Responding of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of unsignaled, briefly signaled, and completely signaled delays to reinforcement

In Experiment 1, three pigeons' key pecking was maintained under a variable-interval 60-s schedule of food reinforcement. A 1-s unsignaled nonresetting delay to reinforcement was then added. Rates decreased and stabilized at values below those observed under immediate-reinforcement conditions. A brief stimulus change (key lit red for 0.5 s) was then arranged to follow immediately the peck that began the delay. Response rates quickly returned to baseline levels. Subsequently, rates near baseline levels were maintained with briefly signaled delays of 3 and 9 s. When a 27-s briefly signaled delay was instituted, response rates decreased to low levels. In Experiment 2, four pigeons' responding was first maintained under a multiple variable-interval 60-s (green key) variable-interval 60-s (red key) schedule. Response rates in both components fell to low levels when a 3-s unsignaled delay was added. In the first component delays were then briefly signaled in the same manner as Experiment 1, and in the second component they were signaled with a change in key color that remained until food was delivered. Response rates increased to near baseline levels in both components, and remained near baseline when the delays in both components were lengthened to 9 s. When delays were lengthened to 27 s, response rates fell to low levels in the briefly signaled delay component for three of four pigeons while remaining at or near baseline in the completely signaled delay component. In Experiment 3, low response rates under a 9-s unsignaled delay to reinforcement (tandem variable-interval 60 s fixed-time 9 s) increased when the delay was briefly signaled. The role of the brief stimulus as conditioned reinforcement may be a function of its temporal relation to food, and thus may be related to the eliciting function of the stimulus.     

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.     

Briefly delayed reinforcement: An interresponse time analysis

Key-peck responding of pigeons was compared under VI or DRL schedules arranging immediate reinforcement and briefly (.5 sec) delayed reinforcement. Delays were either signaled by a blackout in the chamber, unsignaled, or unsignaled with an additional requirement that responding not occur during the .5 sec interval immediately preceding reinforcement (response delay). Relative to the immediate reinforcement condition, response rates increased during the unsignaled delay, decreased during the signaled delay, and were inconsistent during the response delay condition. An analysis of interresponse times (IRTs) under the different conditions revealed a substantial increase in the frequency of short (0 to .5 sec) IRTs during the unsignaled condition and generally during the response delay conditions compared to that during the immediate reinforcement baseline. Signaled delays decreased the frequency of short (0 to .5 sec) IRTs relative to the immediate reinforcement condition. The results suggest that brief unsignaled delays and, in many instances, response delays increase the frequency of short IRTs by eliminating constraints on responding.     

Disruption of responding maintained by conditioned reinforcement: alterations in response-conditioned-reinforcer relations

An observing procedure was used to investigate the effects of alterations in response-conditioned-reinforcer relations on observing. Pigeons responded to produce schedule-correlated stimuli paired with the availability of food or extinction. The contingency between observing responses and conditioned reinforcement was altered in three experiments. In Experiment 1, after a contingency was established in baseline between the observing response and conditioned reinforcement, it was removed and the schedule-correlated stimuli were presented independently of responding according to a variable-time schedule. The variable-time schedule was constructed such that the rate of stimulus presentations was yoked from baseline. The removal of the observing contingency reliably reduced rates of observing. In Experiment 2, resetting delays to conditioned reinforcement were imposed between observing responses and the schedule-correlated stimuli they produced. Delay values of 0, 0.5, 1, 5, and 10 s were examined. Rates of observing varied inversely as a function of delay value. In Experiment 3, signaled and unsignaled resetting delays between observing responses and schedule-correlated stimuli were compared. Baseline rates of observing were decreased less by signaled delays than by unsignaled delays. Disruptions in response-conditioned-reinforcer relations produce similar behavioral effects to those found with primary reinforcement.     

When good news leads to bad choices

Pigeons and other animals sometimes deviate from optimal choice behavior when given informative signals for delayed outcomes. For example, when pigeons are given a choice between an alternative that always leads to food after a delay and an alternative that leads to food only half of the time after a delay, preference changes dramatically depending on whether the stimuli during the delays are correlated with (signal) the outcomes or not. With signaled outcomes, pigeons show a much greater preference for the suboptimal alternative than with unsignaled outcomes. Key variables and research findings related to this phenomenon are reviewed, including the effects of durations of the choice and delay periods, probability of reinforcement, and gaps in the signal. We interpret the available evidence as reflecting a preference induced by signals for good news in a context of uncertainty. Other explanations are briefly summarized and compared.     

Key pecking of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of briefly signaled delayed reinforcement: effects of variable-interval value.

Key pecking of 4 pigeons was maintained under a multiple variable-interval 20-s variable-interval 120-s schedule of food reinforcement. When rates of key pecking were stable, a 5-s unsignaled, nonresetting delay to reinforcement separated the first peck after an interval elapsed from reinforcement in both components. Rates of pecking decreased substantially in both components. When rates were stable, the situation was changed such that the peck that began the 5-s delay also changed the color of the keylight for 0.5 s (i.e., the delay was briefly signaled). Rates increased to near-immediate reinforcement levels. In subsequent conditions, delays of 10 and 20 s, still briefly signaled, were tested. Although rates of key pecking during the component with the variable-interval 120-s schedule did not change appreciably across conditions, rates during the variable-interval 20-s component decreased greatly in 1 pigeon at the 10-s delay and decreased in all pigeons at the 20-s delay. In a control condition, the variable-interval 20-s schedule with 20-s delays was changed to a variable-interval 35-s schedule with 5-s delays, thus equating nominal rates of reinforcement. Rates of pecking increased to baseline levels. Rates of pecking, then, depended on the value of the briefly signaled delay relative to the programmed interfood times, rather than on the absolute delay value. These results are discussed in terms of similar findings in the literature on conditioned reinforcement, delayed matching to sample, and classical conditioning.     

Suboptimal choice in a percentage-reinforcement procedure: effects of signal condition and terminal-link length.

Pigeons' choice between reliable (100%) and unreliable (50%) reinforcement was studied using a concurrent-chains procedure. Initial links were fixed-ratio 1 schedules, and terminal links were equal fixed-time schedules. The duration of the terminal links was varied across conditions. The terminal link on the reliable side always ended in food; the terminal link on the unreliable side ended with food 50% of the time and otherwise with blackout. Different stimuli present during the 50% terminal links signaled food or blackout outcomes under signaled conditions but were uncorrelated with outcomes under unsignaled conditions. In signaled conditions, most pigeons displayed a nearly exclusive preference for the 100% alternative when terminal links were short (5 or 10 s), but with terminal links of 30 s or longer, preference for the 100% alternative was sharply reduced (often to below .5). In unsignaled conditions, most pigeons showed extreme preference for the 100% alternative with either short (5 s) or longer (30 s) terminal links. Thus, pigeons' choice between reliable and unreliable reinforcement is influenced by both the signal conditions on the unreliable alternative and the duration of the terminal-link delay. With a long delay and signaled outcomes, many pigeons display a suboptimal tendency to choose the unreliable side.     

Context specificity of conditioned-reinforcement effects on discrimination acquisition

Pigeons were trained on a series of reversals of a simultaneous form discrimination in which the trial outcomes were separated from the choice responses by an 8-s delay interval. Different conditions were defined by the stimuli occurring during the two halves of the delay interval. Discrimination learning was greatly facilitated by having differential stimuli during the delay following correct versus incorrect choices. When the differential stimuli appeared only at the midpoint of the delay, some facilitation occurred relative to when no different stimuli occurred, but there was substantially less facilitation than when the differential stimuli occurred immediately contingent on choice. A reversed-stimulus condition, in which the stimulus at the onset of the delay following a correct choice was the same as that during the last segment of the delay following an incorrect choice, and the stimulus at the onset of the delay following an incorrect choice was the same as that preceding food during the last segment of the delay following a correct choice, also facilitated discrimination learning relative to the nondifferential stimulus conditions.     

Choosing schedules of signaled appetitive events over schedules of unsignaled ones

Two experiments were completed allowing albino rats to choose between signaled and unsignaled reward conditions. These experiments examined the effects on preference of (1) response dependent versus response-independent reward and, (2) food pellets versus chocolate milk as the reward. All subjects preferred the signaled condition over the unsignaled condition, whether exposed to response-dependent, or to response-independent delivery of rewards. Preference was controlled most effectively by presenting both the signal itself and the correlated stimulus identifying the signaled condition. The signal presented alone (Extinction 3) controlled preference more effectively than did the stimulus correlated with the signaled condition (Extinction 2). The second experiment showed that the quality of the reinforcer (pellets and chocolate milk) did not affect preference for signaled reward since all subjects preferred the signaled condition at levels comparable to those observed in Experiment 1, with food pellets. These results, along with others, argue against species differences, response-dependency, and reinforcer quality as variables affecting the direction of preference.     

Contiguity and conditioned reinforcement in probabilistic choice

In a baseline condition, pigeons chose between an alternative that always provided food following a 30-s delay (100% reinforcement) and an alternative that provided food half of the time and blackout half of the time following 30-s delays (50% reinforcement). The different outcomes were signaled by different-colored keylights. On average, each alternative was chosen approximately equally often, replicating the finding of suboptimal choice in probabilistic reinforcement procedures. The efficacy of the delay stimuli (keylights) as conditioned reinforcers was assessed in other conditions by interposing a 5-s gap (keylights darkened) between the choice response and one or more of the delay stimuli. The strength of conditioned reinforcement was measured by the decrease in choice of an alternative when the alternative contained a gap. Preference for the 50% alternative decreased in conditions in which the gap preceded either all delay stimuli, both delay stimuli for the 50% alternative, or the food stimulus for the 50% alternative, but preference was not consistently affected in conditions in which the gap preceded only the 100% delay stimulus or the blackout stimulus for the 50% alternative. These results support the notion that conditioned reinforcement underlies the finding of suboptimal preference in probabilistic reinforcement procedures, and that the signal for food on the 50% reinforcement alternative functions as a stronger conditioned reinforcer than the signal for food on the 100% reinforcement alternative. In addition, the results fail to provide evidence that the signal for blackout functions as a conditioned punisher.     

Preference for signaled versus unsignaled reinforcement delay in concurrent-chain schedules

A concurrent-chain schedule was employed to examine pigeons' preferences for signaled versus unsignaled delay of reinforcement in which the delay durations ranged from zero to ten seconds. In general, pigeons preferred signaled delay over unsignaled delay especially when a variable-interval 30-second schedule operated in each initial link; when a variable-interval 90-second schedule operated in each initial link, these preferences tended toward indifference or were attenuated. In addition, prior training seemed to exert partial control over behavior. Responding in the terminal link was higher under signaled delay than unsignaled delay in a majority of the cases. Moreover, response rates under signaled delay remained fairly constant whereas responding under unsignaled delay was initially high, but decreased systematically with delay durations as short as 2.5 seconds. These results are consistent with a number of other studies demonstrating the significant role of a signal for impending positive stimuli.     

A comparison of signaled and unsignaled delay of reinforcement

Pigeons were trained on either a variable-interval 60-second schedule, or on a schedule that differentially reinforced responses that were spaced at least 20 seconds apart. The birds were then exposed to several durations of reinforcement delay, with comparisons between signaled and unsignaled delays. Although unsignaled delays of 5 and 10 seconds produced large decreases in response rate, signaled delays of up to 10 seconds produced only moderate decreases in response rates. In addition, some subjects responded more rapidly with a .5 or 1.0 second duration of unsignaled delay than with immediate reinforcement. These response rate changes occurred regardless of whether the rate of reinforcement concomitantly decreased or increased.     

Effects of delayed conditioned reinforcement in chain schedules.

The contingency between responding and stimulus change on a chain variable-interval 33-s, variable-interval 33-s, variable-interval 33-s schedule was weakened by interposing 3-s delays between either the first and second or the second and third links. No stimulus change signaled the delay interval and responses could occur during it, so the obtained delays were often shorter than the scheduled delay. When the delay occurred after the initial link, initial-link response rates decreased by an average of 77% with no systematic change in response rates in the second or third links. Response rates in the second link decreased an average of 59% when the delay followed that link, again with little effect on response rates in the first or third links. Because the effect of delaying stimulus change was comparable to the effect of delaying primary reinforcement in a simple variable-interval schedule, and the effect of the unsignaled delay was specific to the link in which the delay occurred, the results provide strong evidence for the concept of conditioned reinforcement.     

Responding of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of signaled-delayed reinforcement: effects of delay-signal duration.

Two experiments with pigeons examined the relation of the duration of a signal for delay ("delay signal") to rates of key pecking. The first employed a multiple schedule comprised of two components with equal variable-interval 60-s schedules of 27-s delayed food reinforcement. In one component, a short (0.5-s) delay signal, presented immediately following the key peck that began the delay, was increased in duration across phases; in the second component the delay signal initially was equal to the length of the programmed delay (27 s) and was decreased across phases. Response rates prior to delays were an increasing function of delay-signal duration. As the delay signal was decreased in duration, response rates were generally higher than those obtained under identical delay-signal durations as the signal was increased in duration. In Experiment 2 a single variable-interval 60-s schedule of 27-s delayed reinforcement was used. Delay-signal durations were again increased gradually across phases. As in Experiment 1, response rates increased as the delay-signal duration was increased. Following the phase during which the signal lasted the entire delay, shorter delay-signal-duration conditions were introduced abruptly, rather than gradually as in Experiment 1, to determine whether the gradual shortening of the delay signal accounted for the differences observed in response rates under identical delay-signal conditions in Experiment 1. Response rates obtained during the second exposures to the conditions with shorter signals were higher than those observed under identical conditions as the signal duration was increased, as in Experiment 1. In both experiments, rates and patterns of responding during delays varied greatly across subjects and were not systematically related to delay-signal durations. The effects of the delay signal may be related to the signal's role as a discriminative stimulus for adventitiously reinforced intradelay behavior, or the delay signal may have served as a conditioned reinforcer by virtue of the temporal relation between it and presentation of food.     

Choice As A Function Of Reinforcement Ratios In Delayed Matching-to-sample

Pigeons were studied in two experiments using a delayed matching-to-sample task. In Experiment 1, 4 subjects were exposed to a task in which the proportion of reinforcement associated with matching and nonmatching, and the overall proportion of reinforcement associated with selecting each choice, regardless of the sample stimulus, were varied. Choice was sensitive to both proportions. A least squares regression analysis showed that Wixted's (1989) proportions of reinforcement model closely fit the data from Experiment 1; however, the model failed to make accurate qualitative predictions for some test conditions. In Experiment 2, 4 subjects were exposed to a delayed matching-to-sample task in which the retention intervals and the reduction in delay to reinforcement signaled by the onset of the sample stimulus were independently varied. When the retention interval was short and when the delay-reduction value of the sample stimulus was high, the sample exerted greater control over choice; the control by the overall proportion of reinforcements for selecting each choice stimulus was correspondingly low. Conversely, when the retention interval was long and the delay-reduction value of the sample stimulus was low, the sample exerted relatively less control over choice; control by the overall proportion of reinforcements obtained for selecting each choice stimulus was correspondingly high. A signal detection analysis found that sensitivity to reinforcement varied directly with retention interval. Data were also consistent with misallocation models. No evidence was found to suggest that pigeons ignore the rate at which selecting individual choice stimuli is reinforced, as has been reported in studies with human subjects.     

Unsignaled delay of reinforcement, relative time, and resistance to change

Two experiments with pigeons examined the effects of unsignaled, nonresetting delays of reinforcement on responding maintained by different reinforcement rates. In Experiment 1, 3-s unsignaled delays were introduced into each component of a multiple variable-interval (VI) 15-s VI 90-s VI 540-s schedule. When considered as a proportion of the preceding immediate reinforcement baseline, responding was decreased similarly for the three multiple-schedule components in both the first six and last six sessions of exposure to the delay. In addition, the relation between response rates and reinforcement rates was altered such that both parameters of the single-response version of the matching law (i.e., k and Re) were decreased. Experiment 2 examined the effects of unsignaled delays ranging from 0.5 s to 8.0 s on responding maintained by a multiple VI 20-s VI 120-s schedule of reinforcement. Response rates in both components increased with brief unsignaled delays and decreased with longer delays. As in Experiment 1, response rates as a proportion of baseline were affected similarly for the two components in both the first six and last six sessions of exposure to the delay. Unlike delays imposed between two stimulus events, the effects of delays between responses and reinforcers do not appear to be attenuated when the average time between reinforcers is longer. In addition, the disruptions produced by unsignaled delays appear to be inconsistent with the general finding that responding maintained by higher rates of reinforcement is less resistant to change.     

Within-subject testing of the signaled-reinforcement effect on operant responding as measured by response rate and resistance to change

Response rates under random-interval schedules are lower when a brief (500 ms) signal accompanies reinforcement than when there is no signal. The present study examined this signaled-reinforcement effect and its relation to resistance to change. In Experiment 1, rats responded on a multiple random-interval 60-s random-interval 60-s schedule, with signaled reinforcement in only one component. Response resistance to alternative reinforcement, prefeeding, and extinction was compared between these components. Lower response rates, and greater resistance to change, occurred in the component with the reinforcement signal. In Experiment 2, response rates and resistance to change were compared after training on a multiple random-interval 60-s random-interval 60-s schedule in which reinforcer delivery was unsignaled in one component and a response-produced uncorrelated stimulus was presented in the other component. Higher response rates and greater resistance to change occurred with the uncorrelated stimulus. These results highlight the significance of considering the effects of an uncorrelated signal when used as a control condition, and challenge accounts of resistance to change that depend solely on reinforcer rate.     

Changes in functional response units with briefly delayed reinforcement

In two experiments, key-peck responding of pigeons was compared under variable-interval schedules that arranged immediate reinforcement and ones that arranged unsignaled delays of reinforcement. Responses during the nominal unsignaled delay periods had no effect on the reinforcer presentations. In Experiment 1, the unsignaled delays were studied using variable-interval schedules as baselines. Relative to the immediate reinforcement condition, 0.5-s unsignaled delays decreased the duration of the reinforced interresponse times and increased the overall frequency of short (<0.5-s) interresponse times. Longer, 5.0-s unsignaled delays increased the duration of the reinforced interresponse times and decreased the overall frequency of the short interresponse times. In Experiment 2, similar effects to those of Experiment 1 were obtained when the 0.5-s unsignaled delays were imposed upon a baseline schedule that explicitly arranged reinforcement of short interresponse times and therefore already generated a large number of short interresponse times. The results support earlier suggestions that the unsignaled 0.5-s delays change the functional response unit from a single key peck to a multiple key-peck unit. These findings are discussed in terms of the mechanisms by which contingencies control response structure in the absence of specific structural requirements.     

Reinforcement Delay Fading During Differential Reinforcement of Communication: The Effects of Signals on Response Maintenance

Signals during delays to reinforcement may lessen reductions in responding that typically occur when there is a delay between a response and its reinforcer. Sparse applied research has been devoted to understanding the conditions under which responding may be maintained when delays to reinforcement are introduced. We evaluated the extent to which providing signals during delay fading affected responding in the context of differential reinforcement of communication responses. Three individuals were exposed to gradually increasing signaled and unsignaled reinforcement delays in multiple‐schedule and/or withdrawal designs. Results for 2 of 3 participants suggested that (a) the presence of signals facilitated response maintenance under delayed reinforcement and (b) coordinated basic and applied research may advance both conceptual understanding and clinical outcomes of delayed reinforcement.     

Preference for less segmented fixed-time components in concurrent-chain schedules of reinforcement

A concurrent-chain procedure was used to examine choice between segmented and less segmented response-independent schedules of reinforcement. A pair of independent, concurrent variable-interval 60-s schedules were presented in the initial link, along with a 1.5-s changeover delay. A chained fixed-interval fixed-time and its corresponding tandem schedule constituted the terminal links. The length of the fixed-interval schedule in the terminal link was varied between 5 s and 30 s while that of the fixed-time schedule was kept at 5 s over conditions. The first components of both terminal-link schedules were accompanied by the same stimulus. Except in the baseline condition, the onset of the second component of the terminal-link chained schedule was accompanied by either a localized (key color) or a nonlocalized (dark houselight) stimulus change. Stimulus conditions were constant during the terminal-link tandem schedule. With three exceptions, pigeons demonstrated a slight preference for the tandem over the chained schedule in the terminal link. Furthermore, this preference varied inversely with the length of the first component. In general, these results are consistent with previous studies that reported an adverse effect on choice by segmenting an interval schedule into two or more components, but they are inconsistent with studies that reported preference for signaled over unsignaled delay of reinforcement.