Contextual influences on resistance to disruption in children with intellectual disabilities

Training context can influence resistance to disruption under differing reinforcement schedules. With nonhumans, when relatively lean and rich reinforcement schedules are experienced in the context of a multiple schedule, greater resistance is found in the rich than the lean component, as described by behavioral momentum theory. By contrast, when the schedules are experienced in separated blocks of sessions (i.e., as single schedules), resistance is not consistently greater in either component. In the current study, two groups of 6 children with intellectual disabilities responded to stimuli presented in relatively lean or rich components. For both, reinforcers were delivered according to the same variable-interval reinforcement schedule; additionally, the rich component included the delivery of response-independent reinforcers. The Within group was trained on a multiple schedule in which lean and rich components alternated regularly within sessions; the Blocked group was trained on two single schedules in which sessions with either the lean or rich schedule were conducted in successive blocks. Disruption tests presented a concurrently available alternative stimulus disrupter signaling the availability of tangible reinforcers. All 6 Within participants showed greater resistance to disruption in the rich component, consistent with behavioral momentum theory. By contrast, there was no consistent or significant difference in resistance for Blocked participants. This finding is potentially relevant to the development of interventions in applied settings, where such interventions often approximate single schedules and include response-independent reinforcers.     

The generality of selective observing

Four rats obtained food pellets by poking a key and 5-s presentations of the discriminative stimuli by pressing a lever. Every 1 or 2 min, the prevailing schedule of reinforcement for key poking alternated between rich (either variable-interval [VI] 30 s or VI 60 s) and lean (either VI 240 s, VI 480 s, or extinction) components. While the key was dark (mixed-schedule stimulus), no exteroceptive stimulus indicated the prevailing schedule. A lever press (i.e., an observing response), however, illuminated the key for 5 s with either a steady light (S+), signaling the rich reinforcement schedule, or a blinking light (S-), signaling the lean reinforcement schedule. One goal was to determine whether rats would engage in selective observing (i.e., a pattern of responding that maintains contact with S+ and decreases contact with S-). Such a pattern was found, in that a 5-s presentation of S+ was followed relatively quickly by another observing response (which likely produced another 5-s period of S+), whereas exposure to S- resulted in extended breaks from observing. Additional conditions demonstrated that the rate of observing remained high when lever presses were effective only when the rich reinforcement schedule was in effect (S+ only condition), but decreased to a low level when lever presses were effective only during the lean reinforcement component (S- only condition) or when lever presses had no effect (in removing the mixed stimulus or presenting the multiple-schedule stimuli). These findings are consistent with relativistic conceptualizations of conditioned reinforcement and extend the generality of selective observing to procedures in which the experimenter controls the duration of stimulus presentations, the schedule components both offer intermittent food reinforcement, and rats serve as subjects.     

Conditioned reinforcement versus time to reinforcement in chain schedules.

Pigeons were trained on three-component chain schedules in which the initial component was either a fixed-interval or variable-interval schedule. The middle and terminal components were varied among fixed-interval fixed-interval, variable-interval variable-interval, and an interdependent variable-interval variable-interval schedule in which the sum of the durations of the two variable-interval components was always equal to the sum of the fixed-interval fixed-interval components. At issue was whether the response rate in the initial component was controlled by its time to primary reinforcement or by the temporal parameters of the stimulus correlated with the middle terminal link. The fixed-interval initial-link schedule maintained much lower response rates than the variable-interval initial-link schedule regardless of the schedules in the middle and terminal links. Nevertheless, the intervening schedules played some role: With fixed-interval schedules in the initial links, response rates were consistently highest with independent variable-interval schedules in the middle and terminal links and intermediate with the interdependent variable-interval schedules; these initial-link differences were predicted by the response rates in the middle link of the chain. With variable-interval schedules in the initial links, response rates were lowest with the fixed-interval fixed-interval schedules following the initial link and were not systematically different for the two types of variable-interval variable-interval schedules. The results suggest that time to reinforcement itself accounts for little if any variance in initial-link responding.     

Response rate viewed as engagement bouts: resistance to extinction

Rats obtained food pellets by nose poking a lighted key, the illumination of which alternated every 50 s during a session between blinking and steady, signaling either a relatively rich (60 per hour) or relatively lean (15 per hour) rate of reinforcement. During one training condition, all the reinforcers in the presence of the rich-reinforcement signal were response dependent (i.e., a variable-interval schedule); during another condition only 25% were response dependent (i.e., a variable-time schedule operated concurrently with a variable-interval schedule). An extinction session followed each training block. For both kinds of training schedule, and consistent with prior results, response rate was more resistant to extinction in the presence of the rich-reinforcement signal than in the presence of the lean-reinforcement signal. Analysis of interresponse-time distributions from baseline showed that differential resistance to extinction was not related to baseline differences in the rate of initiating response bouts or in the length of bouts. Also, bout-initiation rate (like response rate) was most resistant to extinction in the presence of the rich-reinforcement signal. These results support the proposal of behavioral momentum theory (e.g., Nevin & Grace, 2000) that resistance to extinction in the presence of a discriminative stimulus is determined more by the stimulus-reinforcer (Pavlovian) than by the stimulus-response-reinforcer (operant) contingency.     

Average uncertainty as a determinant of observing behavior

After discrimination training on a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule of food reinforcement, pigeons were placed on the uncued or mixed version of the same schedule and allowed to make an optional “observing response” that converted the uncued schedule to the corresponding cued schedule by providing a 20-sec exposure to the appropriate discriminative stimulus. The schedule consisted of one hundred 40-sec components, and the probability that any one of them would be a variable-interval component was systematically varied between 0.00 and 1.00. The results showed that the amount of observing behavior was an inverted “U” function of the probability of the variable-interval component. Few observing responses occurred at probabilities of 0.00 or 1.00, and maximum responding occurred at a value less than 0.50.     

Conditioned reinforcement value and resistance to change

Three experiments examined the effects of conditioned reinforcement value and primary reinforcement rate on resistance to change using a multiple schedule of observing-response procedures with pigeons. In the absence of observing responses in both components, unsignaled periods of variable-interval (VI) schedule food reinforcement alternated with extinction. Observing responses in both components intermittently produced 15 s of a stimulus associated with the VI schedule (i.e., S+). In the first experiment, a lower-valued conditioned reinforcer and a higher rate of primary reinforcement were arranged in one component by adding response-independent food deliveries uncorrelated with S+. In the second experiment, one component arranged a lower valued conditioned reinforcer but a higher rate of primary reinforcement by increasing the probability of VI schedule periods relative to extinction periods. In the third experiment, the two observing-response components provided similar rates of primary reinforcement but arranged different valued conditioned reinforcers. Across the three experiments, observing-response rates were typically higher in the component associated with the higher valued conditioned reinforcer. Resistance to change was not affected by conditioned reinforcement value, but was an orderly function of the rate of primary reinforcement obtained in the two components. One interpretation of these results is that S+ value does not affect response strength and that S+ deliveries increase response rates through a mechanism other than reinforcement. Alternatively, because resistance to change depends on the discriminative stimulus-reinforcer relation, the failure of S+ value to impact resistance to change could have resulted from a lack of transfer of S+ value to the broader discriminative context.     

Response persistence under variable-time schedules following immediate and unsignalled delayed reinforcement

Key pecking of three pigeons was maintained in separate components of a multiple schedule by either immediate reinforcement (i.e., tandem variable-time fixed-interval schedule) or unsignalled delayed reinforcement (i.e., tandem variable-interval fixed-time schedule). The relative rate of food delivery was equal across components, and this absolute rate differed across conditions. Immediate reinforcement always generated higher response rates than did unsignalled delayed reinforcement. Then, variable-time schedules of food delivery replaced the contingencies just described such that food was delivered at the same rate but independently of responding. In most cases, response rates decreased to near-zero levels. In addition, response persistence was not systematically different between multiple-schedule components across pigeons. The implications of the results for the concepts of response strength and the response-reinforcer relation are noted.     

Changeover behavior and preference in concurrent schedules

Pigeons were trained on a multiple schedule of reinforcement in which separate concurrent schedules occurred in each of two components. Key pecking was reinforced with milo. During one component, a variable-interval 40-s schedule was concurrent with a variable-interval 20-s schedule; during the other component, a variable-interval 40-s schedule was concurrent with a variable-interval 80-s schedule. During probe tests, the stimuli correlated with the two variable-interval 40-s schedules were presented simultaneously to assess preference, measured by the relative response rates to the two stimuli. In Experiment 1, the concurrently available variable-interval 20-s schedule operated normally; that is, reinforcer availability was not signaled. Following this baseline training, relative response rate during the probes favored the variable-interval 40-s alternative that had been paired with the lower valued schedule (i.e., with the variable-interval 80-s schedule). In Experiment 2, a signal for reinforcer availability was added to the high-value alternative (i.e., to the variable-interval 20-s schedule), thus reducing the rate of key pecking maintained by that schedule but leaving the reinforcement rate unchanged. Following that baseline training, relative response rates during probes favored the variable-interval 40-s alternative that had been paired with the higher valued schedule. The reversal in the pattern of preference implies that the pattern of changeover behavior established during training, and not reinforcement rate, determined the preference patterns obtained on the probe tests.     

Concurrent performances: rate and accuracy of free-operant oddity responding

In pigeon's oddity performances, maintained by variable-interval reinforcement of pecks on the odd key of three keys in a triangular array, accuracy and response rate varied inversely with the rate of variable-interval reinforcement scheduled concurrently for pecks on a fourth, spatially isolated key. But when variable-interval and extinction components alternated in a multiple schedule for pecks on the spatially isolated key, oddity accuracy was greater during variable-interval components than during extinction components. Oddity response rate was not affected systematically by the alternating components. Changeovers between the oddity keys and the spatially isolated key were frequent during variable-interval components; responding occurred almost exclusively on the oddity keys during extinction components. This difference in performance during the two components was eliminated by arranging stimulus-correlated variable-interval reinforcement in the multiple schedule on the spatially isolated key: a stimulus was presented in the variable-interval components only when reinforcement became available, thereby reducing responding on this key to near-zero levels in both components while maintaining the variable-interval reinforcement. The effect of the multiple-schedule components on oddity accuracy was not altered, however, and thus apparently depended directly on concurrent reinforcement and not on differential sequential properties of concurrent responding during the two components.     

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.     

Rate of conditioned reinforcement affects observing rate but not resistance to change

The effects of rate of conditioned reinforcement on the resistance to change of operant behavior have not been examined. In addition, the effects of rate of conditioned reinforcement on the rate of observing have not been adequately examined. In two experiments, a multiple schedule of observing-response procedures was used to examine the effects of rate of conditioned reinforcement on observing rates and resistance to change. In a rich component, observing responses produced a higher frequency of stimuli correlated with alternating periods of random-interval schedule primary reinforcement or extinction. In a lean component, observing responses produced similar schedule-correlated stimuli but at a lower frequency. The rate of primary reinforcement in both components was the same. In Experiment 1, a 4:1 ratio of stimulus production was arranged by the rich and lean components. In Experiment 2, the ratio of stimulus production rates was increased to 6:1. In both experiments, observing rates were higher in the rich component than in the lean component. Disruptions in observing produced by presession feeding, extinction of observing responses, and response-independent food deliveries during intercomponent intervals usually were similar in the rich and lean components. When differences in resistance to change did occur, observing tended to be more resistant to change in the lean component. If resistance to change is accepted as a more appropriate measure of response strength than absolute response rates, then the present results provide no evidence that higher rates of stimuli generally considered to function as conditioned reinforcers engender greater response strength.     

Accuracy of discrimination,rate of responding,and resistance to change

Pigeons were trained on multiple schedules in which responding on a center key produced matching-to-sample trials according to the same variable-interval 30-s schedules in both components. Matching trials consisted of a vertical or tilted line sample on the center key followed by vertical and tilted comparisons on the side keys. Correct responses to comparison stimuli were reinforced with probability .80 in the rich component and .20 in the lean component. Baseline response rates and matching accuracies generally were higher in the rich component, consistent with previous research. When performance was disrupted by prefeeding, response-independent food during intercomponent intervals, intrusion of a delay between sample and comparison stimuli, or extinction, both response rates and matching accuracies generally decreased. Proportions of baseline response rate were greater in the rich component for all disrupters except delay, which had relatively small and inconsistent effects on response rate. By contrast, delay had large and consistent effects on matching accuracy, and proportions of baseline matching accuracy were greater in the rich component for all four disrupters. The dissociation of response rate and accuracy with delay reflects the localized impact of delay on matching performance. The similarity of the data for response rate and accuracy with prefeeding, response-independent food, and extinction shows that matching performance, like response rate, is more resistant to change in a rich than in a lean component. This result extends resistance to change analyses from the frequency of response emission to the degree of stimulus control, and suggests that the strength of discriminating, like the strength of responding, is positively related to rate of reinforcement.     

Behavioral contrast without response-rate reduction

Behavioral contrast was obtained in two experiments, which both employed a standard free-operant successive discrimination (a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule), without the occurrence of reductions of response rate in the extinction component. In Experiment I, one group of four pigeons was trained on a multiple schedule in which one stimulus was associated with a variable-interval schedule and the second stimulus with response-independent reinforcement on a free variable-interval schedule. Though by the end of this training three pigeons were responding very little to the second stimulus, when this stimulus was associated with extinction all subjects showed a contrast effect. In Experiment II, eight pigeons were trained extensively to respond to a single stimulus on a variable-interval schedule, before a second stimulus associated with extinction was introduced. This second stimulus was dissimilar to the initial stimulus and five pigeons never responded in its presence. Nevertheless, all pigeons showed a contrast effect and there was no evidence that the effect was smaller in errorless subjects or smaller than in a subsequent discrimination where all subjects made many errors. Both experiments indicated that response reduction in one component of a multiple schedule is not a necessary condition for the occurrence of contrast.     

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.     

Multiple and concurrent schedule performance: independence from concurrent and successive schedule contexts

Six pigeons were trained on multiple variable-interval schedules and performance was measured in the presence or absence of another variable-interval schedule (the common schedule) arranged concurrently with both components. Manipulations included varying the rate of reinforcement on the common schedule, leaving the common schedule unchanged while the components of the multiple schedule were varied, varying the multiple schedule components in the absence of the common schedule, and varying one component of the multiple schedule while the other component and the common schedule were unchanged. The normal rate-increasing and rate-decreasing effects of reinforcement rate increase were found, except that changing one multiple schedule component did not affect the response rate in the successively available common schedule component. Both concurrent and multiple schedule performance undermatched obtained reinforcement-rate ratios, but the degree of undermatching in multiple schedules was reliably greater. Allocation of responses between multiple schedule components was unaffected by the concurrent availability of reinforcement, and allocation of responses between concurrent schedules was unaffected by the successive availability of different reinforcement rates.     

A comparison of variable-ratio and variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

Four pigeons responded under a two-component multiple schedule of reinforcement. Responses were reinforced in one component under a variable-ratio schedule and in the other component under a variable-interval schedule. It was found that when rates of reinforcement were equal in the two components, the rate of response in the variable-ratio component was nearly twice that in the variable-interval component. Furthermore, for three of the four subjects, the function relating response rate to relative rate of reinforcement in the variable-ratio component had a slope 2.5 to 3 times the slope of the corresponding function for the variable-interval component.     

Brief-stimulus presentations on multiform tandem schedules

Three experiments examined the influence of a brief stimulus (a light) on the behavior of food-deprived rats whose lever pressing on tandem schedules comprising components of different schedule types resulted in food presentation. In Experiment 1, either a tandem variable-ratio variable-interval or a tandem variable-interval variable-ratio schedule was used. The variable-interval requirement in the tandem variable-ratio variable-interval schedule was yoked to the time taken to complete the variable-ratio component in the tandem variable-interval variable-ratio schedule, and the length of the variable-interval component in the latter schedule was yoked to the variable-ratio component in the former schedule. If a brief stimulus occurred following completion of the first component, then behavior was differentiated in the two components; subjects responded more quickly in the variable-ratio than in the variable-interval component. If the stimulus was removed, then response rate was determined by the nature of the final component. Similar results were obtained in Experiments 2 and 3 with the use of a three-component tandem variable-ratio variable-interval variable-ratio schedule or tandem variable-interval variable-ratio variable-interval schedule. Thus, a brief stimulus that was not explicitly paired with reinforcement engendered behavior typical of the component schedule preceding its presentation.     

Matching, contrast, and equalizing in the concurrent lever-press responding of rats

Five rats pressed levers for food reinforces delivered by several concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules. The rate of reinforcement available for responding on one component schedule was held constant at 60 reinforcers per hour. The rate of reinforcement available for responding on the other schedule varied from 30 to 240 reinforcers per hour. The behavior of the rats resembled the behavior of pigeons pecking keys for food reinforcers. The ratio of the overall rates of responding emitted under, and the ratio of the time spent responding under, the two components of each concurrent schedule were approximately equal to the ratio of the overall rates of reinforcement obtained from the components. The overall rate of responding emitted under, and the time spent responding under, the variable component schedule varied directly with the overall rate of reinforcement from that schedule. The overall rate of responding emitted under, and the time spent responding under, the constant component schedule varied inversely with the overall rate of reinforcement obtained from the variable component. The local rates of responding emitted under, and the local rates of reinforcement obtained from, the two components did not differ consistently across subjects. But they were not exactly equal either.     

Positive interaction (induction) in multiple variable-interval, differential-reinforcement-of-high-rate schedules

The effect of increases in the rate of responding in one component of a multiple schedule upon the rate of responding in a second component was investigated. Pigeons were exposed to a multiple schedule where both components were initially variable-interval schedules having the same parameter value. After rate of key pecking stabilized, one component was changed to a schedule that differentially reinforced high rates of responding. Rate of reinforcement in this varied component was adjusted to remain equal to rate of reinforcement in the constant (variable-interval) component. Four of five pigeons showed a maintained increase in rate of responding during both the constant and varied components, even though rates of reinforcement did not change.