Control of responding by sounds of different quality: an evolutionary analysis.

Two experiments investigated the acquisition of discriminations between two acoustic stimuli of different quality (noise bursts vs. a 2-kHz pulsed signal) when features of the everyday environment were incorporated into the experiments. In Experiment 1, rats were trained, using food, to press a lever. Throughout all sessions, 5-s trials of noise bursts (the random stimulus) were presented, after variable intertrial intervals, through a remote speaker mounted outside the experimental enclosure. The noise burst occurred randomly with respect to reinforcement of lever pressing and had no programmed relationship to the animal's behavior. When lever pressing was established, the 2-kHz signal was presented through a speaker adjacent to the response lever according to a different set of variable intertrial intervals. A response in the presence of the 2-kHz signal terminated the trial and was reinforced. The 2-kHz signal acquired control of responding within the first few trials, whereas the random stimulus exerted no control of responding. In Experiment 2, rats were trained to press the lever in the presence of the 2-kHz signal presented through the adjacent speaker on a variable intertrial interval. After 14 sessions, 5-s trials of noise bursts (random stimulus) were presented through the remote speaker on the second variable intertrial interval. The random stimulus initially elicited exploratory behavior, which then rapidly declined. Subsequently, the random stimulus exerted no or weak control of responding. The introduction of the random stimulus had no effect on responding in the presence of the adjacent stimulus. In Experiments 3 and 4 the random stimulus was presented through the adjacent speaker, and the stimulus correlated with reinforcement was presented through the remote speaker. In both experiments, there was persistent control of responding by the random stimulus and slow development of control by the stimulus correlated with reinforcement. In Experiment 5, both stimuli were presented through the adjacent speaker. There was persistent control of responding by the random stimulus.     

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.     

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

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

The schedule dependency of the signaled reinforcement effect

In Experiment 1, rats leverpressed for food reinforcement on either a variable ratio (VR) 30 schedule or a variable interval (VI) 15-s schedule. One group in each condition received a signal filling a 500-ms delay of reinforcement. This treatment enhanced rates on the VR schedule, and attenuated rates on the VI schedule, relative to the rate seen in an unsignaled control condition. In Experiment 2 there was no delay of reinforcement and the signal and food were presented simultaneously. Attenuated rates of responding were observed on VI schedules with a range of mean interval values (15 to 300 s). Experiment 3 used a range of VR schedules (10 to 150) with simultaneous presentations of signal and food. A signal-induced enhancement of response rate was found at all VR values. In Experiment 4, a signal elevated response rates on a tandem VI VR schedule, but depressed rates on a tandem VR VI schedule, compared to control conditions receiving unsignaled delayed reinforcement. These results are taken to show that the effect of a signal accompanying reinforcement depends upon the nature of the behavior that is reinforced during exposure to a given schedule.     

The effect of signaled reinforcement on rats' fixed-interval responding

Four experiments examined the effect on rats' response rate of presenting a brief (500 ms) stimulus simultaneously with the delivery of food on fixed-interval (FI) schedules. In Experiment 1, reinforcement signals that were spatially diffuse (both tones and lights) elevated rates of responding, but responding was attenuated by localized visual stimuli. The remaining experiments examined the signal-induced potentiation of responding. In Experiment 2, a tone reinforcement signal potentiated response rates on an FI schedule, but attenuated response rates on a variable-interval (VI) schedule. This difference was obtained even though the overall rate of responding was equated on the two schedules before the introduction of the signal. Signal-induced potentiation of responding occurred over a range of FI values employed in Experiment 3. In Experiment 4, presenting a reinforcement signal when high local rates of response had occurred immediately before reinforcement resulted in potentiated rates of responding on an FI schedule. The opposite effect on response rate occurred when the reinforcement signal followed only low local rates of response. These results indicate that a variety of factors influence the effects of a reinforcement signal. They imply, however, that the local rate of response at the time of reinforcement is a key factor in establishing the nature of the signaling effect.     

Acquisition of a spatially defined operant with delayed reinforcement.

Two experiments investigated the role of an immediate, response-produced auditory stimulus during acquisition, via delayed reinforcement, of a response selected to control for possible unprogrammed, operandum-related sources of response feedback. Experimentally naive rats were exposed to a delayed-food reinforcement condition, specifically a tandem fixed-ratio 1 differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior 30-s schedule. The response was defined as breaking a photocell beam located near the ceiling at the rear of the operant conditioning chamber. In Experiment 1, rates of photobeam breaking by each rat increased from near zero, regardless of the presence or absence of a tone that immediately followed the response initiating the delay interval. Though not essential, the tone facilitated response acquisition and resulted in more efficient response patterns at stability. Experiment 2 demonstrated that photobeam-breaking response rates under the delayed reinforcement contingency exceeded those in a preceding baseline condition in which no food was delivered. In addition, upon introduction of the delayed reinforcement procedure, correspondence between response patterns and the requirements of the reinforcement schedule increased over baseline levels in the absence of a food contingency. Together with a previous report of Lattal and Gleeson (1990), the present results suggest that response acquisition with delayed reinforcement is a robust phenomenon that may not depend on a mechanically defined response or an immediate external stimulus change to mediate the temporal gap between response and reinforcer.     

Timing for the absence of a stimulus: the gap paradigm reversed

Contrary to data showing sensitivity to nontemporal properties of timed signals, current theories of interval timing assume that animals can use the presence or absence of a signal as equally valid cues as long as duration is the most predictive feature. Consequently, the authors examined rats' behavior when timing the absence of a visual or auditory stimulus in trace conditioning and in a "reversed" gap procedure. Memory for timing was tested by presenting the stimulus as a reversed gap into its timed absence. Results suggest that in trace conditioning (Experiment 1), rats time for the absence of a stimulus by using its offset as a time marker. As in the standard gap procedure, the insertion of a reversed gap was expected to "stop" rats' internal clock. In contrast, a reversed gap of 1-, 5-, or 15-s duration "reset" the timing process in both trace conditioning (Experiment 2) and the reversed gap procedure (Experiment 3). A direct comparison of the standard and reversed gap procedures (Experiment 4) supported these findings. Results suggest that attentional mechanisms involving the salience or content of the gap might contribute to the response rule adopted in a gap procedure.     

Effects of signaled versus unsignaled delay of reinforcement on choice

Pigeons chose between 5-s and 15-s delay-of-reinforcement alternatives. The first key peck to satisfy the choice schedule began a delay timer, and food was delivered at the end of the interval. Key pecks during the delay interval were measured, but had no scheduled effect. In Experiment 1, signal conditions and choice schedules were varied across conditions. During unsignaled conditions, no stimulus change signaled the beginning of a delay interval. During differential and nondifferential signal conditions, offset of the choice stimuli and onset of a delay stimulus signaled the beginning of a delay interval. During differential signal conditions, different stimuli were correlated with the 5-s and 15-s delays, whereas the same stimulus appeared during both delay durations during nondifferential signal conditions. Pigeons showed similar, extreme levels of preference for the 5-s delay alternative during unsignaled and differentially signaled conditions. Preference levels were reliably lower with nondifferential signals. Experiment 2 assessed preference with two pairs of unsignaled delays in which the ratio of delays was held constant but the absolute duration was increased fourfold. No effect of absolute duration was found. The results highlight the importance of delayed primary reinforcement effects and challenge models of choice that focus solely on conditioned reinforcement.     

Temporal integration in duration and number discrimination

Temporal integration in duration and number discrimination by rats was investigated with the use of a psychophysical choice procedure. A response on one lever ("short" response) following a 1-s white-noise signal was followed by food reinforcement, and a response on the other lever ("long" response) following a 2-s white-noise signal was also followed by food reinforcement. Either response following a signal of one of five intermediate durations was unreinforced. This led to a psychophysical function in which the probability of a long response was related to signal duration in an ogival manner. On 2 test days, a white-noise signal with 5, 6, 7, 8, or 10 segments of either 0.5-s on and 0.5-s off or 1-s on and 1-s off was presented, and a choice response following these signals was unreinforced. The probability of a long response was the same function of a segmented signal and a continuous signal if each segment was considered equivalent to 200 ms. A quantitative fit of a scalar estimation theory suggested that the latencies to initiate temporal integration and to terminate the process are both about 200 ms, and that the same internal accumulation process can be used for counting and timing.     

Visual form recognition threshold and the psychological refractory period

Two experiments studied the effect of a reaction time response (RT) on visual form recognition threshold when the temporal interval separating the RT stimulus and the recognition stimulus was short. In Experiment 1 an initial RT response to an auditory signal did not impair the subsequent forced-choice visual form recognition threshold. Interstimulus intervals (ISI) of 0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 msec were used; S was always aware of the ISI under test. In Experiment 2 a visual stimulus was used to elicit the R T response; this shift to an intramodal stimulus did not alter the recognition threshold. These data were interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that two stimulus events can be processed simultaneously even when the temporal interval between them is short.     

Postreinforcement signal processing

Postreinforcement signal processing by rats was demonstrated in six experiments that used a discrete-trials choice procedure. Experiment 1 assessed the extent to which rats are able to transfer knowledge about associations between postreinforcement signal durations and choice responses to conditions where a particular signal duration preceded the opportunity to make a choice response. In Experiment 2 the generality of the transfer effect was demonstrated by using both signal duration and signal modality as relevant stimulus attributes for the postreinforcement signals. The role of the relative durations of the reinforcement-signal gap and the intertrial interval was investigated in Experiment 3. In order to assess the effects of within-trial and between-trial signal relations on the acquisition of a temporal discrimination, both pre-and postreinforcement signals were presented on each trial in Experiments 4 and 5. The effects of pre- and postreinforcement signal relations on the steady-state performance of a temporal bisection task across three different signal ranges were studied in Experiment 6. The conclusion is that rats readily process various stimulus attributes of postreinforcement signals and that relations between postreinforcement signals, choice responses, and prereinforcement signals are major determinants of choice behavior.     

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.     

Choice As A Function Of Reinforcement Ratios In Delayed Matching-to-sample

Pigeons were studied in two experiments using a delayed matching-to-sample task. In Experiment 1, 4 subjects were exposed to a task in which the proportion of reinforcement associated with matching and nonmatching, and the overall proportion of reinforcement associated with selecting each choice, regardless of the sample stimulus, were varied. Choice was sensitive to both proportions. A least squares regression analysis showed that Wixted's (1989) proportions of reinforcement model closely fit the data from Experiment 1; however, the model failed to make accurate qualitative predictions for some test conditions. In Experiment 2, 4 subjects were exposed to a delayed matching-to-sample task in which the retention intervals and the reduction in delay to reinforcement signaled by the onset of the sample stimulus were independently varied. When the retention interval was short and when the delay-reduction value of the sample stimulus was high, the sample exerted greater control over choice; the control by the overall proportion of reinforcements for selecting each choice stimulus was correspondingly low. Conversely, when the retention interval was long and the delay-reduction value of the sample stimulus was low, the sample exerted relatively less control over choice; control by the overall proportion of reinforcements obtained for selecting each choice stimulus was correspondingly high. A signal detection analysis found that sensitivity to reinforcement varied directly with retention interval. Data were also consistent with misallocation models. No evidence was found to suggest that pigeons ignore the rate at which selecting individual choice stimuli is reinforced, as has been reported in studies with human subjects.     

Pigeons may not remember the stimuli that reinforced their recent behavior

In two experiments the conditioned reinforcing and delayed discriminative stimulus functions of stimuli that signal delays to reinforcement were studied. Pigeons' pecks to a center key produced delayed-matching-to-sample trials according to a variable-interval 60-s (or 30-s in 1 pigeon) schedule (Experiment 1) or a multiple variable-interval 20-s variable-interval 120-s schedule (Experiment 2). The trials consisted of a 2-s illumination of one of two sample key colors followed by delays ranging across phases from 0.1 to 27.0 s followed in turn by the presentation of matching and nonmatching comparison stimuli on the side keys. Pecks to the key color that matched the sample were reinforced with 4-s access to grain. Under some conditions of Experiment 1, pecks to nonmatching comparison stimuli produced a 4-s blackout and the start of the next interval. Under other conditions of Experiment 1 and each condition of Experiment 2, pecks to nonmatching stimuli had no effect and trials ended only when pigeons pecked the other, matching stimulus and received food. The functions relating pretrial response rates to delays differed markedly from those relating matching-to-sample accuracy to delays. Specifically, response rates remained relatively high until the longest delays (15.0 to 27.0 s) were arranged, at which point they fell to low levels. Matching accuracy was high at short delays, but fell to chance at delays between 3.0 and 9.0 s. In Experiment 2, both matching accuracy and response rates remained high over a wider range of delays in the variable-interval 120-s component relative to the variable-interval 20-s component. The difference in matching accuracy between the components was not due to an increased tendency in the variable-interval 20-s component toward proactive interference following short intervals. Thus, under these experimental conditions the conditioned reinforcing and the delayed discriminative functions of the sample stimulus depended on the same variables (delay and variable-interval value), but were nevertheless dissociated.     

Timeout postponement without increased reinforcement frequency

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

Response-rate differences in variable-interval and variable-ratio schedules: An old problem revisited

In Experiment 1, a variable-ratio 10 schedule became, successively, a variable-interval schedule with only the minimum interreinforcement intervals yoked to the variable ratio, or a variable-interval schedule with both interreinforcement intervals and reinforced interresponse times yoked to the variable ratio. Response rates in the variable-interval schedule with both interreinforcement interval and reinforced interresponse time yoking fell between the higher rates maintained by the variable-ratio schedule and the lower rates maintained by the variable-interval schedule with only interreinforcement interval yoking. In Experiment 2, a tandem variable-interval 15-s variable-ratio 5 schedule became a yoked tandem variable-ratio 5 variable-interval x-s schedule, and a tandem variable-interval 30-s variable-ratio 10 schedule became a yoked tandem variable-ratio 10 variable-interval x-s schedule. In the yoked tandem schedules, the minimum interreinforcement intervals in the variable-interval components were those that equated overall interreinforcement times in the two phases. Response rates did not decline in the yoked schedules even when the reinforced interresponse times became longer. Experiment 1 suggests that both reinforced interresponse times and response rate–reinforcement rate correlations determine response-rate differences in variable-ratio 10 and yoked variable-interval schedules in rats. Experiment 2 suggests a minimal role for the reinforced interresponse time in determining response rates on tandem variable-interval 30-s variable-ratio 10 and yoked tandem variable-ratio 10 variable-interval x-s schedules in rats.     

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.     

Stimulus and temporal cues in classical conditioning

In 2 experiments, separate groups of rats were given stimulus conditioning, temporal conditioning, untreated control and (in Experiment 2) learned irrelevance control procedures, followed by a compound with both stimulus and temporal cues. Stimulus conditioning consisted of a random 15-s duration conditioned stimulus (CS) followed by food; temporal conditioning consisted of food-food intervals of fixed 90 s (Experiment 1) or fixed 75 + random 15 s (Experiment 2). The stimulus group abruptly increased responding after CS onset, and the temporal group gradually increased responding over the food-food interval. When the food-food interval was fixed 90 s, the temporal cue exerted stronger control in the compound, whereas when the food-food interval was fixed 75 + random 15 s, the stimulus cue exerted stronger control. The strength of conditioning, temporal gradients of responding, and cue competition effects appear to reflect simultaneous timing of multiple intervals.     

Modulation of the effective salience of a stimulus by direct and associative activation of its representation

In 2 experiments, rats received exposure to presentations of a footshock preceded by a given cue. In the PRf (partial reinforcement) condition, this cue also occurred in the absence of the shock; in the CRf (continuous reinforcement) condition, it did not. Subsequent testing in which a new stimulus was used to signal the shock (Experiment 1) showed that the shock was more effective as a reinforcer for the PRf than for the CRf group. In Experiment 2, the shock was used as a conditioned stimulus signaling food delivery, and it was found that conditioning occurred more readily in the PRf than in the CRf group. These results accord with the hypothesis that preexposure to the shock results in a decline in its effective salience but that experience of a cue that signals shock in the absence of the shock itself attenuates this effect and helps maintain stimulus salience.     

Analysis of potentiation and overshadowing effects in the instrumental performance of pigeons

In each of two experiments, pigeons were trained on a multiple VI (variable interval) schedule with a 3-s delay of reinforcement. Different components were associated with different key colors. Experiment 1 (stage 2) confirmed a previous finding that the response rate is higher in a component having a signal (illumination of the houselight) filling the delay interval than in a component lacking the signal. This potentiation effect was replaced by an overshadowing effect (i.e., the rate was low in the signaled component) when in stage 1 of Experiment 1 the birds received concurrent experience of a component containing houselight presentations not correlated with reinforcement. In Experiment 2 it was found that this overshadowing effect was abolished when the signal used was the presentation of a pattern on the response key rather than illumination of the houselight. These results are interpreted in terms of an interaction between the rate-enhancing properties of the signal (perhaps a consequence of its conditioned reinforcing power) and the tendency of the signal in some conditions to evoke behavior that competes with the response being recorded.