Stimulus control of differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate responding

Five pigeons were given single-stimulus training on an 8-sec differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule followed by steady-state generalization training using 12 wavelength stimuli. Three birds had a high percentage of reinforced responses on the training schedule and flat generalization gradients of total responses. The birds with fewer reinforced responses had much steeper generalization gradients. Generalization gradients plotted as a function of both stimulus wavelength and interresponse time showed that for most birds, stimulus control was restricted to responses with long interresponse times. Responses with very short interresponse times were not under stimulus control and there was some evidence of inhibitory control of short interresponse times. Interresponse-times-per-opportunity functions, plotted as a function of stimulus wavelength, showed that stimulus wavelength controlled the temporal distribution of responses, rather than the overall rate of response. The data indicate that the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule generates several response categories that are controlled in different ways by wavelength and time-correlated stimuli, and that averaging responses regardless of interresponse-time length obscures this control.     

The role of reinforcement in controlling sequential IRT dependencies

Sequential dependencies were investigated with two rats in a mixed and in a tandem differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate-responding schedule. In each schedule, 5-sec and 15-sec components were presented in fixed alternation. In the mixed schedule, a 5-sec interresponse time followed a 15-sec interresponse time and a 15-sec interresponse time followed a 5-sec interresponse time in predictable sequence. The correlation between prior and subsequent interresponse times, however, existed only when the prior interresponse time resulted in reinforcement. In the tandem schedule, an interresponse time greater than 5 sec in the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 5-sec component was not associated directly with reinforcement. One subject demonstrated sequential response patterns similar to those noted in the mixed schedule, even though the prior 5-sec interresponse time was not reinforced in the tandem schedule. The results indicate that the prior interresponse time length alone is not sufficient to influence the subsequent interresponse time length. Implications are, however, that a temporal response pattern arises when an interresponse interacts with schedule contingencies to control the interreinforcement interval.     

Signalled reinforcement in differential-reinforcement-of-low rate schedules

At several fixed and variable minimum reinforced interresponse times, a stimulus was added to differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules to signal the availability or nonavailability of reinforcement. As the minimum reinforced interresponse time increased, the rate of unreinforced responding decreased. Changing from fixed to variable minimum interresponse time in the basic differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule further decreased the rate of unreinforced responding. Both effects were to some degree reversible. For fixed minimum reinforced interresponse times of 30 sec or shorter, most unreinforced responses terminated interresponse times just short of that required for reinforcement. The minimum reinforced interresponse time and the number of short response latencies (≤0.5 sec) to the onset of the signal were negatively correlated. Both of these analyses suggested that at values of 30 sec or shorter, the subjects discriminated the availability of the reinforcer more on the basis of time than on the basis of presence or absence of the signal.     

Operant acceleration during a pre-reward stimulus

Stimuli of 20, 40, and 80 sec duration terminated with five non-response-contingent food pellets were superimposed upon lever pressing reinforced with single pellets on a DRL 30-sec schedule. Two rhesus monkeys served as subjects. No change in response frequency was observed during the 20- and 40-sec stimuli. During the 80-sec pre-food stimulus, overall response frequency increased to approximately 150% and 220% of pre-stimulus levels, and the temporal distributions of interresponse times shifted toward the shorter intervals. When the 80-sec stimulus was no longer terminated with food, the response frequency decreased and the temporal distributions of interresponse times gradually approached pre-stimulus levels. An increased frequency of short interresponse times and an increase in response rate was again observed when the pellet termination procedure was reinstituted with the 80-sec stimulus. No change in response frequency or interresponse times was observed in the absence of the conditioning stimulus, and performance efficiency, as reflected in the ratio of responses to reinforcements during non-stimulus periods, remained stable throughout the experiment.     

The effect of informative feedback on temporal tracking in the pigeon

Pigeons emitted interresponse times that were reinforced if they fell between an upper and a lower bound (t相似文献   

Effects of response rate, reinforcement frequency, and the duration of a stimulus preceding response-independent food

Food-reinforced key pecking in the pigeon was maintained under a four-component multiple schedule. In two components, responding was maintained at high rates under a random-ratio schedule. In the other two components, responding was maintained at low rates under a schedule that specified a minimum interresponse time. For both high and low response rates, one of the schedule components was associated with a high reinforcement frequency and the other components with a lower reinforcement frequency. During performance under these schedules, a stimulus terminated by access to response-independent food was periodically presented. The duration of this pre-food stimulus was 5, 30, 60, or 120 sec. Changes in rate of key pecking during the pre-food stimulus were systematically related to baseline response rate and the duration of the stimulus. Both high and low response rates were increased during the 5-sec stimulus. At longer stimulus durations, low response rates were unaffected and high response rates were decreased during the stimulus. For two of three pigeons, high response rates maintained under a lower frequency of reinforcement tended to be decreased more than high response rates maintained under a higher reinforcement frequency. In general, the magnitude of decrease in high response rates was inversely related to the duration of the pre-food stimulus.     

Numerosity and rhythmicity in stimulus-response compatibility

When people must respond discriminatively to 1 or 2 stimuli by making 1 or 2 taps of a response key, they initiate the response more rapidly when the correct number of taps matches the number of stimuli (compatible condition) than when it mismatches (incompatible condition; J. O. Miller, S. G. Atkins, & F. Van Nes, 2005). Miller et al. sometimes found an effect of compatibility on response execution time, as reflected in the interresponse intervals between successive taps. The authors report 2 further experiments (N = 8 participants) in which they generalized the numerosity compatibility effects on response-initiation time and interresponse intervals to 2- versus 3-stimulus sequences. In addition, they varied gap length between stimuli to see whether the rhythm of the stimulus would influence that of the response. Weak rhythmicity effects were repeatedly found, but those were too small to suggest a plausible alternative explanation for the numerosity compatibility effect on response-initiation time.     

Preference as a function of active interresponse times: a test of the active time model

In this article, we describe a test of the active time model for concurrent variable interval (VI) choice. The active time model (ATM) suggests that the time since the most recent response is one of the variables controlling choice in concurrent VI VI schedules of reinforcement. In our experiment, pigeons were trained in a multiple concurrent similar to that employed by Belke (1992), with VI 20-s and VI 40-s schedules in one component, and VI 40-s and VI 80-s schedules in the other component. However, rather than use a free-operant design, we used a discrete-trial procedure that restricted interresponse times to a range of 0.5-9.0 s. After 45 sessions of training, unreinforced probe periods were mixed with reinforced training periods. These probes paired the two stimuli associated with the VI 40-s schedules. Further, the probes were defined such that during their occurrence, interresponse times were either "short" (0.5-3.0 s) or "long" (7.5-9.0 s). All pigeons showed a preference for the stimulus associated with the relatively rich VI 40-s schedule--a result mirroring that of Belke. We also observed, though, that this preference was more extreme during long probes than during short probes--a result predicted by ATM.     

DISCRIMINATION OF VARIABLE SCHEDULES IS CONTROLLED BY INTERRESPONSE TIMES PROXIMAL TO REINFORCEMENT

In Experiment 1, food‐deprived rats responded to one of two schedules that were, with equal probability, associated with a sample lever. One schedule was always variable ratio, while the other schedule, depending on the trial within a session, was: (a) a variable‐interval schedule; (b) a tandem variable‐interval, differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate schedule; or (c) a tandem variable‐interval, differential‐reinforcement‐of‐high‐rate schedule. Completion of a sample‐lever schedule, which took approximately the same time regardless of schedule, presented two comparison levers, one associated with each sample‐lever schedule. Pressing the comparison lever associated with the schedule just presented produced food, while pressing the other produced a blackout. Conditional‐discrimination accuracy was related to the size of the difference in reinforced interresponse times and those that preceded it (predecessor interresponse times) between the variable‐ratio and other comparison schedules. In Experiment 2, control by predecessor interresponse times was accentuated by requiring rats to discriminate between a variable‐ratio schedule and a tandem schedule that required emission of a sequence of a long, then a short interresponse time in the tandem's terminal schedule. These discrimination data are compatible with the copyist model from Tanno and Silberberg (2012) in which response rates are determined by the succession of interresponse times between reinforcers weighted so that each interresponse time's role in rate determination diminishes exponentially as a function of its distance from reinforcement.     

Sequential dependencies in free-responding

Three pigeons pecked for food in an experiment in which reinforcements were arranged for responses terminating sequences of interresponse times. Each reinforced interresponse time belonged to a class extending either from 1.0 to 2.0 sec (class A) or from 3.0 to 4.5 sec (class B). Reinforcements were arranged by a single variable-interval schedule and a random device that assigned each reinforcement to one of four sequences of two successive interresponse times: AA, AB, BA, or BB. Throughout the experiment, half of the reinforcements were delivered for interresponse times in class A and half for those in class B. Over conditions, the interresponse time preceding a reinforced interresponse time always, half of the time, or never, belonged to class A. The duration of the interresponse time preceding a reinforced one had a pronounced effect on response patterning. It also had a pronounced effect on the overall response probability, which was highest, intermediate, and lowest, when the interresponse time preceding a reinforced interresponse time always, half of the time, or never, belonged to class A, respectively. In no case were successive interresponse times independent, so that overall response probability was not representative of momentary response probabilities.     

Timing behavior and conditioned fear

Rats were trained on a two-response timing procedure which required that response B follow response A by at least a minimum specified interval in order to be reinforced with food. Repeated presentation (5 min on, 5 min off) of an auditory warning stimulus terminated by a brief electric shock to the feet (conditioned fear) produced a marked suppression in the frequency of A-to-B response sequences during the warning stimulus. The distribution of A-to-B interresponse times (timing behavior), however, did not change during the warning stimulus.     

Reinforcement contingencies maintaining collateral responding under a DRL schedule

Two-key conjunctive schedules were studied with one key (food key) under a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 20-sec schedule, while the consequences of responding on another key (collateral key) were varied. When food depended not only upon a food-key interresponse time in excess of 20 sec, but also upon the occurrence of one or more collateral-key responses during the food-key interresponse time, the rate of collateral-key responding was low and food-key interresponse times rarely exceeded 20 sec. When collateral-key responses could produce a discriminative stimulus correlated with the availability of food under the DRL schedule, the discriminative stimulus functioned as a conditioned reinforcer to maintain higher rates of collateral-key responding, and the spacing of food-key responses increased. If the occurrence of the discriminative stimulus was independent of collateral-key responses, the rate of collateral-key responding was again low, but the spacing of food-key responses was still controlled by the discriminative stimulus. Both the conditioned reinforcer and the explicit reinforcement contingency could maintain collateral-key responding, but the adventitious correlation between collateral-key responses and the delivery of food could not maintain very much collateral-key responding. The pattern of responding on the food-key was determined to a much greater extent by the correlation between the discriminative stimulus and the delivery of food than by the pattern of responding on the collateral key.     

The copyist model of response emission

The variety of different performances maintained by schedules of reinforcement complicates comprehensive model creation. The present account assumes the simpler goal of modeling the performances of only variable reinforcement schedules because they tend to maintain steady response rates over time. The model presented assumes that rate is determined by the mean of interresponse times (time between two responses) between successive reinforcers, averaged so that their contribution to that mean diminishes exponentially with distance from reinforcement. To respond, the model randomly selects an interresponse time from the last 300 of these mean interresponse times, the selection likelihood arranged so that the proportion of session time spent emitting each of these 300 interresponse times is the same. This interresponse time defines the mean of an exponential distribution from which one is randomly chosen for emission. The response rates obtained approximated those found on several variable schedules. Furthermore, the model reproduced three effects: (1) the variable ratio maintaining higher response rates than does the variable interval; (2) the finding for variable schedules that when the reinforcement rate varies from low to high, the response rate function has an ascending and then descending limb; and (3) matching on concurrent schedules. Because these results are due to an algorithm that reproduces reinforced interresponse times, responding to single and concurrent schedules is viewed as merely copying what was reinforced before.     

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.     

Interresponse-time analysis of stimulus control in multiple schedules

Interresponse-time distributions were recorded in two components of multiple variable-interval schedules that were varied over several conditions. Values of the exponent for power functions relating ratios of interresponse times emitted per opportunity to ratios of reinforcers obtained in the two components varied with interresponse-time class interval. The exponent (sensitivity to reinforcement) afforded a measure of stimulus control exerted by the discriminative stimuli. Exponents were near zero for short interresponse times, consistent with previous conclusions that responses following short interresponse times are controlled by response-produced or proprioceptive stimuli. Values of exponents increased with longer interresponse times, indicating strong control by exteroceptive stimuli over responses following interresponse times of approximately one second or longer.     

Numerosity and Rhythmicity in Stimulus-Response Compatibility

When people must respond discriminatively to 1 or 2 stimuli by making 1 or 2 taps of a response key, they initiate the response more rapidly when the correct number of taps matches the number of stimuli (compatible condition) than when it mismatches (incompatible condition; J. O. Miller, S. G. Atkins, & F. Van Nes, 2005). Miller et al. sometimes found an effect of compatibility on response execution time, as reflected in the interresponse intervals between successive taps. The authors report 2 further experiments (N=8 participants) in which they generalized the numerosity compatibility effects on response-initiation time and interresponse intervals to 2- versus 3-stimulus sequences. In addition, they varied gap length between stimuli to see whether the rhythm of the stimulus would influence that of the response. Weak rhythmicity effects were repeatedly found, but those were too small to suggest a plausible alternative explanation for the numerosity compatibility effect on response-initiation time.     

A response-spacing effect: an absence of responding during response-feedback stimuli

In most studies of operant reinforcement a response-feedback stimulus is used which is so brief that the nature of the responding during it is virtually undetectable. The present study investigated the nature of this responding by lengthening an initially brief feedback stimulus. The key-pecking responses of pigeons were maintained by a variable-interval schedule of food reinforcement. Each response produced a brief stimulus light in addition to the usual auditory response feedback. When the duration of the feedback stimulus light was gradually increased, it was found to control a nearly zero rate of responding. The result was a paced, metronomic-like performance in which the pigeon made a single response, paused until the stimulus terminated, and then responded again. As a result, the overall response rate was greatly reduced; the mean interresponse time approximated the stimulus duration. A plausible interpretation is that brief feedback stimuli acquire control over responding because they coincide with few responses and few reinforcers. These findings show that in addition to their known functions as conditioned-reinforcing stimuli and discriminative stimuli, response-feedback stimuli also exert direct stimulus control: responding is reduced during the feedback stimulus itself.     

Effects of d-amphetamine and chlordiazepoxide on spaced responding in pigeons

The effects of d-amphetamine and chlordiazepoxide were studied in pigeons on performance (1) under a schedule that reinforced responses on a key (food key) if they were more than 20 sec apart, (2) under the same schedule when responses also were required on a collateral key during the interresponse time on the food key, and (3) under the same schedule when responses were required on a collateral key during the interresponse time on the food key and collateral-key responses could produce a stimulus correlated with the availability of food. Under all three spaced-responding schedules, d-amphetamine and chlordiazepoxide at low dose levels slightly increased the frequency of short interresponse times on the food key for about half the birds, and either did not affect the interresponse time patterns of the other birds, or lengthened the durations slightly. At higher dose levels, d-amphetamine and chlordiazepoxide increased the frequency of long interresponse times or abolished responding in all birds. Changes in the pattern of interresponse times on the food key did not seem to depend on changes in the rate or pattern of collateral-key responses.     

SINGLE‐SAMPLE DISCRIMINATION OF DIFFERENT SCHEDULES' REINFORCED INTERRESPONSE TIMES

Food‐deprived rats in Experiment 1 responded to one of two tandem schedules that were, with equal probability, associated with a sample lever. The tandem schedules' initial links were different random‐interval schedules. Their values were adjusted to approximate equality in time to completing each tandem schedule's response requirements. The tandem schedules differed in their terminal links: One reinforced short interresponse times; the other reinforced long ones. Tandem‐schedule completion presented two comparison levers, one of which was associated with each tandem schedule. Pressing the lever associated with the sample‐lever tandem schedule produced a food pellet. Pressing the other produced a blackout. The difference between terminal‐link reinforced interresponse times varied across 10‐trial blocks within a session. Conditional‐discrimination accuracy increased with the size of the temporal difference between terminal‐link reinforced interresponse times. In Experiment 2, one tandem schedule was replaced by a random ratio, while the comparison schedule was either a tandem schedule that only reinforced long interresponse times or a random‐interval schedule. Again, conditional‐discrimination accuracy increased with the temporal difference between the two schedules' reinforced interresponse times. Most rats mastered the discrimination between random ratio and random interval, showing that the interresponse times reinforced by these schedules can serve to discriminate between these schedules.     

Interresponse time duration in fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement: control by ordinal position and time since reinforcement

The times between each of the first thirteen responses after reinforcement (the first twelve interresponse times) were determined for two pigeons whose pecking was reinforced on fixed-interval schedules of food reinforcement ranging from 0.5 min to 5 min. These interresponse times were classified with respect to their ordinal position in the sequence of responses and with respect to the time since the preceding reinforcement at which the initiating response occurred. The median interresponse time durations were essentially constant after the sixth response after reinforcement regardless of the time at which the interresponse time was initiated. The durations of the first few interresponse times after reinforcement decreased as the number of preceding responses increased and as the time since the preceding reinforcement increased.