Second-order schedules with paired auditory brief stimuli

Pigeons were exposed to multiple second-order schedules of paired and unpaired brief stimuli in which responding on the main key was reinforced according to a fixed-interval thirty-second schedule by a brief stimulus (a tone in the paired schedule) and advancement to the next segment of the second-order schedule. In Experiment 1, a response on the second key was required during the tone in its fourth and final presentation to produce food. Responses during earlier brief stimuli indicated the extent to which the final brief stimulus was discriminated from preceding ones. Responding was comparable during all tones, extending prior findings with visual paired brief stimuli and weakening explanations of subjects' failure to discriminate between brief-stimulus presentations in terms of elicited responding. In Experiment 2 the number of fixed-interval segments comprising the second-order schedules varied from one through eight. Although main-key response rates increased across segments in both experiments, they increased much less sharply with a variable number of segments. These results suggest that the increase in main-key response rates across segments is due primarily to a degree of temporal discrimination not reflected on the second key. Main-key response rates were higher on paired auditory brief-stimulus schedules than on unpaired visual brief-stimulus schedules, especially in Experiment 2, thus further extending findings with visual brief stimuli to second-order schedules with auditory brief stimuli.     

Factors influencing responding under multiple schedules of conditioned and unconditioned reinforcement

Two experiments examined pigeons' responses under multiple schedules of conditioned and unconditioned reinforcement. In one component, responses produced food according to a fixed-interval schedule; in a second component, responses produced brief stimuli according to a fixed-ratio schedule. When brief-stimulus presentations were paired with food in the first component, rates in the second component were usually higher than 10 responses per minute. When pairing in the first component was eliminated, responding continued to be maintained in the second component. Elimination of food presentation from the first component substantially decreased responding in the second component, even though the brief stimulus had not been paired with food. Experiment II demonstrated that response rate was affected by the duration of both the second component and the brief stimulus. The results suggest that three conditions are important in maintaining responding with brief-stimulus presentations: (1) pairing the brief stimulus, at least initially, with food, (2) maintaining unconditioned reinforcement in one component, and (3) employing optimal brief-stimulus and component durations.     

Second-order schedules: discrimination of components

Pigeons were exposed to a series of second-order schedules in which the completion of a fixed number of fixed-interval components produced food. In Experiment 1, brief (2 sec) stimulus presentations occurred as each fixed-interval component was completed. During the brief-stimulus presentation terminating the last fixed-interval component, a response was required on a second key, the brief-stimulus key, to produce food. Responses on the brief-stimulus key before the last brief-stimulus presentation had no scheduled consequences, but served as a measure of the extent to which the final component was discriminated from preceding components. Whether there were one, two, four, or eight fixed-interval components, responses on the brief-stimulus key occurred during virtually every brief-stimulus presentation. In Experiment 2, an attempt was made to punish unnecessary responses on the brief-stimulus key, i.e., responses on the brief-stimulus key that occurred before the last component. None of the pigeons learned to withhold these responses, even though they produced a 15-sec timeout and loss of primary reinforcement. In Experiment 3, different key colors were associated with each component of a second-order schedule (a chain schedule). In contrast to Experiment 1, brief-stimulus key responses were confined to the last component. It was concluded that pigeons do not discriminate well between components of second-order schedules unless a unique exteroceptive cue is provided for each component. The relative discriminability of the components may account for the observed differences in initial-component response rates between comparable brief-stimulus, tandem, and chain schedules.     

Stimulus properties of conspecific behavior

Two experiments identified the conditions in which the behavior of one bird acquired discriminative control of the behavior of a second bird. The schedule-controlled behaviors of the “stimulus” bird were differentially correlated with the components of a multiple schedule according to which the pecking of an “experimental” bird produced food. In Experiment 1, three pairs of pigeons acquired a successive discrimination and two reversals with the conspecific stimuli. Experiment 2 included a control condition in which no systematic relationship existed between the conspecific stimuli and the component schedules. While differential responding during the components of the multiple schedule was again found when the conspecific stimuli were available, differential responding did not occur in the control condition. Test conditions included in the experiments indicated that (a) the differential responding was not dependent on the discriminative properties of reinforcement, (b) the pecking of the stimulus and experimental birds was temporally interrelated, (c) the visual conspecific stimuli were critical to the maintenance of the discrimination, and (d) the observed stimulus control immediately generalized to an unfamiliar conspecific.     

Second-order schedules: a comparison of chained, brief-stimulus, and tandem procedures

Pigeons were exposed to seven types of two-component schedules, each component a 2-min fixed-interval schedule. Food presentation occurred at the completion of the second component under all conditions. The seven types of schedules were: (1) a chained schedule in which completion of the first component produced the discriminative stimulus associated with the second component; (2) a chained schedule to which was added the brief presentation of a food-paired stimulus at the completion of the first component; (3) a chained schedule to which was added the brief presentation of a stimulus not paired with food at the completion of the first component; (4) a multiple schedule in which food presentation occurred at the completion of both components; (5) a tandem schedule in which completion of the first component initiated the second component, with no changes in exteroceptive stimuli; (6) a food-paired brief-stimulus schedule in which the brief presentation of a food-paired stimulus was made at the completion of the first component and no other changes in stimuli occurred; and (7) a brief-stimulus schedule in which the brief presentation of a stimulus not paired with food was made at the completion of the first component and no other changes in stimuli occurred. Positively accelerated patterns of responding developed in the first component under three conditions: (1) the chained schedule with the added food-paired brief stimulus; (2) the multiple schedule; and (3) the food-paired brief-stimulus schedule. Response rates were low in the first component, with few instances of positively accelerated patterns, under two conditions: (1) the chained schedule; and (2) the chained schedule with the added nonpaired brief stimulus. The results suggest that a briefly presented food-paired stimulus may function as a more effective conditioned reinforcer than does the presentation of a discriminative stimulus.     

Schedules of response-independent conditioned reinforcement

Rates and patterns of responding of pigeons under response-independent and response-dependent schedules of brief-stimulus presentation were compared by superimposing 3-min brief-stimulus schedules on a 15-min fixed-interval schedule of food presentation. The brief-stimulus schedules were fixed time, fixed interval, variable time, and variable interval. When the brief stimulus was paired with food presentation, its effects depended upon the schedule and ongoing rates. Fixed- and variable-interval brief-stimulus schedules enhanced the low rates normally occurring early in the 15-min interval, whereas fixed- and variable-time schedules suppressed these rates. Although the overall rates later in the interval were not affected to any great extent, the fixed brief-stimulus schedules generated patterns of positively accelerated responding between stimulus presentations. These patterns appeared less frequently under the variable brief-stimulus schedules. Initially, when not paired with food delivery, presentations of the brief stimulus produced relatively little effect on either response rate or patterning. However, once the stimulus had accompanied food presentation, the original performance under the nonpaired condition was not recovered. The effects were more like those occurring when the stimulus was paired with food.     

Second-order schedules and the problem of conditioned reinforcement

Thirteen pigeons were exposed to a variety of second-order schedules in which responding under a component schedule was reinforced according to a schedule of reinforcement. Under different conditions, completion of each component resulted in either (1) the brief presentation of a stimulus also present during reinforcement (pairing operation), (2) the brief presentation of a stimulus not present during reinforcement (nonpairing operation), or (3) no brief stimulus presentation (tandem). Brief-stimulus presentations engendered a pattern of responding within components similar to that engendered by food. Patterning was observed when fixed-interval and fixed-ratio components were maintained under fixed- and variable-ratio and fixed- and variable-interval schedules. There were no apparent differences in performance under pairing and nonpairing conditions in any study. The properties of the stimuli presented in brief-stimulus operations produced different effects on response patterning. In one study, similar effects on performance were found whether brief-stimulus presentations were response-produced or delivered independently of responding. Response patterning did not occur when the component schedule under which a nonpaired stimulus was produced occurred independently of the food schedule. The results suggest a reevaluation of the role of conditioned reinforcement in second-order schedule performance. The similarity of behavior under pairing and nonpairing operations is consistent with two hypotheses: (1) the major effect is due to the discriminative properties of the brief stimulus; (2) the scheduling operation under which the paired or nonpaired stimulus is presented can establish it as a reinforcer.     

Separating the reinforcing and discriminative properties of brief-stimulus presentations in second-order schedules.

Pigeons' responses were maintained under multiple schedules to study properties of briefly presented stimuli. Responses in one component produced food according to a second-order schedule with fixed-interval components in which food or a brief stimulus occurred with equal probability. In the second component responses produced only the brief stimulus under a fixed-ratio schedule. Under various conditions the brief stimulus in the first component was (a) paired with food, (b) not paired with food, (c) partially omitted, or (d) scheduled simultaneously with the second-order schedule under an independent variable-interval schedule. Paired and nonpaired brief stimuli maintained similar response patterning in the second-order schedule. However, only paired stimuli maintained responses in the second component. The data suggest that nonpaired brief stimuli engender response patterning in second-order schedules as a result of their discriminative properties. When the stimulus is paired with food, these discriminative properties sometime mask a reinforcement effect, and no change in response patterning is observed. When the discriminative properties of the brief stimulus are absent, the reinforcing effects of pairing the brief stimulus with food may be observed.     

Contiguity of briefly presented stimuli with food reinforcement

Pigeons performed on second-order schedules of reinforcement consisting of four fixed-interval components. Only the terminal component ended with food. Performance was studied both when a brief stimulus followed the completion of each of the first three fixed intervals (brief-stimulus schedule) and when the stimulus was omitted (tandem schedule). Variations in the temporal contiguity of the last presentation of the stimulus and the presentation of food indicated that the shorter the delay, the greater was the enhancement of rate of responding in comparison with tandem performance. A positively accelerated pattern of responding within fixed-interval components was a function of the contiguity of the brief stimulus and reinforcement; this pattern was absent for all tandem-schedule performance.     

Discriminative properties of briefly presented stimuli

In Experiment I, pigeons' responses produced food according to a fixed-interval schedule while responses on the key also produced brief stimuli according to a variable-interval schedule. Each brief stimulus reset the fixed interval. Thus, a brief stimulus occurred irregularly but a fixed minimum time separated the occurrence of food from a brief stimulus. Pauses followed brief stimuli and were followed by an accelerated response rate until another brief stimulus or food occurred. In Experiment II, four control procedures were examined. (1) Brief-stimulus presentations were omitted, producing a loss of response patterning. (2) A second-order schedule was studied with fixed-interval components. This schedule produced patterning following brief stimuli similar in kind and degree to that found in Experiment I. (3) A conjoint schedule was arranged in which food was no longer separated from the stimulus by a fixed time; pauses following the stimulus no longer resulted. (4) A brief food reinforcer replaced the brief visual stimulus, resulting in a constant response rate with no pausing following the brief food stimulus. The results suggest that the brief-stimulus effects were due to discriminative functions produced by the fixed temporal relation separating the stimulus from food.     

Discriminative functions of schedule stimuli and memory: a combination of schedule and choice procedures

Pigeons responded under a combination brief-stimulus schedule and choice procedure. Normally, a fixed-interval schedule was in effect, where completion randomly produced either a brief stimulus or food. Intermittently, this schedule was interrupted by a choice arrangement. Two choice keys were lit, either a short or a long time since a prior event (food or stimulus). One choice response produced food if the time had been short, and the alternate response produced food if the time had been long. Across conditions, the duration of the fixed-interval schedule was varied, the stimuli that comprised the brief-stimulus operation were changed, and the stimuli were presented as paired and nonpaired with food. The focus of the study was the control of both schedule performance and choice responding across conditions. The results showed that choice accuracy was correlated with the degree of fixed-interval curvature, the response pattern of a pause followed by a gradually accelerated rate. As fixed-interval schedule duration was increased, both the degree of fixed-interval curvature and choice accuracy decreased. The particular brief stimulus used affected schedule and choice performance, with a more salient stimulus producing a greater degree of curvature and higher accuracy. Pairing and nonpairing operations produced striking differences in performance with the less salient brief stimulus, but not with the more salient stimulus. The results suggest that brief-stimulus schedule performance may be conceptualized in the context of memory research.     

The effects of brief-stimulus presentations in fixed-ratio second-order schedules

Pigeons' responses were reinforced according to a three-component multiple schedule. In Component 1, key pecks produced food according to a fixed-ratio second-order schedule with fixed-ratio units. Here, a fixed number of fixed-ratio units produced food, and the brief stimulus terminating each unit also accompanied food. Responses in Component 2 produced food on an identical schedule except that the brief stimulus was not paired with food. Component 3 contained a simple fixed-ratio schedule whose response requirement equaled that of Components 1 and 2. Across conditions the size of the fixed-ratio unit (five, ten, twenty, forty, and eighty responses) and the total number of responses per reinforcement were parametrically manipulated. The highest response rates and shortest preratio pauses were observed in Component 3 (no brief stimulus). The lowest rates and longest pauses were found in the component with paired brief-stimulus presentations, indicating that the food-paired brief stimulus suppressed responding. The suppressive effects were greatest when the fixed-ratio units were small (e.g., fixed-ratio 5) and the total fixed-ratio requirement was large (e.g., fixed-ratio 160). Under no conditions did the paired brief stimulus facilitate responding. The nonpaired brief stimulus also suppressed responding but to a lesser extent. The suppressive effects of nonpaired brief stimuli were greatest when the fixed-ratio units were small and the total response requirement was large. These data suggest that the suppressive effects of the brief stimuli may have masked the conditioned-reinforcing effects reported in other studies, and that conditions that maximize suppression in second-order schedules involve the use of fixed-ratio schedule units and the presentation of many brief stimuli per reinforcer.     

Marking effects in instrumental performance on DRH schedules

Three experiments investigated the effect of presenting a brief stimulus after a response sequence on the rate of lever-pressing by rats on differential reinforcement of high rate (DRH) schedules. In Experiment 1 enhanced responding was produced by a visual stimulus presented during a 500-msec delay of reinforcement compared to a condition in which no stimulus was presented. In Experiment 2 rats responded on a multiple DRH DRH schedule in which the DRH contingency was reinforced on a 50% schedule in each component. Equivalent levels of responding occurred in the components when reinforcement was signalled in one component and when the signal was presented following the non-reinforced schedules in the other components. A further group of rats received the stimulus presented after non-reinforced schedules in one component but not at all in the other component; responding was enhanced in the former component relative to the latter component. In Experiment 3 brief stimuli presented after the completion of DRH components on a second-order VR (DRH) schedule elevated response rates irrespective of whether the signal was presented paired or unpaired with reinforcement. The present data support the view that a brief signal may serve to mark a response sequence in memory and facilitate instrumental performance.     

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.     

Responding under chained and tandem fixed-ratio schedules

The role of stimuli in chained fixed-ratio schedules of reinforcement was examined. At various ratio values, responding on schedules consisting of three or five equal components, with a different colored light in each component (“block counter”) was compared with responding on tandem or simple fixed-ratio schedules having the same color present throughout the entire ratio. At all ratio values except the smallest, the chain stimuli resulted in longer pauses after reinforcement. The magnitude of this effect became greater as the size of the ratio was increased. Post-reinforcement pause durations were longer under five-component schedules than under three-component schedules. Running rates in the first component were lower on the chained schedules than on the tandem schedules; on both kinds of schedule, rates were lower in the first component than in the rest of the ratio. When the sequence of stimuli was reversed, the duration of the post-reinforcement pause dropped markedly and the running rate in the initial component increased, but these effects gradually disappeared after the first reversal session. When the final chain stimulus was substituted for the first component stimulus but continued to appear in the final chain component as well, the pause duration dropped and remained at this lower level during subsequent sessions.     

Fixed versus variable sequences of food and stimulus presentation in second-order schedules

Three pigeons were exposed to a second-order schedule in which the behavior specified by a fixed-interval component schedule was reinforced according to a ratio overall schedule. The completion of components not followed by food was signalled by a brief stimulus never paired with food. Food and the stimulus occurred in a random sequence or in fixed alternation, but the overall schedules (variable ratio 2 or fixed ratio 2) ensured that an equal number of food and brief-stimulus presentations occurred in each session. The control exerted by the food and by the brief stimulus was measured by overall response rates, mean pauses, frequency distributions of pauses, and response patterning across components. In general, the stimulus controlled patterns of behavior more similar to those controlled by food when food and the stimulus occurred in a random sequence than when they occurred in fixed alternation.     

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.     

Effects of fixed-time shocks and brief stimuli on food-maintained behavior of rats

When a fixed-time schedule of shocks was presented to rats lever pressing for food on a random-interval schedule, a pattern of behavior developed with a high rate of pressing after shock declining to near zero before the next shock was delivered. Once this pattern had stabilized, one-quarter of the shocks were replaced with brief auditory stimuli (tones) in a random sequence. Tone maintained behavior similar to shock, although tone was never paired with shock. Both tone and shocks elicited responding when presented at various times as probe stimuli, and responding was usually totally suppressed if neither stimulus occurred at the beginning of the fixed-time interval. When other stimuli were paired with tone and shock, only those paired with tone gained discriminative control and elicited responding. These findings suggest that stimuli that signal a shock-free, or safe, period will maintain the pattern of behavior generated by shock on a fixed-time schedule. There is a parallel between this phenomenon and the control of behavior on second-order schedules of positive reinforcement with nonpaired brief stimuli.     

Reinforcement by an imprinting stimulus versus water on simple schedules in ducklings

Ducklings (5 to 28 days old) were trained to peck a pole on fixed-ratio, fixed-interval, and multiple schedules using brief presentation of an imprinting stimulus as the response-contingent event. Other ducklings of the same age were trained similarly except that reinforcement consisted of access to water. With water reinforcement the typical fixed-ratio (“break-run”), fixed-interval (“scallop”), and multiple schedule response patterns were readily established and consistently maintained. With the imprinting stimulus these schedule effects were inconsistent in some subjects and virtually nonexistent in others, despite extended training. Schedule control with the imprinting stimulus was not improved by the use of a reinforcement signaling procedure which enhances responding reinforced by electrical brain stimulation on intermittent schedules. However, the overall rates of responding and the extinction functions generated after reinforcement with water versus the imprinting stimulus were comparable. These findings imply that control by temporal and discriminative stimuli may be relatively weak when a young organism's behavior is reinforced by presentation of an imprinting stimulus.     

Variable-interval schedules of timeout from avoidance

Rats were trained on concurrent schedules in which pressing one lever postponed shock and pressing the other occasionally produced a 2-min timeout during which the shock-postponement schedule was suspended and its correlated stimuli were removed. Throughout, the shock-postponement schedule maintained proficient levels of avoidance. Nevertheless, in Experiment 1 responding on the timeout lever was established rapidly, was maintained at stable levels on variable-interval schedules, was extinguished by withholding timeout, was reestablished when timeout was reintroduced, and was brought under discriminative control with a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule of timeout. These results are in contrast with Verhave's (1962) conclusion that timeout is an ineffective reinforcer when presented to rats on intermittent schedules. In Experiment 2 the consequence of responding on the timeout lever was altered so that the shock-postponement schedule remained in effect even though the stimulus conditions associated with timeout were produced for 2 min. Responding extinguished, indicating that suspension of the shock-postponement schedule, not stimulus change, was the source of reinforcement. By establishing the reinforcing efficacy of timeout with standard variable-interval schedules, these experiments illustrate a procedure for studying negative reinforcement in the same way as positive reinforcement.