) delay signal, presented immediately following the key peck that began the delay, was increased in duration across phases; in the second component the delay signal initially was equal to the length of the programmed delay (27 s) and was decreased across phases. Response rates prior to delays were an increasing function of delay-signal duration. As the delay signal was decreased in duration, response rates were generally higher than those obtained under identical delay-signal durations as the signal was increased in duration. In Experiment 2 a single variable-interval 60-s schedule of 27-s delayed reinforcement was used. Delay-signal durations were again increased gradually across phases. As in Experiment 1, response rates increased as the delay-signal duration was increased. Following the phase during which the signal lasted the entire delay, shorter delay-signal-duration conditions were introduced abruptly, rather than gradually as in Experiment 1, to determine whether the gradual shortening of the delay signal accounted for the differences observed in response rates under identical delay-signal conditions in Experiment 1. Response rates obtained during the second exposures to the conditions with shorter signals were higher than those observed under identical conditions as the signal duration was increased, as in Experiment 1. In both experiments, rates and patterns of responding during delays varied greatly across subjects and were not systematically related to delay-signal durations. The effects of the delay signal may be related to the signal's role as a discriminative stimulus for adventitiously reinforced intradelay behavior, or the delay signal may have served as a conditioned reinforcer by virtue of the temporal relation between it and presentation of food.     

Within-subject testing of the signaled-reinforcement effect on operant responding as measured by response rate and resistance to change

Response rates under random-interval schedules are lower when a brief (500 ms) signal accompanies reinforcement than when there is no signal. The present study examined this signaled-reinforcement effect and its relation to resistance to change. In Experiment 1, rats responded on a multiple random-interval 60-s random-interval 60-s schedule, with signaled reinforcement in only one component. Response resistance to alternative reinforcement, prefeeding, and extinction was compared between these components. Lower response rates, and greater resistance to change, occurred in the component with the reinforcement signal. In Experiment 2, response rates and resistance to change were compared after training on a multiple random-interval 60-s random-interval 60-s schedule in which reinforcer delivery was unsignaled in one component and a response-produced uncorrelated stimulus was presented in the other component. Higher response rates and greater resistance to change occurred with the uncorrelated stimulus. These results highlight the significance of considering the effects of an uncorrelated signal when used as a control condition, and challenge accounts of resistance to change that depend solely on reinforcer rate.     

Some temporal parameters of non-contingent reinforcement

In each baseline session, pigeons were exposed to a multiple schedule in which each of five distinctive stimuli was correlated with a different frequency of reinforcement. In one component, responses were reinforced with a probability of 0.10 (random-ratio schedule); in the other four components, responses were reinforced with different scheduled temporal frequencies averaging 30 to 240 sec between reinforcements (random-interval schedules). For periods lasting 30 sessions, contingent reinforcement was discontinued and reinforcement was presented independent of responding at irregular intervals averaging 30, 60, or 120 sec, while the sequence of stimuli continued. After each such period, the baseline was reinstated for 30 sessions. The data indicated that: (1) The rate of responding in the presence of all stimuli decreased as exposure to the non-contingent reinforcement procedure was prolonged, at all the frequencies of reinforcement employed; (2) The rate under the random-ratio schedule declined faster than the rates under all the random-interval schedules, presumably because the decrease in reinforcement frequency under this stimulus condition was greatest; (3) The decline in rates of responding under the stimuli correlated with the random-interval schedules tended to be greatest for the stimuli paired with the lowest frequencies of reinforcement.     

Changes in functional response units with briefly delayed reinforcement

In two experiments, key-peck responding of pigeons was compared under variable-interval schedules that arranged immediate reinforcement and ones that arranged unsignaled delays of reinforcement. Responses during the nominal unsignaled delay periods had no effect on the reinforcer presentations. In Experiment 1, the unsignaled delays were studied using variable-interval schedules as baselines. Relative to the immediate reinforcement condition, 0.5-s unsignaled delays decreased the duration of the reinforced interresponse times and increased the overall frequency of short (<0.5-s) interresponse times. Longer, 5.0-s unsignaled delays increased the duration of the reinforced interresponse times and decreased the overall frequency of the short interresponse times. In Experiment 2, similar effects to those of Experiment 1 were obtained when the 0.5-s unsignaled delays were imposed upon a baseline schedule that explicitly arranged reinforcement of short interresponse times and therefore already generated a large number of short interresponse times. The results support earlier suggestions that the unsignaled 0.5-s delays change the functional response unit from a single key peck to a multiple key-peck unit. These findings are discussed in terms of the mechanisms by which contingencies control response structure in the absence of specific structural requirements.     

Briefly delayed reinforcement: An interresponse time analysis

Key-peck responding of pigeons was compared under VI or DRL schedules arranging immediate reinforcement and briefly (.5 sec) delayed reinforcement. Delays were either signaled by a blackout in the chamber, unsignaled, or unsignaled with an additional requirement that responding not occur during the .5 sec interval immediately preceding reinforcement (response delay). Relative to the immediate reinforcement condition, response rates increased during the unsignaled delay, decreased during the signaled delay, and were inconsistent during the response delay condition. An analysis of interresponse times (IRTs) under the different conditions revealed a substantial increase in the frequency of short (0 to .5 sec) IRTs during the unsignaled condition and generally during the response delay conditions compared to that during the immediate reinforcement baseline. Signaled delays decreased the frequency of short (0 to .5 sec) IRTs relative to the immediate reinforcement condition. The results suggest that brief unsignaled delays and, in many instances, response delays increase the frequency of short IRTs by eliminating constraints on responding.     

A comparison of delays and ratio requirements in self-control choice.

In a discrete-trial procedure, pigeons could choose between 2-s and 6-s access to grain by making a single key peck. In Phase 1, the pigeons obtained both reinforcers by responding on fixed-ratio schedules. In Phase 2, they received both reinforcers after simple delays, arranged by fixed-time schedules, during which no responses were required. In Phase 3, the 2-s reinforcer was available through a fixed-time schedule and the 6-s reinforcer was available through a fixed-ratio schedule. In all conditions, the size of the delay or ratio leading to the 6-s reinforcer was systematically increased or decreased several times each session, permitting estimation of an "indifference point," the schedule size at which a subject chose each alternative equally often. By varying the size of the schedule for the 2-s reinforcer across conditions, several such indifference points were obtained from both fixed-time conditions and fixed-ratio conditions. The resulting "indifference curves" from fixed-time conditions and from fixed-ratio conditions were similar in shape, and they suggested that a hyperbolic equation describes the relation between ratio size and reinforcement value as well as the relation between reinforcer delay and its reinforcement value. The results from Phase 3 showed that subjects chose fixed-time schedules over fixed-ratio schedules that generated the same average times between a choice response and reinforcement.     

Resistance to change of responding maintained by unsignaled delays to reinforcement: a response-bout analysis

Previous experiments have shown that unsignaled delayed reinforcement decreases response rates and resistance to change. However, the effects of different delays to reinforcement on underlying response structure have not been investigated in conjunction with tests of resistance to change. In the present experiment, pigeons responded on a three-component multiple variable-interval schedule for food presented immediately, following brief (0.5 s), or following long (3 s) unsignaled delays of reinforcement. Baseline response rates were lowest in the component with the longest delay; they were about equal with immediate and briefly delayed reinforcers. Resistance to disruption by presession feeding, response-independent food during the intercomponent interval, and extinction was slightly but consistently lower as delays increased. Because log survivor functions of interresponse times (IRTs) deviated from simple modes of bout initiations and within-bout responding, an IRT-cutoff method was used to examine underlying response structure. These analyses suggested that baseline rates of initiating bouts of responding decreased as scheduled delays increased, and within-bout response rates tended to be lower in the component with immediate reinforcers. The number of responses per bout was not reliably affected by reinforcer delay, but tended to be highest with brief delays when total response rates were higher in that component. Consistent with previous findings, resistance to change of overall response rate was highly correlated with resistance to change of bout-initiation rates but not with within-bout responding. These results suggest that unsignaled delays to reinforcement affect resistance to change through changes in the probability of initiating a response bout rather than through changes in the underlying response structure.     

Effects of delayed conditioned reinforcement in chain schedules.

The contingency between responding and stimulus change on a chain variable-interval 33-s, variable-interval 33-s, variable-interval 33-s schedule was weakened by interposing 3-s delays between either the first and second or the second and third links. No stimulus change signaled the delay interval and responses could occur during it, so the obtained delays were often shorter than the scheduled delay. When the delay occurred after the initial link, initial-link response rates decreased by an average of 77% with no systematic change in response rates in the second or third links. Response rates in the second link decreased an average of 59% when the delay followed that link, again with little effect on response rates in the first or third links. Because the effect of delaying stimulus change was comparable to the effect of delaying primary reinforcement in a simple variable-interval schedule, and the effect of the unsignaled delay was specific to the link in which the delay occurred, the results provide strong evidence for the concept of conditioned reinforcement.     

Key pecking of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of briefly signaled delayed reinforcement: effects of variable-interval value.

Key pecking of 4 pigeons was maintained under a multiple variable-interval 20-s variable-interval 120-s schedule of food reinforcement. When rates of key pecking were stable, a 5-s unsignaled, nonresetting delay to reinforcement separated the first peck after an interval elapsed from reinforcement in both components. Rates of pecking decreased substantially in both components. When rates were stable, the situation was changed such that the peck that began the 5-s delay also changed the color of the keylight for 0.5 s (i.e., the delay was briefly signaled). Rates increased to near-immediate reinforcement levels. In subsequent conditions, delays of 10 and 20 s, still briefly signaled, were tested. Although rates of key pecking during the component with the variable-interval 120-s schedule did not change appreciably across conditions, rates during the variable-interval 20-s component decreased greatly in 1 pigeon at the 10-s delay and decreased in all pigeons at the 20-s delay. In a control condition, the variable-interval 20-s schedule with 20-s delays was changed to a variable-interval 35-s schedule with 5-s delays, thus equating nominal rates of reinforcement. Rates of pecking increased to baseline levels. Rates of pecking, then, depended on the value of the briefly signaled delay relative to the programmed interfood times, rather than on the absolute delay value. These results are discussed in terms of similar findings in the literature on conditioned reinforcement, delayed matching to sample, and classical conditioning.     

Effects of reinforcement history on response rate and response pattern in periodic reinforcement

Several researchers have suggested that conditioning history may have long-term effects on fixed-interval performances of rats. To test this idea and to identify possible factors involved in temporal control development, groups of rats initially were exposed to different reinforcement schedules: continuous, fixed-time, and random-interval. Afterwards, half of the rats in each group were studied on a fixed-interval 30-s schedule of reinforcement and the other half on a fixed-interval 90-s schedule of reinforcement. No evidence of long-term effects attributable to conditioning history on either response output or response patterning was found; history effects were transitory. Different tendencies in trajectory across sessions were observed for measures of early and late responding within the interreinforcer interval, suggesting that temporal control is the result of two separate processes: one involved in response output and the other in time allocation of responding and not responding.     

The long-term effect of high- and low-rate responding histories on fixed-interval responding in rats

Tell rats were given extended lever-press training on a fixed-interval (FI) 30-s food reinforcement schedule from the outset or following exposure to one or two previous reinforcement schedules. For 4 rats the previots schedule was either fixed-ratio 20, which generated high response rates, or differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 20 s, which produced low response rates. For 4 additional rats the extended training on FI 30 s was preceded by experience with two schedules: fixed-ratio 20 followed by differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 20 s; or the same two schedules in the reverse order. Fixed-interval response rates were initially affected by the immediately preceding schedule, but after 80 to 100 sessions, all traces of prior schedule history had disappeared. The results also showed no long-term effect of schedule history on the interfood-interval patterns of responding on the FI 30-s schedule. These results support one of the most central tenets of the experimental analysis of behavior: control by the immediate consequences of behavior.     

Methodological improvements to a Procedure for Rapidly Establishing Steady-State Behavior

We performed three experiments to improve the quality and retention of data obtained from a Procedure for Rapidly Establishing Steady-State Behavior (PRESS-B; Klapes et al., 2020). In Experiment 1, 120 participants worked on nine concurrent random-interval random-interval (conc RI RI) schedules and were assigned to four conditions of varying changeover delay (COD) length. The 0.5-s COD condition group exhibited the fewest instances of exclusive reinforcer acquisition. Importantly, this group did not differ in generalized matching law (GML) fit quality from the other groups. In Experiment 2, 60 participants worked on nine conc RI RI schedules with a wider range of scheduled reinforcement rate ratios than was used in Experiment 1. Participants showed dramatic reductions in exclusive reinforcer acquisition. Experiment 3 entailed a replication of Experiment 2 wherein blackout periods were implemented between the schedule presentations and each schedule remained in operation until at least one reinforcer was acquired on each alternative. GML fit quality was slightly more consistent in Experiment 3 than in the previous experiments. Thus, these results suggest that future PRESS-B studies should implement a shorter COD, a wider and richer scheduled reinforcement rate ratio range, and brief blackouts between schedule presentations for optimal data quality and retention.     

Response induction during the acquisition and maintenance of lever pressing with delayed reinforcement

The acquisition of lever pressing by rats and the occurrence of unreinforced presses at a location different from that of the reinforced response were studied using different delays of reinforcement. An experimental chamber containing seven identical adjoining levers was used. Only presses on the central (operative) lever produced food pellets. Groups of 3 rats were exposed to one of seven different tandem random-interval (RI) fixed-time (FT) schedules. The average RI duration was the complement of the FT duration such that their sum yielded a nominal 32-s interreinforcement interval on average. Response rate on the operative lever decreased as the FT value was lengthened. The spatial distribution of responses on the seven levers converged on the operative lever when the FT was 0 or 2 s and spread across the seven levers as the FT value was lengthened to 16 or 32 s. Presses on the seven levers were infrequent during the FT schedule. Both operative- and inoperative-lever pressing intertwined in repetitive patterns that were consistent within subjects but differed between subjects. These findings suggest that reinforcer delay determined the response-induction gradient.     

A comparison of signaled and unsignaled delay of reinforcement

Pigeons were trained on either a variable-interval 60-second schedule, or on a schedule that differentially reinforced responses that were spaced at least 20 seconds apart. The birds were then exposed to several durations of reinforcement delay, with comparisons between signaled and unsignaled delays. Although unsignaled delays of 5 and 10 seconds produced large decreases in response rate, signaled delays of up to 10 seconds produced only moderate decreases in response rates. In addition, some subjects responded more rapidly with a .5 or 1.0 second duration of unsignaled delay than with immediate reinforcement. These response rate changes occurred regardless of whether the rate of reinforcement concomitantly decreased or increased.     

Timeout postponement without increased reinforcement frequency

Three experiments were conducted to examine pigeons' postponement of signaled extinction periods (timeouts) from a schedule of food reinforcement when such responding neither decreased overall timeout frequency nor increased the overall frequency of food reinforcement. A discrete-trial procedure was used in which a response during the first 5 s of a trial postponed an otherwise immediate 60-s timeout to a later part of that same trial but had no effect on whether the timeout occurred. During time-in periods, responses on a second key produced food according to a random-interval 20-s schedule. In Experiment 1, the response-timeout interval was 45 s under postponement conditions and 0 s under extinction conditions (responses were ineffective in postponing timeouts). The percentage of trials with a response was consistently high when the timeout-postponement contingency was in effect and decreased to low levels when it was discontinued under extinction conditions. In Experiment 2, the response-timeout interval was also 45 s but postponement responses increased the duration of the timeout, which varied from 60 s to 105 s across conditions. Postponement responding was maintained, generally at high levels, at all timeout durations, despite sometimes large decreases in the overall frequency of food reinforcement. In Experiment 3, timeout duration was held constant at 60 s while the response-timeout interval was varied systematically across conditions from 0 s to 45 s. Postponement responding was maintained under all conditions in which the response-timeout interval exceeded 0 s (the timeout interval in the absence of a response). In some conditions of Experiment 3, which were designed to control for the immediacy of food reinforcement and food-correlated (time-in) stimuli, responding postponed timeout but the timeout was delayed whether a response occurred or not. Responding was maintained for 2 of 3 subjects, suggesting that behavior was negatively reinforced by timeout postponement rather than positively reinforced by the more immediate presentation of food or food-correlated (time-in) stimuli.