Conditioned suppression of drl responding: Effect of ucs intensity, schedule parameter, and schedule context

In Experiment I, groups of rats were trained to press a lever for food reinforcement on differential reinforcement of low rate (DRL) schedules which differed in parameter value. A stimulus which terminated with either a 0.5-mA or 2.0-mA electric shock was then superimposed upon each DRL baseline. In general, the magnitude of conditioned suppression was an inverse function of DRL schedule parameter and a direct function of shock intensity. Experiment II demonstrated that the rate of responding maintained by the DRL component of a multiple DRL-extinction schedule decreased during a stimulus preceding a 0.5-mA shock, whereas the rate of responding maintained by the DRL component of a multiple DRL-variable interval schedule showed little change or increased slightly during a stimulus preceding a 0.5-mA shock.     

Response suppression on DRL by rats with septal damage

The effectiveness of the differential reinforcement for low rates of responding (DRL) contingency in suppressing response rates of septal rats was investigated by using a Multi-DRL-yoked-VI (variable interval) schedule of reinforcement. The yoking procedure equated the interreinforcement times on the two schedules. Each schedule was in effect for half of each session, and the change in schedule was signaled by the presence or absence of a cue light. Schedule order and DRL delay requirement were varied. For both normal and septal rats, the response rates were higher in the VI component than the DRL component; this effect demonstrates that the responding of septals as well as normals is suppressed by the differential reinforcement of a particular class of IRTs. A sharp difference in the level of responding occurred at the point of transition from one component of the multiple schedule to the other, which provides evidence of a discrimination between the two schedules for both normals and septals. The conclusion is that the responding of septals is suppressed by the DRL contingency and not controlled solely by the density and distribution of reinforcement.     

Multiple reinforcement contingencies to reduce aggression,self-injury and dysfunctional verbal behaviors in an adult who is sensory impaired

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) and differential reinforcement of low rates of responding (DRL) have been effective techniques in reducing maladaptive behaviors in therapeutic settings. Reported studies of these reinforcement-based procedures indicate that they are usually implemented in isolation, targeting only a single behavior or class of behaviors. In this study, multiple DRO and DRL contingencies were utilized concurrently in reducing two distinct classes of behaviors with a 26 year-old blind man with moderate retardation. One class of behaviors included socially inappropriate verbalizations, while the other included aggressive, self-injurious and environmentally destructive behaviors. Distinct contingencies were established according to the functions of the targeted behaviors and their severity and separate schedules of reinforcement were derived from baseline frequencies. Over a period of 20 months, the differential reinforcement interventions resulted in rapid reduction of behaviors in both classes to near-zero rates and frequencies were maintained at this low level while contingency schedules were systematically lengthened. Collateral effects are discussed including performance in functional academics and participation in community integration activities.     

Decreasing Excessive Bids for Attention in a Simulated Early Education Classroom

Differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedules can be used to decrease, but not eliminate, excessive bids for teacher attention in a classroom. There are two primary methods of implementing a DRL: full session and spaced responding. Some research suggests that the full-session DRL may eliminate target responding. The purpose of the current study was to compare the effectiveness of and preference for the two DRL methods in a simulated preschool classroom. Three participants completed difficult puzzles in baseline, both DRL, and differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (DRO) conditions. In the spaced-responding and full-session DRL conditions, the optimal rate of bids for attention was approximately 75% (two participants) or 50% (one participant) of baseline responding. All participants requested attention near the optimal criterion in both DRL conditions and at a lower rate (near zero) in the DRO condition. Treatment preference of the students was assessed in a concurrent-chain arrangement. All participants preferred both types of DRL conditions to DRO, and two participants showed a preference for the full-session DRL. Results suggest that either DRL procedure may be suitable for a preschool classroom, but a full-session DRL may be ideal.     

Discrimination of response-reinforcer and response-stimulus contingencies in pigeons

For three pigeons (Experiment 1), the presentation of a red response key ended with a food presentation either following two responses separated by at least 10 seconds (a DRL contingency) or following a 10-second response-free period (a DRO contingency). For three other birds (Experiment 2), a brief stimulus presentation terminated the DRL and DRO contingencies. A white side key was presented next and ended with response-dependent food following one contingency and a timeout following the other. Since the contingency on the red key was unsignaled, differential responding on the white side key could indicate that the two response-reinforcer relations had been discriminated. In Experiment 1, the red-key duration and number of responses influenced white-key responding following the contingency that predicted the timeout. A response-initiated DRO was instated, and the influence of red-key duration and response number on white-key responding was diminished. In both experiments, the 10-second time criterion in both contingencies was varied from 0.34 second to 10 seconds. Even at short time intervals the DRO and DRL contingencies were readily discriminated. Pigeons tended to class the two contingencies according to a rule that did not involve simply stimulus duration, numbers of responses, or even the time between a response and its consequence.     

Adventitious reinforcement during long-duration DRO exposure

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) is a procedure often used to decrease problem behavior, but the processes responsible for behavior reduction are not well understood. This study assessed whether adventitious reinforcement of other behavior contributes to DRO effectiveness when, relative to previous research, DRO exposure is prolonged. Two response options were presented on a computer and target responding was reinforced on a variable-ratio schedule. Response rates were then compared during DRO versus yoked variable-time or extinction probes. Across 2 experiments, DRO decreased target responding and increased other responding more than control conditions. However, increases in other responding did not usually maintain despite target responding remaining at low levels. DRO might adventitiously reinforce other responses transiently but the decreases in target behavior could not be entirely explained by adventitious reinforcement of the other response. Instead, reductions in target responding likely depend on the discriminability of the DRO contingency.     

The role of adventitious reinforcement during differential reinforcement of other behavior: A systematic replication

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) is commonly used to decrease problem behavior by presenting reinforcers contingent upon the absence of a target response. Although it is well demonstrated that DROs decrease response rates, the processes producing these decreases are not well understood. The present study systematically replicated previous research assessing whether adventitious reinforcement of alternative behavior contributes to the effectiveness of DRO. We presented university students with two options on a computer and reinforced target responding on a variable-ratio schedule. Next, we compared decreases in target-response rates and any increases in alternative responding during DRO schedules versus yoked variable-time schedules or extinction probes. DRO schedules resulted in the lowest target-response rate and highest alternative-response rate. These findings generally provide some support for the adventitious reinforcement of “other” behavior.     

A developmental study of timing behavior in 4 1/2- and 7-year-old children

The present study investigated effects of age and instructions on temporal regulations of behavior in children. In the first experiment 4 1/2-year-old and 7-year-old subjects were trained with a DRL (differential reinforcement of low rates) 5-s and a DRL 10-s schedule. Results demonstrate that age and timing performance are related. Seven-year-olds are more efficient than the 4 1/2-year-olds. A striking decline in the 4 1/2-year-old children's capacity to space responses was observed in the DRL 10-s schedule as compared to the DRL 5-s schedule. Analysis of individual performances suggests that the evolution of DRL performance between 4 and 7 years of age depends not only on the development of the capacity to delay responding but also on the acquisition of the ability to represent the reinforcement contingencies, that is, the temporal parameters of the task to oneself. In order to test this hypothesis a second experiment was conducted where instructions to wait between operant responses were given to a group of 4 1/2-year-old subjects at the beginning of a DRL 5-s and a DRL 10-s schedule. The results show that these instructions enhance DRL performance. By directing the 4 1/2-year-old subjects' attention to the temporal requirements of the task, instructions led to efficient performance and accurate timing of responses to the DRL schedule.     

A COMPARISON OF TWO PROCEDURES FOR PROGRAMMING THE DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF OTHER BEHAVIORS

The relative effectiveness of two methods of programming DRO schedules of reinforcement was examined in two experiments. In these two methods, reinforcement is delivered if inappropriate responding is not occurring (a) at the end of an interval (momentary DRO), or (b) throughout the entire interval (whole-interval DRO). In Experiment 1, the effects of these schedules on disruptive responding of three retarded students were assessed in a multiple-baseline design. For two students, the momentary schedule occurred first and was ineffective, whereas the whole interval that followed was effective; for the third student, the whole-interval schedule occurred first and was effective, and reduced responding was maintained under the momentary schedule. In Experiment 2, baseline and the two DRO schedules were each presented in random order each day to one student in an alternating treatments design. The momentary DRO schedule reduced responding, but the whole-interval schedule was more effective.     

Using differential reinforcement of low rates to reduce children's requests for teacher attention

We evaluated the effectiveness of full-session differential reinforcement of low rates of behavior (DRL) on 3 primary school children's rates of requesting attention from their teacher. Using baseline rates of responding and teacher recommendations, we set a DRL schedule that was substantially lower than baseline yet still allowed the children access to teacher assistance. The DRL schedule was effective in reducing children's requests for assistance and approval, and the teacher found the intervention highly useful and acceptable. The possible mechanisms that account for behavior change using full-session DRL schedules are discussed.     

Case study: Reinforcement control of assaultive behavior in a sensory impaired child

This clinical case study describes the residential treatment of severe assaultive behavior in a 13-year-old sensory impaired child using two methods of positive reinforcement. Only slight reductions in the frequency of assaults occurred when the child was reinforced for compliance with task demands. Control was established quickly when reinforcement for the absence of responding was programmed in the form of a differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) contingency. Treatment fading was accomplished by gradually decreasing the immediacy and frequency of reinforcement. Extended follow-up assessment revealed near-zero levels of responding.     

Chained and tandem scheduling with children

Children 4 to 7 yr in age were reinforced with trinkets and pennies on chained and tandem schedules. The schedules used were chain DRL FR, chain DRO FR, chain FI FR, tand FI FR, and tand DRO FR. Chain DRL FR and chain DRO FR schedules almost always produced strong schedule and stimulus control, but chain FI FR schedules rarely did if additional techniques were not used. Strong control was produced with chain FI FR schedules, however, if: (a) the FR component was increased in size; (b) schedule and stimulus control was first established with chain DRL FR or chain DRO FR schedules before shifting to the chain FI FR; or (c) an external clock was attached to the FI. Tand FI FR schedules never produced regular or repeatable patterns of responding when additional procedures were not used. Rate patterns resembling those of chain FI FR schedules were produced by tand FI FR schedules, however, if: (a) an external clock was attached to the FI component or (b) control was established by means of tand DRO FR schedules before the tand FI FR was used. Stimulus control was found to be exercised by specific visual stimuli, change of stimuli, and schedule order. Control exercised by schedule order was probably mediated by the child's own behavior which had assumed discriminative stimulus properties.     

Response elimination: A comparison of four procedures

Four procedures for eliminating an operant response were compared within a multiple schedule. Response reduction was most rapid when reinforcement was provided for a specific alternative response. The decline in responding produced by extinction and differential reinforcement of other behavior was similar. Responding initially increased and then gradually decreased when reinforcers were delivered independently of responding at fixed times. Removal of reinforcement from the alternative-response and DRO procedures did not result in recovery of the target response. However, the shift from response-independent dilivery of reinforcers to extinction caused an initial increase in responding.     

Conditioned suppression or facilitation as a function of the behavioral baseline

Rats were exposed to a multiple schedule of reinforcement. During one component, a bar-press was followed by reinforcement only if it occurred between 15 and 20 sec after the previous response. This differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule produced a typical slow rate of responding. During the other component, reinforcement followed the first response to be emitted during limited periods of time which occurred at fixed intervals. These fixed-interval schedules with a limited hold produced higher response rates, described as `interval' or `ratio-like' behavior. Responding during the DRL component increased in frequency during a tone which ended with an unavoidable shock of low intensity, but decreased during the tone when the shock intensity was raised. The `interval' and `ratio-like' responding decreased in frequency during the tone at all shock intensities. Initial acceleration of the DRL responding appeared to be due to adventitious punishment of collateral behavior which was observed between the bar-presses. The more severe conditioned suppression during the fixed-interval components might be the result of the lower probability of reinforcement after any single response.     

Immediate and subsequent effects of differential reinforcement of other behavior and noncontingent matched stimulation on stereotypy

A three‐component multiple‐schedule and brief reversals were used to examine the effects of differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) and noncontingent matched stimulation (NMS) on the automatically reinforced mouthing of a child with autism. Both DRO and NMS decreased immediate engagement in mouthing, but NMS produced larger reductions in the behavior. Furthermore, NMS produced subsequent effects (i.e., when the treatment was withdrawn) similar to those of prior access, whereas DRO marginally increased subsequent engagement in mouthing. The results suggest that NMS was a functionally matched intervention for mouthing. Implications for the assessment and treatment of stereotypy and applications for future research are discussed. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

“Other” behavior and the DRO: The roles of extinction and reinforcement

Jessel et al. (2015) provided some evidence to suggest that “other” behavior is strengthened in the differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO). The present study is a systematic replication of the Jessel et al. procedures. The effects of DRO and extinction on target responding, target-other responding (a response with an established history of reinforcement), and nontarget-other responding emitted by children with intellectual and developmental disabilities and children with no known diagnoses were compared. Other behavior increased in at least one DRO condition for each participant, suggesting that other behavior increases when using DRO, at least initially. Under extinction, target responding and target-other responding decreased to low rates for three of the five participants; however, rates of nontarget-other responding were elevated compared to the DRO condition. These results suggest that increased rates of target-other responding and nontarget-other responding during the DRO condition may be a result of extinction-induced variability.     

Evaluation of fixed momentary dro schedules under signaled and unsignaled arrangements

Fixed momentary schedules of differential reinforcement of other behavior (FM DRO) generally have been ineffective as treatment for problem behavior. Because most early research on FM DRO included presentation of a signal at the end of the DRO interval, it is unclear whether the limited effects of FM DRO were due to (a) the momentary response requirement of the schedule per se or (b) discrimination of the contingency made more salient by the signal. To separate these two potential influences, we compared the effects of signaled versus unsignaled FM DRO with 4 individuals with developmental disabilities whose problem behavior was maintained by social-positive reinforcement. During signaled FM DRO, the experimenter presented a visual stimulus 3 s prior to the end of the DRO interval and delivered reinforcement contingent on the absence of problem behavior at the second the interval elapsed. Unsignaled DRO was identical except that interval termination was not signaled. Results indicated that signaled FM DRO was effective in decreasing 2 subjects' problem behavior, whereas an unsignaled schedule was required for the remaining 2 subjects. These results suggest that the response requirement per se of FM DRO may not be problematic if it is not easily discriminated.     

The analysis and treatment of vocal stereotypy in a child with autism

This study examined procedures for the assessment and treatment of automatically reinforced vocal stereotypy of a 6‐year‐old girl with autism. Stimulus assessments were conducted to identify toys that were correlated with higher rates of vocal stereotypy and toys that were not. A concurrent operants assessment identified preferred stimuli (toys that produced auditory stimulation), which were then used as reinforcers for the non‐occurrence of vocal stereotypy. A reversal design was used to compare the effects of a fixed time schedule of reinforcement (FT 1‐min) to differential reinforcement for the non‐occurrence of behavior (DRO) to reduce vocal stereotypy. Implementation of the FT schedule revealed no effect, whereas the DRO schedule led to a reduction in the target behavior during treatment sessions and across the school day. This study adds to the body of literature supporting the identification of matched stimuli to reduce non‐socially mediated problem behavior. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

THE EFFECT OF CHANGES IN CRITERION VALUE ON DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF LOW RATE SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE

The differential reinforcement of low rate (DRL) schedule is commonly used to assess impulsivity, hyperactivity, and the cognitive effects of pharmacological treatments on performance. A DRL schedule requires subjects to wait a certain minimum amount of time between successive responses to receive reinforcement. The DRL criterion value, which specifies the minimum wait time between responses, is often shifted towards increasingly longer values over the course of training. However, the process invoked by shifting DRL values is poorly understood. Experiment 1 compared performance on a DRL 30‐s schedule versus a DRL 15‐s schedule that was later shifted to a DRL 30‐s schedule. Dependent measures assessing interresponse time (IRT) production and reward‐earning efficiency showed significant detrimental effects following a DRL schedule transition in comparison with the performance on a maintained DRL 30‐s schedule. Experiments 2a and 2b assessed the effects of small incremental changes vs. a sudden large shift in the DRL criterion on performance. The incremental changes produced little to no disruption in performance compared to a sudden large shift. The results indicate that the common practice of incrementing the DRL criterion over sessions may be an inefficient means of training stable DRL performance.     

Some properties of spaced responding in pigeons

Pigeons exposed to a schedule which reinforces interresponse times (IRTs) longer than a given value (DRL schedule) eventually reach a stable pattern of responding which is shown to be a function both of the DRL value and of previous experience with other DRL values. On any given DRL schedule, the stable performance of most pigeons which have been previously exposed to a variety of such schedules, shows an IRT distribution with median equal to the DRL value. For DRL values longer than about 30 sec, however, the median IRT falls short of the DRL value; this failure of adjustment to longer values appears to be a species characteristic of pigeons. The function relating reinforcement rate to 1/DRL value is also shown to be approximately linear over the same range, with variable slope (less than 45°) and a downturn in the vicinity of DRL 30.