Momentary maximizing in concurrent schedules with a minimum interchangeover interval

Eight pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules with a minimum interchangeover time programmed as a consequence of changeovers. In Experiment 1 the reinforcement schedules remained constant while the minimum interchangeover time varied from 0 to 200 s. Relative response rates and relative time deviated from relative reinforcement rates toward indifference with long minimum interchangeover times. In Experiment 2 different reinforcement ratios were scheduled in successive experimental conditions with the minimum interchangeover time constant at 0, 2, 10, or 120 s. The exponent of the generalized matching equation was close to 1.0 when the minimum interchangeover time was 0 s (the typical procedure for concurrent schedules without a changeover delay) and decreased as that duration was increased. The data support the momentary maximizing theory and contradict molar maximizing theories and the melioration theory.     

Local patterns of responding maintained by concurrent and multiple schedules

Local patterns of responding were studied when pigeons pecked for food in concurrent variable-interval schedules (Experiment I) and in multiple variable-interval schedules (Experiment II). In Experiment I, similarities in the distribution of interresponse times on the two keys provided further evidence that responding on concurrent schedules is determined more by allocation of time than by changes in local pattern of responding. Relative responding in local intervals since a preceding reinforcement showed consistent deviations from matching between relative responding and relative reinforcement in various postreinforcement intervals. Response rates in local intervals since a preceding changeover showed that rate of responding is not the same on both keys in all postchangeover intervals. The relative amount of time consumed by interchangeover times of a given duration approximately matched relative frequency of reinforced interchangeover times of that duration. However, computer simulation showed that this matching was probably a necessary artifact of concurrent schedules. In Experiment II, when component durations were 180 sec, the relationship between distribution of interresponse times and rate of reinforcement in the component showed that responding was determined by local pattern of responding in the components. Since responding on concurrent schedules appears to be determined by time allocation, this result would establish a behavioral difference between multiple and concurrent schedules. However, when component durations were 5 sec, local pattern of responding in a component (defined by interresponse times) was less important in determining responding than was amount of time spent responding in a component (defined by latencies). In fact, with 5-sec component durations, the relative amount of time spent responding in a component approximately matched relative frequency of reinforcement in the component. Thus, as component durations in multiple schedules decrease, multiple schedules become more like concurrent schedules, in the sense that responding is affected by allocation of time rather than by local pattern of responding.     

Strict and random alternation in concurrent variable-interval schedules

Six pigeons responded on pairs of concurrent variable-interval schedules with, in different parts, four different arrangements of alternation between schedules. Following a single switching-key response, alternation was either strict or random, and the alternative presented after a switch (the postswitch alternative) was either signaled by the location of the switching key or unsignaled. Generalized-matching analyses showed little difference in behavior among the different alternation arrangements, except the usual finding of lower sensitivity of response allocation than time allocation was eliminated by arranging random alternation. Patterns of interchangeover times were similar for all arrangements except signaled random alternation. Differences in behavior preceding the different postswitch alternatives were found in the signaled random alternation procedure. Preference was biased towards the color of the signaled postswitch alternative and showed increased sensitivity when the postswitch alternative was to be the one with the higher reinforcer rate. Interchangeover times were substantially shorter when the postswitch alternative was signaled to be different from the current alternative than when it was signaled to be the same. However, when separate reinforcer ratios were calculated for the different postswitch alternatives, those effects were eliminated or greatly reduced. We suggest that, although behavior is indeed influenced by the postswitch alternative, the mechanism is indirect. That is, the distributions of reinforcers between alternatives obtained before each postswitch alternative differ when those alternatives are signaled, and those distributions are discriminated, but the same relations between choice and relative reinforcement hold irrespective of which postswitch alternative is signaled.     

Sensitivity of time allocation to concurrent-schedule reinforcement

Four pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules programmed on a center response key, with access to those schedules controlled by responses on left or right side keys. Two procedures were used. In one, the pigeon was given limited access, in that each side-key response produced 3-s access to a center-key schedule, and in the other procedure, access was unlimited. Data were analyzed using the generalized matching law. Comparison of sensitivities to reinforcement of interchangeover time for both procedures showed them to be of similar magnitude. Response sensitivities were also similar in magnitude for both procedures. From the limited-access procedure a second time measure that was available, switched-in time, was relatively uncontaminated by time spent emitting behavior other than key pecking. Sensitivities to reinforcement for the switched-in time measure were always smaller than interchangeover-time sensitivities for either procedure, and were approximately equal to response sensitivities for the limited-access procedure. Two other access times (5 and 7.5 s) were studied to validate the choice of 3 s as the main access time. These results indicate that when time spent emitting other behavior is excluded from interchangeover time, time and response sensitivities will be approximately equal.     

Concurrent schedules: Maximization versus reinforcement of changeover behaviour

Pigeons responded on concurrent variable-interval 180-sec variable-interval 36-sec schedules during Conditions 1 and 3 of Experiment 1. Condition 2 arranged variable-interval 60-sec schedules for both response alternatives. The schedule assigned to the alternative that was associated with the variable-interval 36-sec schedule in Conditions 1 and 3 operated only when the subject responded on that alternative. The proportion of time spent responding on the alternative with the conventional variable-interval 60-sec schedule increased during Condition 2, but exclusive choice of that alternative did not develop. This result is inconsistent with maximization of the overall reinforcement rate and with maximization of the momentary probability of reinforcement (momentary maximizing). Increasing time proportions were also found in Experiment 2, which arranged similar conditions, except that reinforcement was provided on a variable-time basis. The time proportions were close to the momentary maximizing prediction in Experiment 2. The results of both experiments can be explained if it is assumed that time allocation is controlled by delayed reinforcement of changeovers between alternatives.     

Sensitivity to relative reinforcer rate in concurrent schedules: independence from relative and absolute reinforcer duration

Twelve pigeons responded on two keys under concurrent variable-interval (VI) schedules. Over several series of conditions, relative and absolute magnitudes of reinforcement were varied. Within each series, relative rate of reinforcement was varied and sensitivity of behavior ratios to reinforcer-rate ratios was assessed. When responding at both alternatives was maintained by equal-sized small reinforcers, sensitivity to variation in reinforcer-rate ratios was the same as when large reinforcers were used. This result was observed when the overall rate of reinforcement was constant over conditions, and also in another series of concurrent schedules in which one schedule was kept constant at VI ached 120 s. Similarly, reinforcer magnitude did not affect the rate at which response allocation approached asymptote within a condition. When reinforcer magnitudes differred between the two responses and reinforcer-rate ratios were varied, sensitivity of behavior allocation was unaffected although response bias favored the schedule that arranged the larger reinforcers. Analysis of absolute response rates ratio sensitivity to reinforcement occurrred on the two keys showed that this invariance of response despite changes in reinforcement interaction that were observed in absolute response rates on the constant VI 120-s schedule. Response rate on the constant VI 120-s schedule was inversely related to reinforcer rate on the varied key and the strength of this relation depended on the relative magnitude of reinforcers arranged on varied key. Independence of sensitivity to reinforcer-rate ratios from relative and absolute reinforcer magnitude is consistent with the relativity and independence assumtions of the matching law.     

Choice and rate of reinforcement

Pigeons' responses in the presence of two concurrently available (initial-link) stimuli produced one of two different (terminal-link) stimuli. The rate of reinforcement in the presence of one terminal-link stimulus was three times that of the other. Three different pairs of identical but independent variable-interval schedules controlled entry into the terminal links. When the intermediate pair was in effect, the pigeons distributed their (choice) responses in the presence of the concurrently available stimuli of the initial links in the same proportion as reinforcements were distributed in the mutually exclusive terminal links. This finding was consistent with those of earlier studies. When either the pair of larger or smaller variable-interval schedules was in effect, however, proportions of choice responses did not match proportions of reinforcements. In addition, matching was not obtained when entry into the terminal links was controlled by unequal variable-interval schedules. A formulation consistent with extant data states that choice behavior is dependent upon the amount of reduction in the expected time to primary reinforcement, as signified by entry into one terminal link, relative to the amount of reduction in expected time to reinforcement signified by entry into the other terminal link.     

Molecular contingencies in schedules of intermittent punishment

In two experiments, key pecking of pigeons was maintained by a variable-interval 180-s schedule of food presentation. Conjointly, a second schedule delivered response-dependent electric shock. In the first experiment, shocks were presented according to either a variable-interval or a nondifferential interval-percentile schedule. The variable-interval shock schedule differentially delivered shocks following long interresponse times. Although the nondifferential shock schedules delivered shocks less differentially with respect to interresponse times, the two shock schedules equally reduced the relative frequency of long interresponse times. The second experiment differentially shocked long or short interresponse times in different conditions, with resulting decreases in the relative frequency of the targeted interresponse times. These experiments highlight the importance of selecting the appropriate level of analysis for the interaction of behavior and environment. Orderly relations present at one level of analysis (e.g., interresponse times) may not be revealed at other levels of analysis (e.g., overall response rate).     

Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate of reinforcement

Responding by pigeons on one key of a two-key chamber alternated the color of the second key, on which responding produced food according to a variable-interval schedule of reinforcement. From time to time, reinforcement would be available for a response, but in the presence of a particular stimulus, either red or green light on the key. Red or green was chosen irregularly from reinforcement to reinforcement, so that a proportion of the total number of reinforcements could be specified for each color. Experimental manipulations involved variations of (1) the proportions for each color, (2) changeover delay, or, alternatively, (3) a fixed-ratio changeover requirement. The main findings were: (1) relative overall rates of responding and relative times in the presence of a key color approximated the proportions of reinforcements obtained in the presence of that color, while relative local rates of responding changed little; (2) changeover rate decreased as the proportions diverged from 0.50; (3) relative overall rate of responding and relative time remained constant as the changeover delay was increased from 2 to 32 sec, with reinforcement proportions for red and green of 0.75 and 0.25, but they increased above 0.90 when a fixed-ratio changeover of 20 responses replaced the changeover delay; (4) changeover rate decreased as the delay or fixed-ratio was increased.     

Synthetic variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

Three pigeons pecked for food on a synthetic variable-interval schedule of reinforcement that had two independent parts: a variable-interval schedule that arranged a distribution of interreinforcement intervals, and a device that randomly assigned each reinforcement to one of 10 classes of interresponse times. The frequencies of reinforcement for the 10 classes of interresponse times were systematically varied, while the overall frequency of reinforcement was held within a comparatively narrow range. The 10 classes extended either from 0.1 to 0.6 sec in 0.05-sec intervals, or from 1.0 to 6.0 sec in 0.5-sec intervals. In the former case, some control by reinforcement was obtained, but it was weak and no simple relationships were discernible. In the latter case, the relative frequency of an interresponse time was a generally increasing function of its relative frequency of reinforcement, and two simple controlling relationships were found. First, the function relating interresponse times per opportunity to reinforcements per opportunity was, over a restricted range, approximately linear with a slope of unity. Second, when all 10 classes of interresponse times were reinforced equally often, the relative frequency of an interresponse time approximately equalled the relative reciprocal of its length.     

A quantitative analysis of the responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement

Interval schedules of reinforcement maintained pigeons' key-pecking in six experiments. Each schedule was specified in terms of mean interval, which determined the maximum rate of reinforcement possible, and distribution of intervals, which ranged from many-valued (variable-interval) to single-valued (fixed-interval). In Exp. 1, the relative durations of a sequence of intervals from an arithmetic progression were held constant while the mean interval was varied. Rate of responding was a monotonically increasing, negatively accelerated function of rate of reinforcement over a range from 8.4 to 300 reinforcements per hour. The rate of responding also increased as time passed within the individual intervals of a given schedule. In Exp. 2 and 3, several variable-interval schedules made up of different sequences of intervals were examined. In each schedule, the rate of responding at a particular time within an interval was shown to depend at least in part on the local rate of reinforcement at that time, derived from a measure of the probability of reinforcement at that time and the proximity of potential reinforcements at other times. The functional relationship between rate of responding and rate of reinforcement at different times within the intervals of a single schedule was similar to that obtained across different schedules in Exp. 1. Experiments 4, 5, and 6 examined fixed-interval and two-valued (mixed fixed-interval fixed-interval) schedules, and demonstrated that reinforcement at one time in an interval had substantial effects on responding maintained at other times. It was concluded that the rate of responding maintained by a given interval schedule depends not on the overall rate of reinforcement provided but rather on the summation of different local effects of reinforcement at different times within intervals.     

The concurrent reinforcement of two interresponse times: the relative frequency of an interresponse time equals its relative harmonic length

The relative lengths of two concurrently reinforced interresponse times were varied in an experiment in which three pigeons obtained food by pecking on a single key. Visual discriminative stimuli accompanied the two time intervals in which reinforcements were scheduled according to a one-minute variable-interval. The steady-state relative frequency of an interresponse time approximately equalled the complement of its relative length, that is, its relative harmonic length. Thus, lengths of interresponse times and delays of reinforcement have the same effect on the relative frequencies of interresponse times and choices in one-key and two-key concurrent variable-interval schedules, respectively. A second experiment generalized further the functional equivalence between the effects of these one-key and two-key concurrent schedules by revealing that the usual matching-to-relative-immediacy in two-key concurrent schedules is undisturbed if reinforcement depends upon the occurrence of a response at the end of the delay interval, as it does in the one-key schedules. The results of both experiments are consistent with a quantitative theory of concurrent operant behavior.     

A local-rate-of-response and interresponse-time analysis of behavioral contrast

Three pigeons were exposed to a two-component multiple schedule in which a variable-interval 3-min schedule was always in effect in one component. The schedule in the other component was either variable-interval 3-min or extinction in alternate blocks of sessions. When the schedule was changed from multiple variable-interval 3-min variable-interval 3-min to multiple variable-interval 3-min extinction in the second and fourth phases of the experiment, overall response rates in the unchanged variable-interval 3-min component increased in two pigeons. Response rate declined when the schedule was changed to multiple variable-interval 3-min variable-interval 3-min again. Correlated with increases in overall response rate in the unchanged component were increases in local response rates at the beginning of the unchanged component and immediately after food presentation. Local rates 40 sec after food presentation did not increase greatly in the presence of the multiple variable-interval 3-min extinction schedule. An interresponse time analysis of three local rate samples showed small increases in the relative frequency of short-duration interresponse times at the beginning of the unchanged component and immediately after food presentation. Neither the postreinforcement pause nor the latency to the first response in the unchanged component changed systematically.     

Choice and behavioral patterning

Ten pigeons pecked left and right keys in a discrete-trials experiment in which access to food was contingent upon changeovers to the right key after particular runs of left-key pecks. In each of three sets of conditions, two run lengths were reinforced according to a concurrent variable-interval schedule: reinforcement followed runs of either 1 or 2, 1 or 4, or 2 or 4 left-key pecks preceding changeovers. The intertrial interval separating successive pecks was varied from .5 to 10.0 sec, and the relative frequency of reinforcement for the shorter of the two reinforced runs was varied from 0 to .75. The contingencies established local behavioral patterning that roughly approximated that required for reinforcement. For a fixed pair of reinforced run lengths, preference for the shorter of the two frequently increased as the intertrial interval increased and therefore as the minimum temporal durations of both reinforced runs increased. Preference for the shorter of the two also increased as its corresponding relative frequency of reinforcement increased. Both of these effects on preference were qualitatively similar to corresponding effects in previous research with two different kinds of reinforced behavioral patterns, interresponse times and interchangeover times. In all these experiments, analytical units were found in the temporal patterns of behavior, not in the behavior immediately contiguous with a reinforcer. It is suggested that a particular local temporal pattern of behavior is established to the extent to which it is repeatedly remembered when reinforcers are delivered, regardless of whether the delivery of a reinforcer is explicitly contingent upon that pattern.     

Concurrent schedules: a quantitative relation between changeover behavior and its consequences

Data from several published experiments on concurrent variable-interval schedules were analyzed with respect to the effects of changeover delay on the time spent responding on a schedule before changing to an alternate schedule: i.e., the interchangeover time. Interchangeover time increases as the duration of the changeover delay increases, and the present analysis shows that a power function describes the relation. The power relation applied in spite of numerous differences in the experiments: different variable-interval schedules for the concurrent pairs; equal or unequal reinforcement rates for the schedules of the concurrent pairs; different durations of the changeover delay; response-dependent or response-independent reinforcers; pigeons or rats as subjects; different reinforcers. A power function also described the data in experiments where the changeover incurred a timeout, where a fixed ratio was required to changeover, and also when asymmetrical changeover delays were used.     

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.     

Two-key concurrent paced variable-interval paced variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

Nine pigeons were used in two experiments in which a response was reinforced if a variable-interval schedule had assigned a reinforcement and if the response terminated an interresponse time within a certain interval, or class, of interresponse times. One such class was scheduled on one key, and a second class was scheduled on a second key. The procedure was, therefore, a two-key concurrent paced variable-interval paced variable-interval schedule. In Exp. I, the lengths of the two reinforced interresponse times were varied. The relative frequency of responding on a key approximately equalled the relative reciprocal of the length of the interresponse time reinforced on that key. In Exp. II, the relative frequency and relative magnitude of reinforcement were varied. The relative frequency of responding on the key for which the shorter interresponse time was reinforced was a monotonically increasing, negatively accelerated function of the relative frequency of reinforcement on that key. The relative frequency of responding depended on the relative magnitude of reinforcement in approximately the same way as it depended on the relative frequency of reinforcement. The relative frequency of responding on the key for which the shorter interresponse time was reinforced depended on the lengths of the two reinforced interresponse times and on the relative frequency and relative magnitude of reinforcement in the same way as the relative frequency of the shorter interresponse time depended on these variables in previous one-key concurrent schedules of reinforcement for two interresponse times.     

Concurrent second-order schedules of reinforcement

Responses on one key (the main key) of a two-key chamber produced food according to a second-order variable-interval schedule with fixed-interval schedule components. A response on a second key (the changeover key) alternated colors on the main key and provided a second independent second-order variable-interval schedule with fixed-interval components. The fixed-interval component on one variable-interval schedule was held constant at 8 sec, while the fixed interval on the other variable-interval schedule was varied from 0 to 32 sec. Under some conditions, a brief stimulus terminated each fixed interval and generated fixed-interval patterns; in other conditions, the brief stimulus was omitted. Relative response rate and relative time deviated substantially from scheduled relative reinforcement rate and, to a lesser extent, from obtained relative reinforcement rate under both brief-stimulus and no-stimulus conditions. Matching was observed with equal components on both schedules; with unequal components, increasingly greater proportions of time and responses than the matching relation would predict were spent on the variable-interval schedule containing the shorter component. Preference for the shorter fixed interval was typically more extreme under brief-stimulus than under no-stimulus schedules. The results limit the extension of the matching relation typically observed under simple concurrent variable-interval schedules to concurrent second-order variable-interval schedules.     

Behavioral contrast as differential time allocation

In Experiment I, hooded rats were exposed to multiple variable-interval schedules of reinforcement in which manipulanda and reinforcement magazines at opposite ends of the experimental chamber were associated with the different components. Time allocated to each component was measured by recording the time spent by the subject in the appropriate half of the chamber. Positive behavioral contrast was observed for the comparison between multiple variable-interval 30-second variable-interval 30-second and multiple variable-interval 30-second variable-interval 90-second conditions for both response frequency and time allocation measures, but not for mean local response rate (response frequency per time allocated to a component). In Experiment II, rats were exposed to multiple variable-time schedules in which reinforcement was response independent. Time allocated to each component was measured for two conditions, multiple variable-time 30-second variable-time 30-second and multiple variable-time 30-second variable-time 90-second. Positive behavioral contrast of time allocation was exhibited. The results indicated that time allocation was differentially sensitive to changes in reinforcement probability, and that behavioral contrast may result from the differential allocation of time to the different components of the multiple schedule.     

The general matching law describes choice on concurrent variable-interval schedules of wheel-running reinforcement.

Six male Wistar rats were exposed to concurrent variable-interval schedules of wheel-running reinforcement. The reinforcer associated with each alternative was the opportunity to run for 15 s, and the duration of the changeover delay was 1 s. Results suggested that time allocation was more sensitive to relative reinforcement rate than was response allocation. For time allocation, the mean slopes and intercepts were 0.82 and 0.008, respectively. In contrast, for response allocation, mean slopes and intercepts were 0.60 and 0.03, respectively. Correction for low response rates and high rates of changing over, however, increased slopes for response allocation to about equal those for time allocation. The results of the present study suggest that the two-operant form of the matching law can be extended to wheel-running reinforcement. 'I'he effects of a low overall response rate, a short Changeover delay, and long postreinforcement pausing on the assessment of matching in the present study are discussed.