Punishment of autoshaped key-peck responses of pigeons

The effects of different voltages of response-dependent and response-independent electric shock on the frequency of key-peck responses engendered by an autoshaping procedure were studied. In Experiments I and II, each response produced a brief electric shock, and response frequency generally decreased more with higher-voltage shock. Preshock frequencies of responding were generally recovered across successive sessions of relatively low-voltage shock delivery but not at higher shock voltages. The effects of response-dependent and response-independent shock were compared in Experiment III by using a yoked-control procedure in which each pigeon received each type of shock delivery at different times. Response-dependent shock generally produced greater decreases in response frequency. In the final experiment, one response-independent shock per autoshaping trial was scheduled. The number of autoshaped responses per trial was related to shock voltages. These results suggest that response-dependent and response-independent electric shock effectively decrease frequency of autoshaped responses.     

Blocking, unblocking, and overexpectation in autoshaping with pigeons

Three experiments used pigeons in an autoshaping procedure and a single-subject design to examine compound stimulus control in classical conditioning. Experiment 1 examined the blocking effect, and Experiment 2 examined the unblocking effect. In both experiments, response-independent food was first delivered intermittently in the presence of one distinctively colored houselight but not another. Then, conventional autoshaping trials were carried out in the presence of each houselight. In Experiment 1, the keylight readily elicited responding in the presence of the houselight that had been negatively correlated with food, but not in the presence of the houselight that had been positively correlated with food. In Experiment 2, the keylight readily elicited responding in the presence of the houselight positively correlated with food, but only when the amount of food used on the autoshaping trials was either greater or less than that previously delivered in the presence of the houselight. Experiment 3 examined the overexpectation effect. Conventional autoshaping trials were first carried out by presenting each of two keylights individually. Then, additional autoshaping trials were carried out by presenting the two keylights as a compound, with either the same amount of food or a greater amount of food per trial. Finally, the keylights were retested by again presenting them individually. The number of responses per trial elicited by the keylights decreased when the amount of food used in compound trials was the same as that used in individual trials. However, the number of responses per trial remained approximately the same when the amount of food used in compound trials was greater than that used in individual trials. Taken together, the results of the three experiments demonstrate (a) the generality of the blocking, unblocking, and overexpectation effects by virtue of their extension to appetitive unconditioned stimuli; (b) the suitability of pigeons as subjects and autoshaping as a procedure for studying classical conditioning; and (c) the appropriateness of single-subject designs.     

Food-paired stimuli as conditioned reinforcers: effects of d-amphetamine.

Seven pigeons were studied in two experiments in which key pecks were reinforced under a second-order schedule wherein satisfaction of variable-interval schedule requirements produced food or a brief stimulus. In the second part of each session, responses produced only the brief stimulus according to a variable-interval schedule (food extinction). For the 4 pigeons in Experiment 1, the response key was red throughout the session. In separate phases, the brief stimulus was either paired with food, not paired with food, or not presented during extinction. d-Amphetamine (0.3 to 10.0 mg/kg) dose-dependently reduced food-maintained responding during the first part of the session and, at intermediate dosages, increased responding during the extinction portion of the session. The magnitude of these increases, however, did not consistently depend on whether the brief stimulus was paired, not paired, or not presented. It was also true that under nondrug conditions, response rates during extinction did not differ reliably depending on pairing operations for the brief stimulus. In Experiment 2, 3 different pigeons responded under a procedure wherein the key was red in the component with food presentations and blue in the extinction component (i.e., multiple schedule). Again, d-amphetamine produced dose-related decreases in responding during the first part of a session and increases in responding in the second part of the session. These increases, however, were related to the pairing operations; larger increases were observed when the brief stimulus was paired with food than when it was not or when it was not presented at all. Under nondrug conditions, the paired brief stimulus controlled higher response rates during extinction than did a nonpaired stimulus or no stimulus. These findings suggest that d-amphetamine can enhance the efficacy of conditioned reinforcers, and that this effect may be more robust if conditioned reinforcers occur in the context of a signaled period of extinction.     

Response acquisition under targeted percentile schedules: a continuing quandary for molar models of operant behavior.

The number of responses rats made in a "run" of consecutive left-lever presses, prior to a trial-ending right-lever press, was differentiated using a targeted percentile procedure. Under the nondifferential baseline, reinforcement was provided with a probability of .33 at the end of a trial, irrespective of the run on that trial. Most of the 30 subjects made short runs under these conditions, with the mean for the group around three. A targeted percentile schedule was next used to differentiate run length around the target value of 12. The current run was reinforced if it was nearer the target than 67% of those runs in the last 24 trials that were on the same side of the target as the current run. Programming reinforcement in this way held overall reinforcement probability per trial constant at .33 while providing reinforcement differentially with respect to runs more closely approximating the target of 12. The mean run for the group under this procedure increased to approximately 10. Runs approaching the target length were acquired even though differentiated responding produced the same probability of reinforcement per trial, decreased the probability of reinforcement per response, did not increase overall reinforcement rate, and generally substantially reduced it (i.e., in only a few instances did response rate increase sufficiently to compensate for the increase in the number of responses per trial). Models of behavior predicated solely on molar reinforcement contingencies all predict that runs should remain short throughout this experiment, because such runs promote both the most frequent reinforcement and the greatest reinforcement per press. To the contrary, 29 of 30 subjects emitted runs in the vicinity of the target, driving down reinforcement rate while greatly increasing the number of presses per pellet. These results illustrate the powerful effects of local reinforcement contingencies in changing behavior, and in doing so underscore a need for more dynamic quantitative formulations of operant behavior to supplement or supplant the currently prevalent static ones.     

Resurgence of temporal patterns of responding

The resurgence of temporal patterns of key pecking by pigeons was investigated in two experiments. In Experiment 1, positively accelerated and linear patterns of responding were established on one key under a discrete-trial multiple fixed-interval variable-interval schedule. Subsequently, only responses on a second key produced reinforcers according to a variable-interval schedule. When reinforcement on the second key was discontinued, positively accelerated and linear response patterns resurged on the first key, in the presence of the stimuli previously correlated with the fixed- and variable-interval schedules, respectively. In Experiment 2, resurgence was assessed after temporal patterns were directly reinforced. Initially, responding was reinforced if it approximated an algorithm-defined temporal pattern during trials. Subsequently, reinforcement depended on pausing during trials and, when it was discontinued, resurgence of previously reinforced patterns occurred for each pigeon and for 2 of 3 pigeons during a replication. The results of both experiments demonstrate the resurgence of temporally organized responding and replicate and extend previous findings on resurgence of discrete responses and spatial response sequences.     

The role of local context in autoshaping

Three experiments used an autoshaping procedure with pigeons to examine the effects of nonreinforced, nontarget stimuli (ITI-fillers) during the intertrial interval on responding to a reinforced target CS. Experiment 1 replicated a previous demonstration that an ITI-filler that occupied a substantial portion of the ITI attenuated responding to the target CS relative to a group trained with a similar ITI but lacking the ITI-filler. Experiment 2 found that the superiority of responding typically found with a long ITI relative to a short ITI, that is, the trial-spacing effect, can be reversed by imposing a filler stimulus during the ITI in the former condition. Experiment 3, using a within-subject design, found that when one background stimulus condition occupied a majority of the interreinforcement interval, pairings of one target CS with reinforcement that were embedded within this background condition, that is, a long duration local context occurred for this CS, yielded better performance that a second, reinforced, target CS paired with reinforcement in the shorter duration background condition. These results confirmed predictions derived from a local context view of cycle time. Comparator theories of classical conditioning require incorporation of this notion into their conceptualization of effective cycle time in order to explain the present findings.     

Behavioral control by the response–reinforcer correlation

Using a discrete‐trials procedure, two experiments examined the effects of response–reinforcer correlations on responding while controlling molecular variables that operated at the moment of reinforcer delivery (e.g., response–reinforcer temporal contiguity, interresponse times preceding reinforcement). Each trial consisted of three successive components: Response, Timeout, and Reinforcement, with the duration of each component held constant. The correlation between the number of responses in the Response component and reinforcer deliveries in the Reinforcement component was varied. In the Positive‐correlation condition, a larger number of responses in the Response component programmed a higher reinforcement rate (Experiment 1) or a shorter time to reinforcement (Experiment 2) in the Reinforcement component. Although programmed in this way, the actual reinforcer delivery was dependent on, and occurred immediately after, a response in the Reinforcement component. In the Zero‐correlation condition, the programmed rates of reinforcement (Experiment 1) or the times to reinforcement (Experiment 2) in the Reinforcement component of each trial were yoked to those in the preceding Positive‐correlation condition. Responding in the Response component was higher in the Positive‐ than in the Zero‐correlation condition, without systematic changes in molecular variables. The results suggest that the response–reinforcer correlation can be a controlling variable of behavior.     

Autoshaping, random control, and omission training in the rat

The role of the stimulus-reinforcer contingency in the development and maintenance of lever contact responding was studied in hooded rats. In Experiment I, three groups of experimentally naive rats were trained either on autoshaping, omission training, or a random-control procedure. Subjects trained by the autoshaping procedure responded more consistently than did either random-control or omission-trained subjects. The probability of at least one lever contact per trial was slightly higher in subjects trained by the omission procedure than by the random-control procedure. However, these differences were not maintained during extended training, nor were they evident in total lever-contact frequencies. When omission and random-control subjects were switched to the autoshaping condition, lever contacts increased in all animals, but a pronounced retardation was observed in omission subjects relative to the random-control subjects. In addition, subjects originally exposed to the random-control procedure, and later switched to autoshaping, acquired more rapidly than naive subjects that were exposed only on the autoshaping procedure. In Experiment II, subjects originally trained by an autoshaping procedure were exposed either to an omission, a random-control, or an extinction procedure. No differences were observed among the groups either in the rate at which lever contacts decreased or in the frequency of lever contacts at the end of training. These data implicate prior experience in the interpretation of omission-training effects and suggest limitations in the influence of stimulus-reinforcer relations in autoshaping.     

Duration of signals for intertrial reinforcement and nonreinforcement in random control procedures

In the random control procedure, responding to a conditioned stimulus (target CS) is prevented when the probability of unsignaled, unconditioned stimuli (USs) in the intertrial interval (ITI) is equal to the probability of the US in the presence of the target CS. Three experiments used an autoshaping procedure with White Carneaux pigeons to examine the effects of the temporal duration of signals for the ITI USs (cover CSs) and for concomitant periods of nonreinforcement. In Experiment 1, a short duration cover, but not a long duration cover, resulted in responding to the target CS. In Experiment 2, an explicit CS- cue during periods of nonreinforcement did not affect target acquisition. In Experiment 3, a long CS-, but not a short cover CS, was a sufficient condition for the acquisition of responding to the target CS. These results imply that the acquisition of responding to a target CS requires a discriminable period of nonreinforcement that is long relative to the target CS duration.     

The role of signals in two variations of differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate procedures

Differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate (DRL) schedules are used to decrease the overall rate of, but not eliminate, a target response. Two variations of DRL, spaced‐responding and full‐session, exist. Preliminary comparative analyses suggest that the two schedules function differently when unsignaled. We compared response rates under these two DRL variations with and without signals. In Experiment 1, five preschool students played a game in which points were earned under DRL schedules. In some sessions, a stimulus signaled when responses would be reinforced (S+) or not reinforced (S‐). In others, only an S‐ was present. Signals (S+/S‐) facilitated and maintained responding in both types of DRL schedules. In Experiment 2, we modified the signals with five different preschoolers. Instead of an S‐ only, we did not present any signals. Elimination and high variability of the target response were observed with the S‐ only and absence of S+/S‐, respectively. Signaled DRL schedules are recommended for application.     

Searching for Evidence of Transfer between Drug Facilitators

Four autoshaping experiments with pigeons examined the transfer of facilitation between drug stimuli. In Experiment 1 the presence and absence of methadone or phencyclidine signaled which of two keylight CSs were followed by grain (US). A different keylight CS was reinforced in the absence of the drugs. The drugs facilitated responding to the CS with which they were trained but did not facilitate responding to the CS reinforced in the presence of the other drug. Thus, transfer of facilitation across drug stimuli was not obtained. In Experiment 2 one of the drug facilitators was replaced by a tone. No evidence of transfer of facilitative function was obtained between the tone and the remaining drug facilitator. In Experiment 3 transfer was again not found using a design similar to that used in Experiment 1 except that the drugs did not simultaneously signal nonreinforcement of a keylight CS. In Experiment 4 the procedures of Experiment 1 were employed except that drug facilitators were replaced by distinct visual stimuli surrounding the response key. Clear evidence of transfer between the visual facilitators was obtained. The lack of transfer of modulatory control by drug stimuli in Experiments 1-3, coupled with its occurrence in Experiment 4 and previous studies, suggests that stimulus control by drugs may differ in important ways from stimulus control by conventional stimuli.     

Positive behavioral contrast in 3-month-old infants on multiple conjugate reinforcement schedules.

Positive behavioral contrast was assessed in two experiments with young infants using multiple conjugate reinforcement schedules. Reinforcement was produced by footkicks which activated the objects of an overhead crib mobile in a manner proportional to the vigor and rate of responding. Distinctive color/pattern cues on the sides of the objects served as discriminative stimuli for components of the multiple schedule. In Experiment 1, infants were trained with one cue (S+) only before insertion of S+ into a multiple schedule with an extinction component. A control group received S+ throughout all sessions. In Experiment 2, a multiple schedule was introduced at the outset, and responses in both components were reinforced before the introduction of extinction in the second component. In a final phase, reinforcement was reintroduced into the second component. Positive behavioral contrast occurred in both experiments. Response reduction in the extinction component was seen only in individual relative response curves. In both experiments, negative emotional behaviors accompanied the extinction component, and in Experiment 1, cooing accompanied presentations of S+.     

Response additivity: effects of superimposed free reinforcement on a variable-interval baseline

Three experiments examined the effects of superimposing free reinforcement (Free VI 30-sec) on behavior maintained by a response dependent mult VI 2-min VI 2-min schedule of reinforcement. Experiment I used pigeons as subjects, key pecking as the response, and colors of response key as the stimuli associated with the multiple-schedule components. When free reinforcement was added during only one component (Differential condition) a large and highly significant increase in response rate developed in this component. Adding free reinforcement during both components (Nondifferential condition) produced smaller and far less-consistent effects. An entirely different pattern of results was obtained in two subsequent experiments, where similar procedures and reinforcement conditions were used with rats as subjects and bar pressing as the response. In both Experiments II and III, response rates decreased to the stimulus associated with added free reinforcement in the Differential condition. These findings are interpreted as the result of interactions between behavior maintained by response-reinforcer contingencies and behavior maintained by stimulus-reinforcer contingencies. As such, they support the main assumption of an autoshaping theory of behavioral contrast, that additivity of responding generated by the two kinds of contingency can occur only in situations favorable to autoshaping.     

Acquisition of lever-press responding in rats with delayed reinforcement: A comparison of three procedures

The present study examined the acquisition of lever pressing in rats under three procedures in which food delivery was delayed by 4, 8, and 16 seconds relative to the response. Under the nonresetting delay procedure, food followed the response selected for reinforcement after a specified interval elapsed; responses during this interval had no programmed effect. Under the resetting procedure, the response selected for reinforcement initiated an interval to food delivery that was reset by each subsequent response. Under the stacked delay procedure, every response programmed delivery of food t seconds after its occurrence. Two control groups were studied, one that received food immediately after each lever press and another that never received food. With the exception of the group that did not receive food, responding was established with every procedure at every delay value without autoshaping or shaping. Although responding was established under the resetting delay procedure, response rates were generally not as high as under the other two procedures. These findings support the results of other recent investigations in demonstrating that a response not previously reinforced can be brought to strength by delayed reinforcement in the absence of explicit training.     

Higher order autoshaping

A series of experiments is reported on appetitive higher order conditioning in the pigeon. Experiment I showed that second order autoshaping can be produced by pairing a neutral keylight with a keylight of another colour, previously paired with food. Experiment II employed an omission procedure to show that second order autoshaping is a consequence of the contingency between first and second order stimuli. In Experiment III, extinction of responding to the first order stimulus was shown to reduce responding to the second order stimulus. Experiments IV and V showed firstly that this reduction is not due to generalization of extinction, and secondly that second order key pecks may be produced in the absence of any pecking to the first order stimulus. The results suggest that second order autoshaping is based largely on a direct association between the first and second order stimuli.     

The effect of informative events on response rate

A single group of pigeons received two different training conditions presented on different response keys. Responding during the first component of each condition was reinforced, according to a fixed interval schedule, by gaining access to the second component. In the uninformative condition the second component consisted on every trial of the illumination of the response key for 10 sec, the key was then darkened and food presented with a probability of 0.5. In the informative condition half of the trials at the conclusion of the first component resulted in the key being darkened and no additional events were presented. On the remaining trials the second component was similar to that for the uninformative condition. The results from the first two stages revealed that responding during the first component was faster in the informative than uninformative condition when trials were presented separately. In the final stage, when the trials were presented simultaneously, the rate of responding during the first component was eventually similar in the two conditions, but subjects preferred the second component of the informative condition. These results suggest that events which are informative, or perhaps unpredictable, can support a higher response rate than those which are uninformative, or predictable.     

Performance of children under a multiple random-ratio random-interval schedule of reinforcement

Three children, aged 1.5, 2.5, and 4.5 years, pressed telegraph keys under a two-component multiple random-ratio random-interval schedule of reinforcement. In the first condition, responses on the left key were reinforced under a random-interval schedule and responses on the right key were reinforced under a random-ratio schedule. In the second condition, the schedule components were reversed. In the third condition, the original arrangement was reinstated. For all subjects, rates of responding were higher in the random-ratio component despite higher rates of reinforcement in the random-interval component. The average interreinforcement interval of the random-interval component was increased in the fourth condition, resulting in more similar rates of reinforcement for both schedule components, and then returned to its original value in the fifth condition. In both conditions, all subjects continued to exhibit higher rates of responding in the ratio component than in the interval component. Although these observations are consistent with results from studies with pigeons, it is argued that the response-rate differences between the interval and ratio schedule components are sufficient to demonstrate schedule sensitivity.     

Switching from competition to sharing or cooperation at large response requirements: competition requires more responding

Two pairs of high-school students matched-to-sample for money. On each trial, a subject could either respond on one lever to take the matching-to-sample problem himself (taking response) or respond on a second lever to give the problem to his coactor (giving response). The first subject to complete the response requirement determined the distribution of the problem. Competition maximizes the amount of responding over trials, i.e., both subjects make taking responses on each trial. Sharing and cooperation minimize responding: only one subject makes a taking response (sharing) or a giving response (cooperation) on each trial, and the subjects alternate responding such that there is an equitable distribution of responses and reinforcers over trials. Large increases in the fixed-ratio response requirement to distribute problems produced: (1) a switch from competition to sharing or cooperation, (2) the expected concomitant change from inequitable to equitable distributions of reinforcers, and (3) a reduction in the amount of responding for three of the four subjects. Previous animal research has shown that large response requirements may have aversive properties. Switching from competition to sharing or cooperation at large response requirements allows a reduction in responding and, at the same time, a moderate number of reinforcers for each subject.     

Timeout postponement without increased reinforcement frequency

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

Control over response number by a targeted percentile schedule: reinforcement loss and the acute effects of d-amphetamine.

Two fixed-consecutive-number-like procedures were used to examine effects of acute d-amphetamine administration on control over response number. In both procedures, rats were required to press the left lever at least once and then press the right lever to complete a trial. The consecutive left-lever presses on each trial comprised a "run." Under the targeted percentile schedule, reinforcement was provided if the current run length was closer to the target length (16) than half of the most recent 24 runs. This differentially reinforced run length while holding reinforcement probability constant at .5. A second group acquired the differentiation under the targeted percentile schedule, but were then shifted to a procedure that yoked reinforcement probability by subject and run length to that obtained under the targeted percentile schedule. The two procedures generated practically identical control run lengths, response rates, reinforcement probabilities, and reinforcement rates. Administration of d-amphetamine disrupted percentile responding to a greater degree than yoked control responding. This disruption decreased reinforcement frequency less in the former than the latter procedure. The similar baseline responding under these two procedures suggests that this difference in sensitivity was due to behavioral adjustments to drug prompted by reduction of reinforcement density in the yoked control but not the percentile schedule. These adjustments attenuate the drug's effects under the former, but not the latter, procedure.