Contrast effects in response rate and accuracy of delayed matching to sample

Behavioural contrast is an inverse relation between the response rate in one component of a multiple schedule and the reinforcer rate in an alternated component. To explore possible contrast effects in accuracy as well as response rate, four pigeons were trained in multiple schedules where key pecking produced delayed matching-to-sample trials on a variable-interval schedule. Reinforcer probability for correct matches was constant at .3 in one component, and the conditions of reinforcement were varied in the second component. In Experiment 1, the varied component arranged the same contingencies as the constant component but with reinforcer probabilities of .9 or .1 across conditions. In the varied component, both response rate and accuracy of delayed matching were directly related to reinforcer probability; in the constant component, however, contrast effects on response rate were weak, and there was no evidence of contrast in accuracy of matching. In Experiment 2, the varied component was either variable interval with immediate food reinforcement or extinction. Reliable contrast effects were obtained in both response rate and in accuracy of matching in the constant component, and their magnitudes were correlated within and between subjects. The results of Experiment 2 join previous findings of covariation in the effects of reinforcement on free-operant responding and accuracy of discrimination.     

Dual effects on choice of conditioned reinforcement frequency and conditioned reinforcement value

Pigeons were presented with a concurrent‐chains schedule in which the total time to primary reinforcement was equated for the two alternatives (VI 30 s VI 60 s vs. VI 60 s VI 30 s). In one set of conditions, the terminal links were signaled by the same stimulus, and in another set of conditions they were signaled by different stimuli. Choice was in favor of the shorter terminal link when the terminal links were differentially signaled but in favor of the shorter initial link (and longer terminal link) when the terminal links shared the same stimulus. Preference reversed regularly with reversals of the stimulus condition and was unrelated to the discrimination between the two terminal links during the nondifferential stimulus condition. The present results suggest that the relative value of the terminal‐link stimuli and the relative rate of conditioned reinforcer presentation are important influences on choice behavior, and that models of conditioned reinforcement need to include both factors.     

Divided stimulus control: a replication and a quantitative model

Four pigeons were trained on a conditional discrimination. The conditional stimuli were compounds of pairs of stimuli from two different dimensions, fast versus slow cycles of red or green stimuli, and short- versus long-duration presentations of these cycles. Across conditions, the probability of reinforcers for correctly responding to each dimension was varied from 0 to 1. Discriminability, measured by log d, for stimuli on a dimension increased as the relative frequency of reinforcers for that dimension increased, replicating the results of Shahan and Podlesnik (2006). Two further conditions showed that discriminability between stimuli on each dimension was unaffected by whether the stimuli on the other dimension varied or were constant. Finally, maximal discriminability was unchanged in a redundant-relevant cues condition in which either of the stimuli comprising a compound signaled the same correct response. Davison and Nevin's (1999) model provided an excellent quantitative account of the effect of relative reinforcer frequency on discriminability, and thus of the way in which divided stimulus control is itself controlled by relative reinforcement.     

Noticing and responding in a discrimination based on a distinguishing element

In learning a successive go/no-go discrimination between a positive display consisting of the elements A and B, and negative display consisting of A-alone, pigeons first trained to peck A shift to pecking the distinguishing B element. In order to learn whether or not the shift to B is facilitated by B's function as a signal of the reinforcer, apart from the direct reinforcement of B responses, six arrangements of the elements with respect to the food reinforcer were used. Discrete trials were terminated by a single peck or after 4 sec. The A and B elements were dots of different color. The most critical comparison was between two groups, both of which received no reinforcement for a response directed to B. In one case, B signaled the reinforcer: An A response was reinforced when B was present but not when A appeared alone. In the other, B signaled the absence of a reinforcer: An A response was nonreinforced when B was present, while the response to A-alone was reinforced. During training and in extinction many more reponses were made to B when it signaled the reinforcer than when it signaled its absence. It is concluded that in a discrimination between AB positive and A negative the shift from pecking A to pecking B is facilitated by B's role as a signal for the reinforcer even on trials in which the peck is not made to B. Results from certain other groups showed that, unless pecks shifted to B within the positive display, pecks to A continued on the negative, A-alone trials as well as on the positive AB trials.     

Choice with uncertain outcomes: conditioned reinforcement effects.

Pigeons responded on concurrent chains with equal initial- and terminal-link durations. In all conditions, the terminal links of one chain ended reliably in reinforcement; the terminal links on the alternative chain ended in either food or blackout. In Experiment 1, the terminal-link stimuli were correlated with (signaled) the outcome, and the durations of the initial and terminal links were varied across conditions. Preference did not vary systematically across conditions. In Experiment 2, terminal-link durations were varied under different stimulus conditions. The initial links were variable-interval 80-s schedules. Preference for the reliable alternative was generally higher in unsignaled than in signaled conditions. Preference increased with terminal-link durations only in the unsignaled conditions. There were no consistent differences between conditions with and without a common signal for reinforcement on the two chains. In the first series of conditions in Experiment 3, a single response was required in the initial links, and the stimulus conditions during 50-s terminal links were varied. Preference for the reliable outcome approached 1.0 in unsignaled conditions and was considerably lower (below .50 for 3 of 5 subjects) in signaled conditions. In a final series of signaled conditions with relatively long terminal links, preference varied with duration of the initial links. The results extend previous findings and are discussed in terms of the delay reduction signaled by terminal-link stimuli.     

Facilitation of food-reinforced responding by a signal for response-independent food

Five pigeons whose key pecking was maintained by 4-sec access to grain on a variable-interval 2-min schedule received Pavlovian differential conditioning trials superimposed upon the instrumental baseline. The conditioned stimuli were changes in the stimulus on the key from white to red, or to a white horizontal line against a dark background. The positive conditioned stimulus was 20 sec long, and was followed immediately by 8-sec access to grain. The negative conditioned stimulus, also 20 sec long, was never paired with response-independent food. All pigeons responded more rapidly in the presence of the positive conditioned stimulus than in the presence of the negative one. The positive conditioned stimulus produced an increase in response rate over the pre-conditioned stimulus period. The negative conditioned stimulus had no marked effect upon response rate. When the roles of the positive and negative stimuli were reversed, and the duration of the response-independent reinforcement was reduced to 4 sec, the new positive conditioned stimulus came to facilitate responding, and the new negative conditioned stimulus no longer produced facilitation. A second discrimination reversal produced similar outcomes. When a third reversal was initiated, and the duration of response-independent reinforcement was reduced to 2 sec, the difference between the effects of the positive and negative stimuli diminished.     

The role of the response-reinforcer contingency in negative automaintenance

When a response key is briefly illuminated before a grain reinforcer is presented, key pecking is reliably developed and maintained in pigeons, even if pecking prevents reinforcement (negative automaintenance). This experiment demonstrated that pigeons are sensitive to a negative response-reinforcer contingency, even though it does not eliminate responding. Within individual pigeons, two kinds of trials were compared: red key trials, in which reinforcement was negatively contingent on responding, and white key trials, in which reinforcement was unrelated to responding. Reinforcement frequency in non-contingent trials was yoked to the obtained reinforcement frequency in negatively contingent trials. All eight pigeons pecked substantially more on the non-contingent key than on the negative key, and preferred the non-contingent key to the negative key on occasional “choice” trials where both were presented together. When the stimuli correlated with the two conditions were reversed, the pigeons' behavior also shifted. These response differences are taken as evidence that pigeons are sensitive to the negative response-reinforcer contingency.     

Behavioral contrast produced by a signaled decrease in local rate of reinforcement

Pigeons' key pecking in the presence of one stimulus (S1) was reinforced according to a response-dependent variable-interval schedule. Pecking rate during S1 increased (behavioral contrast) when a second stimulus (S2) [associated with either a response-dependent fixed-interval schedule (Experiment I) or a response-independent reinforcement schedule in which reinforcement availability was signaled by visual (Experiment II) or temporal (Experiment III) stimuli] alternated with S1. These experiments suggest that a discriminable, signaled decrease in local reinforcement rate during S2 is an antecedent of the behavioral contrast response rate increases during S1.     

Delayed and current stimulus control in successive discriminations

In a successive discrimination in which successively alternating red and green hues signaled component variable-interval schedules, sensitivity of the ratio of responses in the two components to variation in the component reinforcer ratio decreased systematically during the course of the component. This decrease in stimulus control or discrimination over the course of the component was shown to be the result of delayed control of responding during the component by the stimulus transition between components. When the red–green stimulus transition was altered by interpolating a white stimulus at the end of each 60-s component, discrimination at the beginning of the component (measured by the power-function exponent for sensitivity to reinforcement) was reduced. Conditions with the white stimulus inserted in other quarters of the component indicated that the current discriminative stimulus exerts control over responding throughout the component, whereas during about the first half of the component, response differentials are influenced by the transition between discriminative stimuli.     

REINFORCER MAGNITUDE ATTENUATES: APOMORPHINE'S EFFECTS ON OPERANT PECKING

When given to pigeons, the direct‐acting dopamine agonist apomorphine elicits pecking. The response has been likened to foraging pecking because it bears remarkable similarity to foraging behavior, and it is enhanced by food deprivation. On the other hand, other data suggest the response is not related to foraging behavior and may even interfere with food ingestion. Although elicited pecking interferes with food capture, it may selectively alter procurement phases of feeding, which can be isolated in operant preparations. To explore the relation between operant and elicited pecking, we provided pigeons the opportunity to earn different reinforcer magnitudes during experimental sessions. During signaled components, each of 4 pigeons could earn 2‐, 4‐, or 8‐s access to grain for a single peck made at the end of a 5‐min interval. In general, responding increased as a function of reinforcer magnitude. Apomorphine increased pecking for 2 pigeons and decreased pecking for the other 2. In both cases, apomorphine was more potent under the component providing the smallest reinforcer magnitude. Analysis of the pattern of pecking across the interval indicated that behavior lost its temporal organization as dose increased. Because apomorphine‐induced pecking varied inversely with reinforcer magnitude, we conclude that elicited pecks are not functionally related to food procurement. The data are consistent with the literature on behavioral resistance to change and suggest that the effects of apomorphine may be modulated by prevailing stimulus—reinforcer relationships.     

Delayed temporal discrimination in pigeons: A comparison of two procedures

A within-subjects comparison was made of pigeons' performance on two temporal discrimination procedures that were signaled by differently colored keylight samples. During stimulus trials, a peck on the key displaying a slanted line was reinforced following short keylight samples, and a peck on the key displaying a horizontal line was reinforced following long keylight samples, regardless of the location of the stimuli on those two choice keys. During position trials, a peck on the left key was reinforced following short keylight samples and a peck on the right key was reinforced following long keylight samples, regardless of which line stimulus appeared on the correct key. Thus, on stimulus trials, the correct choice key could not be discriminated prior to the presentation of the test stimuli, whereas on position trials, the correct choice key could be discriminated during the presentation of the sample stimulus. During Phase 1, with a 0-s delay between sample and choice stimuli, discrimination learning was faster on position trials than on stimulus trials for all 4 birds. During Phase 2, 0-, 0.5-, and 1.0-s delays produced differential loss of stimulus control under the two tasks for 2 birds. Response patterns during the delay intervals provided some evidence for differential mediation of the two delayed discriminations. These between-task differences suggest that the same processes may not mediate performance in each.     

Human Sensitivity To Concurrent Schedules Of Reinforcement: Effects Of Observing Schedule-correlated Stimuli

The determinants of human sensitivity to concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules of reinforcement have been difficult to identify, in part because of procedural differences separating published experiments. This experiment investigated vigilance to stimuli correlated with concurrent schedules. Across phases, 3 college students were provided with either no schedule-correlated stimuli, an observing response that provided brief access to the stimuli, or a contingency that required the subject to identify the stimulus correlated with the source of each obtained reinforcer. Sensitivity, as quantified by the generalized matching equation, was low when no stimuli were available. When the stimuli were response contingent, 1 subject observed them, and her behavior became more sensitive to the distribution of reinforcers across the concurrent schedules. When the procedure required discrimination of the stimulus correlated with each reinforcer, the other 2 subjects also observed the stimuli, and their schedule sensitivity was increased as well. These results implicate procedural differences, rather than inherent behavioral differences, as the source of differences in sensitivity to schedules of reinforcement between humans and nonhumans.     

Control by past and present stimuli depends on the discriminated reinforcer differential

The extent to which a stimulus exerts control over behavior depends largely on its informativeness. However, when reinforcers have discriminative properties, they often exert less control over behavior than do other less reliable stimuli such as elapsed time. We investigated why less reliable cues in the present often overshadow stimulus control by more reliable cues presented in the recent past, by manipulating the reliability and duration of stimulus presentations. Five pigeons worked on a modified concurrent schedule in which the location of the response that produced the last reinforcer was a discriminative stimulus for the likely time and location of the next reinforcer. In some conditions, either the location of the previous reinforcer, or the location of the next reinforcer, was signaled by a red key light. This stimulus was either Brief, occurring for 10 s starting a fixed time after the most recent reinforcer, or Extended, being present at all times between food deliveries. Brief and Extended stimuli that signaled the same information had a similar effect on choice when they were present, but control by Brief stimuli weakened as time since stimulus offset elapsed. Control was divided among stimuli in the present and recent past according to the apparent reliability of the information signaled about the next reinforcer. More reliable stimuli in the present degraded, but did not erase, control by less reliable stimuli presented in the recent past. Thus, we conclude that less reliable stimuli in the present control behavior to a greater degree than do more reliable stimuli in the recent past because these more reliable stimuli are forgotten, and hence their relation to the likely availability of food cannot be discriminated.     

Reinforcement magnitude and pausing on progressive-ratio schedules

Rats responded under progressive-ratio schedules for sweetened milk reinforcers; each session ended when responding ceased for 10 min. Experiment 1 varied the concentration of milk and the duration of postreinforcement timeouts. Postreinforcement pausing increased as a positively accelerated function of the size of the ratio, and the rate of increase was reduced as a function of concentration and by timeouts of 10 s or longer. Experiment 2 varied reinforcement magnitude within sessions (number of dipper operations per reinforcer) in conjunction with stimuli correlated with the upcoming magnitude. In the absence of discriminative stimuli, pausing was longer following a large reinforcer than following a small one. Pauses were reduced by a stimulus signaling a large upcoming reinforcer, particularly at the highest ratios, and the animals tended to quit responding when the past reinforcer was large and the stimulus signaled that the next one would be small. Results of both experiments revealed parallels between responding under progressive-ratio schedules and other schedules containing ratio contingencies. Relationships between pausing and magnitude suggest that ratio pausing is under the joint control of inhibitory properties of the past reinforcer and excitatory properties of stimuli correlated with the upcoming reinforcer, rather than under the exclusive control of either factor alone.     

Control of responding during stimuli that precede transitions in reinforcement frequency

Pigeons' responses were reinforced on a variant of a mixed variable-interval extinction schedule of reinforcement in which the transition to the higher reinforcement rate was signaled by a trace stimulus projected on the response key prior to the onset of the component correlated with food delivery. In the first of two experiments, the duration of the trace stimulus preceding the component correlated with food delivery was varied from 1.5 to 50.0 s and in the second experiment, the reinforcement frequency in the same component was varied from 10 to 60 reinforcers per hour. Pigeons pecked at the trace stimulus preceding the onset of the component correlated with food delivery even though responding was not reinforced in its presence and only one of the changes in reinforcement rate (i.e., from extinction to reinforcement) was signaled. The rate of pecking during the trace stimulus was a function of its duration but not of the reinforcement frequency in the following component. Higher rates generally occurred at the shorter trace-stimulus durations. Component responding following the offset of the trace stimulus was under discriminative control of the trace stimulus whether or not responding occurred in the presence of the trace stimulus.     

Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: implications for preference assessments

We compared results obtained in two previous studies on reinforcer identification (Fisher et al., 1992; Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, & Page, 1985) by combining methodologies from both studies. Eight individuals with mental retardation participated. During Phase 1, two preference assessments were conducted, one in which stimuli were presented singly (SS method) and one in which stimuli were presented in pairs (PS method). Based on these results, two types of stimuli were identified for each participant: High-preference (HP) stimuli were those selected on 75% or more trials during both preference assessments; low-preference (LP) stimuli were those selected on 100% of the SS trials but on 25% or fewer of the PS trials. During Phase 2, the reinforcing effects of HP and LP stimuli were evaluated in reversal designs under two test conditions: concurrent and single schedules of continuous reinforcement. Two response options were available under the concurrent-schedule condition: One response produced access to the HP stimulus; the other produced access to the LP stimulus. Only one response option was available under the single-schedule condition, and that response produced access only to the LP stimulus. Results indicated that 7 of the 8 participants consistently showed preference for the HP stimulus under the concurrent schedule. However, when only the LP stimulus was available during the single-schedule condition, response rates for 6 of the 7 participants were as high as those observed for the HP stimulus during the concurrent-schedule condition (1 participant showed no reinforcement effect). These results indicate that, although the concurrent-schedule procedure is well suited to the assessment of relative reinforcement effects (preference for one reinforcer over another), absolute reinforcement effects associated with a given stimulus may be best examined under single-schedule conditions.     

Stimulus control depends on the subjective value of the outcome

Stimuli that provide information about likely future reinforcers tend to shift behavior, provided a reliable relation between the stimulus and the reinforcer can be discriminated. Stimuli that are apparently more reliable exert greater control over behavior. We asked how the subjective value (measured in terms of preference) of reinforcers associated with stimuli influences stimulus control. Five pigeons worked on a concurrent chains procedure in which half of all trials ended in a smaller reinforcer sooner, and the other half in a larger reinforcer later. In Signaled trials, the color and flash duration on the keys in the initial link signaled the outcome of the trial. In Conflicting probe trials, the color and the flash duration signaled conflicting information about the outcome of the trial. Choice in Signaled trials shifted toward the signaled outcome, but was never exclusive. In Conflicting probe trials, control was divided idiosyncratically between the 2 stimulus dimensions, but still favored the outcome with the higher subjective value. Thus, stimulus control depends not only on the perceived reliability of stimuli, but also on the subjective value of the outcome.     

Rapid acquisition of bias in signal detection: dynamics of effective reinforcement allocation

We investigated changes in bias (preference for one response alternative) in signal detection when relative reinforcer frequency for correct responses varied across sessions. In Experiment 1, 4 rats responded in a two-stimulus, two-response identification procedure employing temporal stimuli (short vs. long houselight presentations). Relative reinforcer frequency varied according to a 31-step pseudorandom binary sequence and stimulus duration difference varied over two values across conditions. In Experiment 2, 3 rats responded in a five-stimulus, two-response classification procedure employing temporal stimuli. Relative reinforcer frequency was varied according to a 36-step pseudorandom ternary sequence. Results of both experiments were analyzed according to a behavioral model of detection. The model was extended to incorporate the effects of current and previous session reinforcer frequency ratios on current-session performance. Similar to findings with concurrent schedules, effects on bias of relative reinforcer frequency were highest for the current session. However, carryover from reinforcer ratios of previous sessions was evident. Generally, the results indicate that bias can come under control of frequent changes in relative reinforcer frequency in both identification and classification procedures.     

Resistance To Change As A Function Of Stimulus-reinforcer And Location-reinforcer Contingencies

Pigeons responded on two keys in each component of a multiple concurrent schedule. In one series of conditions the distribution of reinforcers between keys within one component was varied so as to produce changes in ratios of reinforcer totals for key locations when summed across components. In a second series, reinforcer allocation between components was varied so as to produce changes in ratios of reinforcer totals for components, summed across key locations. In each condition, resistance to change was assessed by presenting response-independent reinforcers during intercomponent blackouts and (for the first series) by extinction of responding on both keys in both components. Resistance to change for response totals within a component was always greater for the component with the larger total reinforcer rate. However, resistance to change for response totals at a key location was not a positive function of total reinforcement for pecking that key; indeed, relative resistance to extinction for the two locations showed a weak negative relation to ratios of reinforcer totals for key location. These results confirm the determination of resistance to change by stimulus—reinforcer contingencies.