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.     

Choice between response units: The rate constancy model

In a conjoint schedule, reinforcement is available simultaneously on two or more schedules for the same response. The present experiments provided food for key pecking on both a random-interval and a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule. Experiment 1 involved ordinary DRL schedules; Experiment 2 added an external stimulus to indicate when the required interresponse time had elapsed. In both experiments, the potential reinforcer frequency from each component was varied by means of a second-order fixed-ratio schedule, and the DRL time parameter was changed as well. Response rates were described by a model stating that time allocation to each component matches the relative frequency of reinforcement for that component. When spending time in a given component, the subject is assumed to respond at the rate characteristic of baseline performance. This model appeared preferable to the absolute-rate version of the matching law. The model was shown to be applicable to multiple-response concurrent schedules as well as to conjoint schedules, and it described some of the necessary conditions for response matching, undermatching, and bias. In addition, the pigeons did not optimize reinforcer frequency.     

Variable-ratio versus variable-interval schedules: response rate, resistance to change, and preference

Two experiments asked whether resistance to change depended on variable-ratio as opposed to variable-interval contingencies of reinforcement and the different response rates they establish. In Experiment 1, pigeons were trained on multiple random-ratio random-interval schedules with equated reinforcer rates. Baseline response rates were disrupted by intercomponent food, extinction, and prefeeding. Resistance to change relative to baseline was greater in the interval component, and the difference was correlated with the extent to which baseline response rates were higher in the ratio component. In Experiment 2, pigeons were trained on multiple variable-ratio variable-interval schedules in one half of each session and on concurrent chains in the other half in which the terminal links corresponded to the multiple-schedule components. The schedules were varied over six conditions, including two with equated reinforcer rates. In concurrent chains, preference strongly overmatched the ratio of obtained reinforcer rates. In multiple schedules, relative resistance to response-independent food during intercomponent intervals, extinction, and intercomponent food plus extinction depended on the ratio of obtained reinforcer rates but was less sensitive than was preference. When reinforcer rates were similar, both preference and relative resistance were greater for the variable-interval schedule, and the differences were correlated with the extent to which baseline response rates were higher on the variable-ratio schedule, confirming the results of Experiment 1. These results demonstrate that resistance to change and preference depend in part on response rate as well as obtained reinforcer rate, and challenge the independence of resistance to change and preference with respect to response rate proposed by behavioral momentum theory.     

Multiple determinants of the effects of reinforcement magnitude on free-operant response rates

Four experiments examined the effects of increasing the number of food pellets given to hungry rats for a lever-press response. On a simple variable-interval 60-s schedule, increased number of pellets depressed response rates (Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, the decrease in response rate as a function of increased reinforcement magnitude was demonstrated on a variable-interval 30-s schedule, but enhanced rates of response were obtained with the same increase in reinforcement magnitude on a variable-ratio 30 schedule. In Experiment 3, higher rates of responding were maintained by the component of a concurrent variable-interval 60-s variable-interval 60-s schedule associated with a higher reinforcement magnitude. In Experiment 4, higher rates of response were produced in the component of a multiple variable-interval 60-s variable-interval 60-s schedule associated with the higher reinforcement magnitude. It is suggested that on simple schedules greater reinforcer magnitudes shape the reinforced pattern of responding more effectively than do smaller reinforcement magnitudes. This effect is, however, overridden by another process, such a contrast, when two magnitudes are presented within a single session on two-component schedules.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

RESISTANCE TO CHANGE AND FREQUENCY OF RESPONSE‐DEPENDENT STIMULI UNCORRELATED WITH REINFORCEMENT

Stimuli uncorrelated with reinforcement have been shown to enhance response rates and resistance to disruption; however, the effects of different rates of stimulus presentations have not been assessed. In two experiments, we assessed the effects of adding different rates of response‐dependent brief stimuli uncorrelated with primary reinforcement on relative response rates and resistance to change. In both experiments, pigeons responded on variable‐interval 60‐s schedules of food reinforcement in two components of a multiple schedule, and brief response‐dependent keylight‐color changes were added to one or both components. Although relative response rates were not systematically affected in either experiment, relative resistance to presession feeding and extinction were. In Experiment 1, adding stimuli on a variable‐interval schedule to one component of a multiple schedule either at a low rate (1 per min) for one group or at a high rate (4 per min) for another group similarly increased resistance to disruption in the components with added stimuli. When high and low rates of stimuli were presented across components (i.e., within subjects) in Experiment 2, however, relative resistance to disruption was greater in the component presenting stimuli at a lower rate. These results suggest that stimuli uncorrelated with food reinforcement do not strengthen responding in the same way as primary reinforcers.     

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.     

Visual Reinforcement Signals Interfere with the Effects of Reinforcer Magnitude Manipulations

Three experiments examined the effect of reinforcement magnitude on free-operant response rates. In Experiment 1, rats that received four food pellets responded faster than rats that received one pellet on a variable ratio 30 schedule. However, when the food hopper was illuminated during reinforcer delivery, there was no difference between the rates of response produced by the two magnitudes of reward. In Experiment 2, there was no difference in response rates emitted by rats receiving either one or four pellets of food as reward on a random interval (RI) 60-s schedule. In Experiment 3, rats responding on an RI 30-s schedule did so at a lower rate with four pellets as reinforcement than with one pellet. This effect was abolished by the illumination of the food hopper during reinforcement delivery. These results indicate that the influence of magnitude is obscured by manipulations which signal the delivery of reinforcement.     

Resistance to change and the law of effect

Three experiments using multiple schedules of reinforcement explored the implications of resistance-to-change findings for the response-reinforcer relation described by the law of effect, using both steady-state responding and responding recorded in the first few sessions of conditions. In Experiment 1, when response-independent reinforcement was increased during a third component, response rate in Components 1 and 2 decreased. This response-rate reduction was proportionately greater in a component in which reinforcer magnitude was small (2-s access to wheat) than in the component in which it was large (6-s access to wheat). However, when reinforcer rates in the two components were varied together in Experiments 2 and 3, response-rate change was the same regardless of the magnitude of reinforcers used in the two components, so that sensitivity of response rates to reinforcer rates (Experiment 2) and of response-rate ratios to reinforcer-rate ratios (Experiment 3) was unaffected by the magnitude of the reinforcers. Therefore, the principles determining resistance to change, described by behavioral momentum theory, seem not to apply when the source of behavior change is the variation of reinforcement contingencies that maintain the behavior. The use of extinction as a manipulation to study resistance to change is questioned.     

Effects of reinforcer magnitude on responding under differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules of rats and pigeons

Experiment I investigated the effects of reinforcer magnitude on differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule performance in three phases. In Phase 1, two groups of rats (n = 6 and 5) responded under a DRI. 72-s schedule with reinforcer magnitudes of either 30 or 300 microl of water. After acquisition, the water amounts were reversed for each rat. In Phase 2, the effects of the same reinforcer magnitudes on DRL 18-s schedule performance were examined across conditions. In Phase 3, each rat responded unider a DR1. 18-s schedule in which the water amotnts alternated between 30 and 300 microl daily. Throughout each phase of Experiment 1, the larger reinforcer magnitude resulted in higher response rates and lower reinforcement rates. The peak of the interresponse-time distributions was at a lower value tinder the larger reinforcer magnitude. In Experiment 2, 3 pigeons responded under a DRL 20-s schedule in which reinforcer magnitude (1-s or 6-s access to grain) varied iron session to session. Higher response rates and lower reinforcement rates occurred tinder the longer hopper duration. These results demonstrate that larger reinforcer magnitudes engender less efficient DRL schedule performance in both rats and pigeons, and when reinforcer magnitude was held constant between sessions or was varied daily. The present results are consistent with previous research demonstrating a decrease in efficiency as a function of increased reinforcer magnituide tinder procedures that require a period of time without a specified response. These findings also support the claim that DRI. schedule performance is not governed solely by a timing process.     

DOES CONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT STRENGTHEN OPERANT BEHAVIOR?

In Experiment 1, pigeons were trained to peck keys with equal food-reinforcement schedules in components that ended with either noncontingent or contingent transitions to a third component with a five-fold richer schedule. Response rates were higher in the initial component with contingent transitions, but resistance to prefeeding or extinction was not consistently greater. Experiment 2 also included noncontingent or contingent transitions to a signaled period of nonreinforcement. There was no effect of the contingency on transitions to nonreinforcement, but the difference in response rates maintained by contingent versus noncontingent transitions to the richer schedule was replicated. In addition, response rates were higher in components that preceded nonreinforcement than in components that preceded the richer schedule. However, resistance to extinction was greater for noncontingent transitions to the richer schedule than to nonreinforcement, implicating stimulus–reinforcer relations in the determination of resistance to change. Resistance to change was also somewhat greater for noncontingent than for contingent transitions to the richer schedule. The latter result, together with the results of Experiment 1 and related research, suggests that response-contingent reinforcement does not increase resistance to change.     

The momentum of human behavior in a natural setting

Adults with mental retardation in a group home received popcorn or coffee reinforcers for sorting plastic dinnerware. In Part 1 of the experiment, reinforcers were dispensed according to a variable-interval 60-s schedule for sorting dinnerware of one color and according to a variable-interval 240-s schedule for sorting dinnerware of a different color in successive components of a multiple schedule. Sorting rates were similar in baseline, but when a video program was shown concurrently, sorting of dinnerware was more resistant to distraction when correlated with a higher rate of reinforcement. In Part 2 of the experiment, popcorn or coffee reinforcers were contingent upon sorting both colors of dinnerware according to variable-interval 60-s schedules, but additional reinforcers were given independently of sorting according to a variable-time 30-s schedule during one dinnerware-color component. Baseline sorting rate was lower but resistance to distraction by the video program was greater in the component with additional variable-time reinforcers. These results demonstrate that resistance to distraction depends on the rate of reinforcers obtained in the presence of component stimuli but is independent of baseline response rates and response–reinforcer contingencies. Moreover, these results are similar to those obtained in laboratory studies with pigeons, demonstrating that the determination of resistance to change by stimulus–reinforcer relations is not confined to controlled laboratory settings or unique to the pigeon.     

Arousal, changeover responses, and preference in concurrent schedules

Pigeons were trained on multiple schedules that provided concurrent reinforcement in each of two components. In Experiment 1, one component consisted of a variable-interval (VI) 40-s schedule presented with a VI 20-s schedule, and the other a VI 40-s schedule presented with a VI 80-s schedule. After extended training, probe tests measured preference between the stimuli associated with the two 40-s schedules. Probe tests replicated the results of Belke (1992) that showed preference for the 40-s schedule that had been paired with the 80-s schedule. In a second condition, the overall reinforcer rate provided by the two components was equated by adding a signaled VI schedule to the component with the lower reinforcer rate. Probe results were unchanged. In Experiment 2, pigeons were trained on alternating concurrent VI 30-s VI 60-s schedules. One schedule provided 2-s access to food and the other provided 6-s access. The larger reinforcer magnitude produced higher response rates and was preferred on probe trials. Rate of changeover responding, however, did not differ as a function of reinforcer magnitude. The present results demonstrate that preference on probe trials is not a simple reflection of the pattern of changeover behavior established during training.     

Effects of d-amphetamine on responding under second-order schedules of reinforcement with paired and nonpaired brief stimuli.

Three pigeons were studied under a multiple schedule in which pecks in each component were reinforced according to a variable-interval 120-s second-order schedule with fixed-interval 60-s units. In the first component of the multiple schedule, the completion of a fixed interval produced either food or a 4-s change in key color plus houselight illumination. In the second component an identical schedule was in effect, but the stimulus was a 0.3-s change in key color. Both long and short brief stimuli were not paired with food presentations in Conditions 1 and 3 and were paired with food in Condition 2. There were no consistent differences in response patterns under paired and nonpaired brief-stimulus conditions when the stimulus was a 4-s change in key color accompanied by houselight illumination. However, pairing the 0.3-s key-color change with food presentations resulted in higher indices of curvature and lower response rates in the early segments of the fixed interval than when the stimulus was not paired with food presentations. Low doses of d-amphetamine (0.3 and 1 mg/kg) produced small and inconsistent increases in overall response rates, and higher doses (3 and 10 mg/kg) decreased overall response rates. d-Amphetamine altered response patterns within fixed intervals by decreasing the indices of curvature and increasing response rates in the early segments of the fixed interval. Response rates and patterns under paired and nonpaired brief-stimulus conditions were not differentially affected by d-amphetamine. Thus, evidence for the enhancement of the conditioned reinforcement effects of psychomotor stimulant drugs was not found with the second-order schedules used in the present study.     

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.     

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.     

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.