Signalled reinforcement and multiple schedules

The responses of four pigeons were first reinforced in the presence of two different wave-lengths (green and red) on a two-ply multiple schedule with identical variable-interval 3-min schedules of reinforcement associated with each component. While the constant-component reinforcement schedule remained unchanged during the experiment, the schedule associated with the variable component was changed to (1) signalled variable time, (2) unsignalled variable time, or (3) signalled variable interval. The probability with which the availability of the reinforcer was signalled in the variable-interval schedules was either 0.5 or 1.0. Positive contrast occurred in both signalled variable-interval and variable-time schedules, but only when the availability of all the variable-component reinforcers was signalled. Signalling the availability of only 50% of the reinforcers in signalled variable-interval schedules resulted in negative induction. The present data suggest that positive behavioral contrast resulting from signalled reinforcer availability is due to the presence of an extinction-correlated stimulus.     

Response rate as a function of amount of reinforcement for a signalled concurrent response

Pigeons were exposed to two equal, concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement on two response keys. One key was continuously illuminated. Pecking on that key produced reinforcements of constant duration. The other key was normally dark, except that availability of reinforcement was signalled by illuminating the key. The duration of access to a grain reinforcer was varied on the key that signalled reinforcement. Rate of response on the first key, the one that did not signal reinforcement, was found to vary inversely with duration of signalled reinforcement on the other key. The latency between the signal and the peck that produced signalled reinforcement remained about constant. These results show that responding on one key in concurrent variable-interval schedules depends on the reinforcement delivered by both schedules and is independent of responding on the other key.     

Rates and patterns of responding with concurrent fixed-interval and variable-interval reinforcement

Pigeons were exposed to concurrent fixed-interval and variable-interval schedules of food reinforcement on two keys. The times between reinforcement were varied systematically on both keys. The overall relative frequency of responding on the fixed-interval key depended on the relative frequency of reinforcement, but did not match it. Instead, the ratio of responses on the fixed-interval key to responses on the variable-interval key was a power function of the ratio of reinforcements, with an exponent of 0.5. Patterns of responding between reinforcements on the fixed-interval key depended on both relative and absolute values of the reinforcement schedules. Similar overall relative responding was obtained at different absolute schedule values with equal relative reinforcement, despite some differences in patterns of responding.     

Effects on responding of mixed and multiple schedules of signalled and unsignalled response-dependent electric-shock delivery

Responding in two rats was maintained under mixed and multiple variable-interval 35-sec variable-interval 35-sec food delivery schedules. Similar rates and patterns of responding occurred in each component of the two schedules. Mixed and multiple variable-interval 65-sec variable-interval 65-sec schedules of response-dependent shock delivery were super-imposed on the mixed and multiple baseline food schedules, respectively. In one component, a 5-sec stimulus was presented on the average of once every 65 sec. Offset of the stimulus arranged that the next response would produce shock. In the other component, no stimulus was presented during the 5-sec period. The mixed schedule of signalled and unsignalled dependent shock delivery yielded similar degrees of response suppression in each component, but the multiple schedule of shock delivery revealed differential degrees of response suppression. Considerably more suppression occurred in the component not associated with the preshock stimulus, thus implicating the discriminative functions of the correlated stimulus.     

Preference for signalled reinforcement

Key pecking was reinforced on a two-component multiple schedule. A variable-interval schedule controlled reinforcement in both components. During one component, access to reinforcement was preceded by a tone; in the other component, a standard unsignalled schedule was in effect. After performance stabilized, subjects were given a choice between the signalled and unsignalled schedules. They were placed in the chamber with the unsignalled schedule in effect on the right key. A single response on the left, or changeover, key produced the signalled schedule for 1 min. Both pigeons in Experiment I pecked the changeover key at a rate sufficient to remain under the signalled schedule for over 90% of the session. Removing and reintroducing the tone demonstrated that the changeover-key responses were due to the occurrence of the tone. In Experiment II, when pecking the changeover key produced the unsignalled schedule, pecking the changeover key declined. The results may be explained either in terms of Hendry's information hypothesis or as escape from an intermittent positive reinforcement schedule.     

Signalled reinforcement in multiple and concurrent schedules

Five pigeons were exposed to multiple and concurrent variable-interval, variable-interval reinforcement schedules in which reinforcement availability in one component was never signalled. During certain phases of the experiment, reinforcement availability in the other component was signalled. Behavioral contrast was observed in seven of eight instances when reinforcement availability in the multiple schedules was signalled. Under the concurrent schedules in which reinforcement availability was signalled, the subjects did not always allocate more time to (prefer) the component containing non-signalled reinforcement, as would be predicted by an account of behavioral contrast holding that contrast results from the introduction of a less-preferred condition in one component of a multiple schedule.     

The reinforcement of four interresponse times in a two-alternative situation

Pigeons pecked for food in a two-key procedure. A concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedule of reinforcement for two classes of interresponse times was arranged on each key. A visual stimulus set the occasion for potential reinforcement of the four operant classes: shorter and longer interresponse times on left and right keys. In Exp. I, the relative frequency of respones on a key equalled the relative frequency of reinforcement on that key. In Exp. II, the relative frequency of an interresponse time equalled the relative reciprocal of its length. In Exp. III, the relative frequency of an interresponse time was a monotonically increasing function of its relative frequency of reinforcement. These functions relating the relative frequency of an interresponse time to its relative length and to its relative frequency of reinforcement were the same as if there had been no second key. Also, the distribution of responses between keys was independent of the relative frequency of an interresponse time on either key. Experiment IV replicated Exp. I except that choices between keys were controlled by a stimulus that signalled the availability of reinforcement on the right key. A comparison of Exp. I and IV suggested that the relative frequency of an interresponse time on one key generally was independent of behavior on the other key, but that the number of responses per minute on a key did depend on behavior on the other key.     

Concurrent performances: stimulus-control gradients during schedules of signalled and unsignalled concurrent reinforcement

On one key, pigeons' pecks were reinforced according to a variable-interval schedule in the presence of vertical lines, and were not reinforced in the presence of oblique lines. On a second key, pecks were reinforced according to a variable-interval schedule in the presence of blue, according to a signalled variable-interval schedule in the presence of red, and were not reinforced in the presence of white. Subsequently, during extinction, stimulus-control gradients were obtained by presenting eight different line orientations on the first key concurrent with each of the three colors on the second key. On the first key, line-orientation gradients tended to be lower, narrower, and less shifted in peak or area when the second-key stimulus was blue or red, the stimuli respectively correlated with unsignalled and signalled reinforcement, than when it was white, the stimulus correlated with extinction. Thus, the effect on first-key line-orientation gradients depended on second-key stimuli correlated with concurrent reinforcement, whether or not these stimuli were also correlated with concurrent responding. As a function of first-key line orientation, an inverted gradient was obtained on the second key during blue; during both red and white, rates of pecking on the second key were near zero.     

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.     

Matching to relative reinforcement frequency in multiple schedules with a short component duration

Three pigeons performed on two-component multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. There were two independent variables: component duration and the relative frequency of reinforcement in a component. The component duration, which was always the same in both components, was varied over experimental conditions from 2 to 180 sec. Over these conditions, the relative frequency of reinforcement in a component was either 0.2 or 0.8 (±0.03). As the component duration was shortened, the relative frequency of responding in a component approached a value equal to the relative frequency of reinforcement in that component. When the relative frequency of reinforcement was varied over conditions in which the component duration was fixed at 5 sec, the relative frequency of responding in a component closely approximated the relative frequency of reinforcement in that component. That is, the familiar matching relationship, obtained previously only with concurrent schedules, was obtained in multiple schedules with a short component duration.     

Effects on concurrent performances of a stimulus correlated with reinforcer availability

A multiple schedule was arranged in which each component consisted of two, concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. A changeover-key procedure was used, and the components of the multiple schedule were distinguished (initially) by the color of the changeover key. During one component of the multiple schedule, the availability of a reinforcer arranged by one of the variable-interval schedules was marked by an exteroceptive stimulus, provided that that variable-interval schedule was not at the time assigned to the main key. During the other component of the multiple schedule, no reinforcer-correlated stimuli were ever presented. During the latter component of the multiple schedule, the distribution of responses and time for the concurrent variable-interval schedules suggested control by the distribution of reinforcements. During the former component, most main-key responses were emitted on the key in the presence of which reinforcer-correlated stimuli were presented. Changeover rate in the presence of that key color was depressed. The discriminative control over the changeover was easily established and was reversible.     

Effects of conditioned reinforcement frequency in an intermittent free-feeding situation,

Key-pecking intermittently produced a set of brief exteroceptive stimulus changes under two-component multiple schedules of conditioned reinforcement. Throughout the study, free access to grain was concurrently provided on an intermittent basis via a variable-interval tape. Free food presentations scheduled by the tape were delivered if no peck had been emitted for 6 sec, and the brief stimulus changes produced by responding under the multiple schedules were those which accompanied food presentation. The second component of each multiple schedule was always associated with a 1-min, variable-interval schedule of conditioned reinforcement. The schedule associated with the first component was systematically varied and conditioned reinforcement was either absent (extinction) or programmed on a 1-, 3-, 6-, or 12-min variable-interval schedule. Under these conditions, rate of responding in the manipulated component decreased monotonically with a decrease in the frequency of conditioned reinforcement. In addition, contrast effects were often obtained in the constant, second component. These results are similar to those obtained with similar multiple schedules of primary reinforcement.     

Stimulus-reinforcer contingencies and local behavioral contrast

Four pigeons were exposed to a series of multiple schedules of variable-interval reinforcement in which pecks were required on one key (operant key) and components were signalled on a second key (signal key). Four additional pigeons experienced identical conditions, except that a yoking procedure delivered food on variable-time schedules, with no key pecks required. One of the components of the multiple schedule was constant throughout the experiment as a variable-interval (or variable-time) 30-second schedule. Operant-key responding during the constant component was uniform throughout the component, uninfluenced by changes in the duration of the variable component, and only slightly influenced by changes in reinforcement frequency correlated with the variable component. By comparison, signal-key response rate during the constant component was highest at the onset of the component, was higher when the variable component was 60-sec long than when it was 1-sec long, and was higher when no reinforcement occurred in the variable component than when reinforcement was scheduled in the variable component. These characteristics of signal-key pecking matched characteristics of local positive behavioral contrast. These data are taken to support the “additivity theory” of behavioral contrast and to suggest that Pavlovian stimulus-reinforcer relations contribute primarily to the phenomenon of local positive contrast.     

Unsignalled delay of reinforcement in variable-interval schedules

Three pigeons responded on several tandem variable-interval fixed-time schedules in which the value of the fixed-time component was varied to assess the effects of different unsignalled delays of reinforcement. Actual (obtained) delays between the last key peck in an interval and reinforcement were consistently shorter than the nominal (programmed) delay. When nominal delays were relatively short, response rates were higher during the delay condition than during the corresponding nondelay condition. At longer nominal delay intervals, response rates decreased monotonically with increasing delays. The results were consistent with those obtained from delay-of-reinforcement procedures that impose either a stimulus change (signal) or a no-response requirement during the delay interval.     

Behavior of humans in variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

During Phase I, human subjects pressed a button for monetary reinforcement in five variable-interval schedules, each of which specified a different frequency of reinforcement. The rate of responding was an increasing, negatively accelerated function of reinforcement frequency; the data conformed closely to Herrnstein's equation. During Phase II, the same five schedules were in operation, but in addition a concurrent variable-interval schedule (B) was introduced, responses on which were always reinforced at the same frequency. Response rate in component A increased while the response rate in B decreased, as a function of the reinforcement frequency in component A. Relative response rates in the two component schedules matched the relative frequencies of reinforcement. Comparing the absolute response rates in component A during Phase I and Phase II it was found that introduction of the concurrent schedule did not affect the value of the theoretical maximum response rate, but did increase the value of the reinforcement frequency needed to obtain any particular submaximal response rate.     

Local patterns of responding maintained by concurrent and multiple schedules

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

Performance of humans in variable-interval avoidance schedules programmed singly, and concurrently with variable-interval schedules of positive reinforcement

Performance maintained under single variable-interval avoidance schedules, single variable-interval schedules of positive reinforcement, and concurrent schedules consisting of a variable-interval avoidance component and a variable-interval positive reinforcement component, was studied in three human subjects, using points exchangeable for money as the reinforcer. Response rate in the single variable-interval avoidance schedules was an increasing function of the frequency of monetary loss avoidance. Response rate in the single variable-interval positive reinforcement schedules was an increasing function of the frequency of obtained monetary reinforcement. In the concurrent avoidance/reinforcement schedules, the rate of responding in the avoidance component increased, and the rate of responding in the positive reinforcement schedule decreased (with one exception) as a function of the frequency of loss avoidance in the avoidance component. The logarithms of the ratios of the response rates in the two components, and the logarithms of the ratios of the times spent in the two components, were linearly related to the logarithms of the ratios of the frequency of loss avoidance in the avoidance component to the frequency of reinforcement in the positive reinforcement component. All three subjects exhibited marked undermatching of response rate ratios to reinforcement frequency ratios. The results are discussed in the context of Herrnstein's quantitative model of operant performance.     

The role of discriminative stimuli in concurrent performances

Key pecking in pigeons was examined under concurrent and parallel arrangements of two independent and simultaneously available variable-interval schedules. Pecks on the changeover key alternated the schedule of reinforcement for responses on the main key. Under concurrent schedules, discriminative stimuli were paired with the reinforcement schedule arranged in each component and changeover responses also alternated these stimuli. Under parallel schedules, changeover responses alternated the effective reinforcement schedule, but did not change the discriminative stimulus. On concurrent procedures, changeover response rate was inversely related to the difference in reinforcement rate between the two components, whereas on parallel schedules no consistent relationship was found. With both schedules, absolute response and reinforcement rates were positively related, although for a given set of reinforcement frequencies, rates were often higher on the concurrent schedules. On concurrent schedules, relative response rates and relative times were equal to relative reinforcement rates. On parallel schedules these ratios were positively related, but response and time ratios were much smaller than were obtained with comparable concurrent schedules. This inequality was most pronounced when absolute reinforcement frequencies were lowest.     

Matching and contrast on several concurrent treadle-press schedules

Four White King pigeons pressed treadles for food reinforcement on several concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules. The rate of reinforcement available for responding in one of the two component schedules was held constant at 30 reinforcers per hour. The rate of reinforcement available for responding in the other was varied from 120 to 60 to 15, and then to 30 reinforcers per hour. The relative rate of responding in each component schedule equalled the relative rate of reinforcement that the component provided. And, behavioral contrast, defined as an inverse relationship between the rate of responding in the constant component and the rate of reinforcement obtained by responding in the other component, occurred for all schedules.     

Resistance to reinforcement change in multiple and concurrent schedules assessed in transition and at steady state

Behavioral momentum theory relates resistance to change of responding in a multiple-schedule component to the total reinforcement obtained in that component, regardless of how the reinforcers are produced. Four pigeons responded in a series of multiple-schedule conditions in which a variable-interval 40-s schedule arranged reinforcers for pecking in one component and a variable-interval 360-s schedule arranged them in the other. In addition, responses on a second key were reinforced according to variable-interval schedules that were equal in the two components. In different parts of the experiment, responding was disrupted by changing the rate of reinforcement on the second key or by delivering response-independent food during a blackout separating the two components. Consistent with momentum theory, responding on the first key in Part 1 changed more in the component with the lower reinforcement total when it was disrupted by changes in the rate of reinforcement on the second key. However, responding on the second key changed more in the component with the higher reinforcement total. In Parts 2 and 3, responding was disrupted with free food presented during intercomponent blackouts, with extinction (Part 2) or variable-interval 80-s reinforcement (Part 3) arranged on the second key. Here, resistance to change was greater for the component with greater overall reinforcement. Failures of momentum theory to predict short-term differences in resistance to change occurred with disruptors that caused greater change between steady states for the richer component. Consistency of effects across disruptors may yet be found if short-term effects of disruptors are assessed relative to the extent of change observed after prolonged exposure.