Discriminative stimulus control and the effects of concurrent operants.

Discriminative-stimulus-control functions were investigated in a concurrent operant context. Variable-interval reinforcement schedules were arranged for pigeons on two response keys. One key, illuminated with a white vertical line on green background (position irrelevant), was programmed with a given schedule value across groups. For different groups of pigeons, the alternative key, illuminated with green alone, was programmed with twice, the same, or half the reinforcement frequency of the other key. Stimulus-control gradients were collected from both keys as line orientation was varied. On the green-plus-line alternative, flattest gradients were observed when twice the reinforcement frequency was concurrently programmed and the steepest were observed when equal values were concurrently programmed. Also examined were the effects of a programmed changeover delay, important in maintaining the independence of concurrent operants. The changeover delay was found to have relatively minor effects upon stimulus control, despite its typical and marked effects upon steady-state responding.     

A yoked-chamber comparison of concurrent and multiple schedules: the relationship between component duration and responding

Two experimental chambers were electrically connected so that the component selected by a pigeon confronting concurrent variable-interval schedules in one chamber could be successively presented as a multiple schedule to a second pigeon in the other chamber. Component duration was regulated by the use of a changeover delay, the value of which was systematically varied between 0 and 30 sec. It was found that the relative local response rates on the preferred key (absolute response rate to that component divided by the sum of the absolute response rates during both components) tended to increase with increasing component durations for the birds in the concurrent chamber, but decreased for the birds in the multiple chamber. These data support the interpretation that there are fundamental differences in the mode of responding to multiple and concurrent schedules. Based on these findings, it was concluded that previous demonstrations of matching on multiple schedules do not establish that response allocation is controlled by a process equivalent to that found on choice paradigms. It now appears that matching on multiple (but not concurrent) schedules is a consequence of selecting short component durations. The implications of these data for Herrnstein's (1970) and Rachlin's (1973) formulations of the relationship between multiple and concurrent schedules are examined.     

The effects upon food-reinforced pecking and treadle-pressing of auditory and visual signals for response-independent food

Seven pigeons whose key-pecking was maintained by food reinforcement on a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rates 12-sec limited-hold 4-sec schedule and 12 other pigeons whose treadle-pressing was maintained by the same schedule received appetitive Pavlovian conditioning trials superimposed upon the instrumental baseline. Half the birds in each group received a tone as the CS, and the other half received a stimulus change on the key. Each CS was 20 sec long, and was immediately followed by 10-sec access to grain. The visual CS markedly facilitated the rate of pecking on the key for the birds whose baseline response was pecking. The visual CS produced auto-shaping of the key-peck and tended to produce suppression of treadle-pressing for the birds whose baseline response was treadle-pressing. The auditory CS produced inconsistent effects across birds regardless of the baseline response. In all cases the conditioned effects extinguished when response-independent food was omitted.     

Local response-rate constancy on concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

Concurrent variable-interval schedules were arranged with a main key that alternated in color and schedule assignment, along with a changeover key on which a small fixed ratio was required to changeover. Acceptable matching was observed with pigeons in two replications, but there was a tendency toward overmatching. Local response rates were found to differ for unequal schedules of a concurrent pair: local response rate was greater for the variable-interval schedule with the smaller average interreinforcement interval, but qualifications based on an interresponse-time analysis were discussed. In a second experiment, two 3-minute variable-interval schedules were arranged concurrently, and the experimental variable was the changeover procedure: either a changeover delay was incurred by each changeover or a small fixed ratio on a changeover key was required to complete a changeover. Changeover delays of 2 and 5 seconds were compared with a fixed-ratio changeover of five responses. The response output on the main key (associated with the variable-interval schedules) was greater when a changeover delay was arranged than when a fixed ratio was required to changeover. A detailed analysis of stripchart records showed that a 2-second delay generated an increased response rate for 3 seconds after a changeover, while the fixed-ratio requirement generated an increased rate during the first second only, followed by a depressed response rate for 2 seconds.     

Signal detection and matching: analyzing choice on concurrent variable-interval schedules.

Pigeons' pecks on a red key and a green key were followed by access to grain according to pairs of concurrent independent variable-interval schedules in a combined signal detection/matching law paradigm. Pecks on the red key were reinforced by the richer variable-interval schedule if a short-duration tone had been presented; pecks on the green key were reinforced by the richer variable-interval schedule if a long-duration tone had been presented. Pecks on the green key given a short-duration tone, or on the red key given a long-duration tone, were reinforced by the leaner variable-interval schedule. The data were analyzed according to both signal detection's and the matching law's separate measures of, first, the discrimination of the choices and, second, the bias to make one response or another. Increasing the difficulty of the tone-duration discrimination decreased both methods' measures of the discrimination of the choices and did not change both methods' measures of the bias to make one response or another. Changing the leaner variable-interval schedule so that it approached the richer variable-interval schedule decreased signal detection's measure of discrimination but left its measure of response bias and the matching law measures unchanged. Data collected only until a subject's first changeover response following presentation of a long or a short tone showed higher values for both methods' measures of discrimination, no change in signal detection's measure of response bias, and lower values for the matching law's measure of response bias. Relationships between the matching law's and signal detection's methods of analyzing choice are discussed. It is concluded that a signal detection analysis is more efficient for examining changes in the difficulty of a discrimination, whereas a matching law analysis is more effective for examining the effects of changes in relative reinforcer frequency.     

Reductions in shock frequency and response effort as factors in reinforcement by timeout from avoidance

Rats' presses on one lever canceled shocks programmed after variable cycles, while presses on a second lever occasionally produced a 2-min timout during which the shock-delection schedule was suspended and its correlated stimuli removed. These concurrent schedules of avoidance and timeout were embedded in a multiple schedule whose components differed, within and across conditions, in terms of the programmed shock rate associated with the shock-deletion schedule. Analyses based on the generalized matching law suggest that the reduction in the response requirement correlated with termination of the avoidance schedule was a more important factor in the reinforcing effectiveness of timeout than was shock-frequency reduction, at least in 2 of 3 rats. After training in each condition, responding on the timeout lever was extinguished by withholding timeouts in both components over seven sessions. Resistance to extinction varied directly with the rates of both shock-frequency reduction and avoidance-response reduction experienced during training. Although reduction in response effort appeared to dominate shock-frequency reduction in the maintenance of responding, neither factor had a clear advantage in predicting the course of extinction.     

Sensitivity of time allocation to concurrent-schedule reinforcement

Four pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules programmed on a center response key, with access to those schedules controlled by responses on left or right side keys. Two procedures were used. In one, the pigeon was given limited access, in that each side-key response produced 3-s access to a center-key schedule, and in the other procedure, access was unlimited. Data were analyzed using the generalized matching law. Comparison of sensitivities to reinforcement of interchangeover time for both procedures showed them to be of similar magnitude. Response sensitivities were also similar in magnitude for both procedures. From the limited-access procedure a second time measure that was available, switched-in time, was relatively uncontaminated by time spent emitting behavior other than key pecking. Sensitivities to reinforcement for the switched-in time measure were always smaller than interchangeover-time sensitivities for either procedure, and were approximately equal to response sensitivities for the limited-access procedure. Two other access times (5 and 7.5 s) were studied to validate the choice of 3 s as the main access time. These results indicate that when time spent emitting other behavior is excluded from interchangeover time, time and response sensitivities will be approximately equal.     

Aversive properties of the negative stimulus in a successive discrimination

Experiment I sought to determine if the stimulus correlated with extinction in a successive discrimination was an aversive stimulus. An escape response provided an index of aversive control. Two groups of pigeons were exposed to a multiple variable-interval 30-sec extinction schedule. For the experimental group, a single peck on a second key produced a timeout during which all lights in the chamber were dark. For the control group, pecks on the second key had no contingency. The rate of responding on the timeout key during extinction for the experimental group was higher than that of the control group during all sessions of discrimination training except the first. In Exp. II, green was correlated with variable interval 30-sec and red was correlated with variable-interval 5-min. Timeouts were obtained from variable-interval 5-min. There were more timeouts from extinction in Exp. I than from variable-interval 5-min in Exp. II. Experiment III showed that not presenting the positive stimulus reduced the number of timeouts from the negative stimulus for the two birds from Exp. I that had the highest rate of timeouts from extinction, but had little effect on the two birds that had the lowest rate of timeouts. These results suggest that in a multiple schedule, the stimulus correlated with extinction, or the lower response rate, functions as a conditioned aversive stimulus. Explanations of the timeout response in terms of extinction produced variability, displaced aggression, and stimulus change, were considered but found inadequate.     

Changeover behavior and preference in concurrent schedules

Pigeons were trained on a multiple schedule of reinforcement in which separate concurrent schedules occurred in each of two components. Key pecking was reinforced with milo. During one component, a variable-interval 40-s schedule was concurrent with a variable-interval 20-s schedule; during the other component, a variable-interval 40-s schedule was concurrent with a variable-interval 80-s schedule. During probe tests, the stimuli correlated with the two variable-interval 40-s schedules were presented simultaneously to assess preference, measured by the relative response rates to the two stimuli. In Experiment 1, the concurrently available variable-interval 20-s schedule operated normally; that is, reinforcer availability was not signaled. Following this baseline training, relative response rate during the probes favored the variable-interval 40-s alternative that had been paired with the lower valued schedule (i.e., with the variable-interval 80-s schedule). In Experiment 2, a signal for reinforcer availability was added to the high-value alternative (i.e., to the variable-interval 20-s schedule), thus reducing the rate of key pecking maintained by that schedule but leaving the reinforcement rate unchanged. Following that baseline training, relative response rates during probes favored the variable-interval 40-s alternative that had been paired with the higher valued schedule. The reversal in the pattern of preference implies that the pattern of changeover behavior established during training, and not reinforcement rate, determined the preference patterns obtained on the probe tests.     

Concurrent second-order schedules of reinforcement

Responses on one key (the main key) of a two-key chamber produced food according to a second-order variable-interval schedule with fixed-interval schedule components. A response on a second key (the changeover key) alternated colors on the main key and provided a second independent second-order variable-interval schedule with fixed-interval components. The fixed-interval component on one variable-interval schedule was held constant at 8 sec, while the fixed interval on the other variable-interval schedule was varied from 0 to 32 sec. Under some conditions, a brief stimulus terminated each fixed interval and generated fixed-interval patterns; in other conditions, the brief stimulus was omitted. Relative response rate and relative time deviated substantially from scheduled relative reinforcement rate and, to a lesser extent, from obtained relative reinforcement rate under both brief-stimulus and no-stimulus conditions. Matching was observed with equal components on both schedules; with unequal components, increasingly greater proportions of time and responses than the matching relation would predict were spent on the variable-interval schedule containing the shorter component. Preference for the shorter fixed interval was typically more extreme under brief-stimulus than under no-stimulus schedules. The results limit the extension of the matching relation typically observed under simple concurrent variable-interval schedules to concurrent second-order variable-interval schedules.     

Matching: its acquisition and generalization

Choice typically is studied by exposing organisms to concurrent variable-interval schedules in which not only responses controlled by stimuli on the key are acquired but also switching responses and likely other operants as well. In the present research, discriminated key-pecking responses in pigeons were first acquired using a multiple schedule that minimized the reinforcement of switching operants. Then, choice was assessed during concurrent-probe periods in which pairs of discriminative stimuli were presented concurrently. Upon initial exposure to concurrently presented stimuli, choice approximated exclusive preference for the alternative associated with the higher reinforcement frequency. Concurrent schedules were then implemented that gave increasingly greater opportunities for switching operants to be conditioned. As these operants were acquired, the relation of relative response frequency to relative reinforcement frequency converged toward a matching relation. An account of matching with concurrent schedules is proposed in which responding exclusively to the discriminative stimulus associated with the higher reinforcement frequency declines as the concurrent stimuli become more similar and other operants-notably switching-are acquired and generalize to stimuli from both alternatives. The concerted effect of these processes fosters an approximate matching relation in commonly used concurrent procedures.     

More on concurrent interval-ratio schedules: a replication and review.

It has been suggested that the failure to maximize reinforcement on concurrent variable-interval, variable-ratio schedules may be misleading. Inasmuch as response costs are not directly measured, it is possible that subjects are optimally balancing the benefits of reinforcement against the costs of responding. To evaluate this hypothesis, pigeons were tested in a procedure in which interval and ratio schedules had equal response costs. On a concurrent variable time (VT), variable ratio-time (VRT) schedule, the VT schedule runs throughout the session and the VRT schedule is controlled by responses to a changeover key that switches from one schedule to the other. Reinforcement is presented independent of response. This schedule retains the essential features of concurrent VI VR, but eliminates differential response costs for the two alternatives. It therefore also eliminates at least one significant ambiguity about the reinforcement maximizing performance. Pigeons did not maximize rate of reinforcement on this procedure. Instead, their times spent on the alternative schedules matched the relative rates of reinforcement, even when schedule parameters were such that matching earned the lowest possible overall rate of reinforcement. It was further shown that the observed matching was not a procedural artifact arising from the constraints built into the schedule.     

Independence of concurrent responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement

A pigeon's responses were reinforced on a variable-interval schedule on one key; and, concurrently, either a multiple or a fixed-interval schedule of reinforcement was in effect on a second key. These concurrent schedules, conc VI 3 (mult VI 3 EXT) or conc VI 3 FI 6, were programmed with or without a changeover delay (COD). Because the COD provided that responses on one key could not be followed by reinforced responses on the other key, responding on one key was not likely to accidentally come under the control of the reinforcement schedule on the other. When the COD was used, the performances on each key were comparable to the performances maintained when these interval schedules are programmed separately. The VI schedule maintained a relatively constant rate of responding, even though the rate of responding on the second key varied in a manner appropriate to the schedule on the second key. The mult VI 3 EXT schedule maintained two separate rates of responding: a relatively high rate during the VI 3 component, and almost no responding during the EXT component. The FI schedule maintained the gradually increasing rate of responding within each interval that is characteristic of the performance maintained by this schedule. The concurrent performances, however, did include certain interactions involving the local characteristics of responding and the over-all rates of responding maintained by the various schedules. The relevance of the present findings to an inter-response time analysis of VI responding, a chaining account of FI responding, and the concept of the reflex reserve was discussed.     

Response-rate invariance in concurrent schedules: effects of different changeover contingencies

In a two-key chamber, one key (the food key) was either red or green with different variable-interval schedules operating concurrently in each color and a second key (the changeover key) served to change the food-key color. Three pigeons were trained with either a 2-sec changeover delay or a 0-sec changeover delay and three birds with a fixed-ratio 2 on the changeover key instead of a changeover delay. The proportion of time spent in red approximated the proportion of reinforcers delivered in red for all birds. When the procedure was changed so that reinforcers were signalled in the green schedule, rates of reinforcement were unaltered, but the pigeons spent virtually the whole session in red. Changeovers to green were allowed only when a reinforcer was assigned by the schedule associated with green. For all pigeons with the fixed–ratio requirement on the changeover key or with a 0-sec changeover delay, the overall rate of red-key responses was higher during the signalling condition than during unsignalled, or baseline, condition. The present data question the generality of previous reports that the rate of one response is independent of the amount of time allocated to the alternative response.     

Choice dynamics in concurrent ratio schedules of reinforcement

The generalized matching law predicts performance on concurrent schedules when variable-interval schedules are programmed but is trivially applicable when independent ratio schedules are used. Responding usually is exclusive to the schedule with the lowest response requirement. Determining a method to program concurrent ratio schedules such that matching analyses can be usefully employed would extend the generality of matching research and lead to new avenues of research. In the present experiments, ratio schedules were programmed dependently such that responses to either of the two options progressed the requirement on both schedules. Responding is not exclusive because the probability of reinforcement increases on both schedules as responses are allocated to either schedule. In Experiment 1, performance on concurrent variable-ratio schedules was assessed, and reinforcer ratios were varied across conditions to investigate changes in sensitivity. Additionally, the length of a changeover delay was manipulated. In Experiment 2, performance was compared under concurrently available, dependently programmed variable-ratio and fixed-ratio schedules. Performance was well described by the generalized matching law. Increases in the changeover delay decreased sensitivity, whereas sensitivity was higher when variable-ratio schedules were employed, compared with fixed-ratio schedules. Concurrent ratio schedules can be a viable approach to studying functional differences between ratio and interval schedules.     

On the measurement of time allocation on multiple variable-interval schedules

Six pigeons were trained on a modified multiple-schedule procedure. In a three-key chamber, the center key was lighted red or green, depending upon which component schedule was in effect. A response on this key transferred this color to each of two side keys, and responses on one of those keys produced reinforcers according to the component schedule. After 2 s, the side-key lights were extinguished, the center key was reilluminated, and a further center-key response was required to give access, as before, to the component schedules. Components alternated every 3 min. This limited-access procedure allowed both times spent switched into the side keys and time spent not switched in to be measured in the two components. Component reinforcer rates were varied over eight experimental conditions. Both component response rate and component time allocation were increasing functions of relative component reinforcer rate, and these functions were not significantly different. This finding implies that local response rates (responses divided by time switched in) were unaffected by changing component reinforcer rates on multiple schedules. Because a similar result was recently obtained for concurrent schedules, models of multiple and concurrent-schedule performance may need to consider only the time allocation of behavior emitted at equal tempo in the component schedules.     

The effects of concurrent responding and reinforcement on behavioral output

Four birds key pecked on concurrent variable-interval one-minute variable-interval four-minute schedules with a two-second changeover delay. Response rates to the variable-interval one-minute key were then reduced by signaling its reinforcer availability and later by providing its reinforcers independently of responding. Each manipulation increased response rates to the variable-interval four-minute key even though relative reinforcement rates were unchanged. In a final phase, eliminating the variable-interval one-minute key and its schedule produced the highest rates of all to the variable-interval four-minute key. These results show that both reinforcement and response rates to one schedule influence response rates to another schedule. These results join those of Guilkey, Shull, & Brownstein (1975) in failing to replicate Catania (1963). Moreover, they violate the predictions of the equation for simple action (de Villiers & Herrnstein, 1976). In terms of a median-rate measure (reciprocal of the median interresponse time), rates to the variable-interval four-minute key were high when responding was not reduced to the variable-interval one-minute key and were low when it was reduced. This rate difference suggests a process difference between concurrent-schedule procedures that maintain high concurrent response rates versus those that do not. This process difference jeopardizes attempts to integrate single- and concurrent-operant performances within a single formulation.     

The effects of different component response requirements in multiple and concurrent schedules

Six pigeons were trained on multiple and concurrent schedules. The reinforcement rates were varied systematically (a) when lever pressing was required in one component and key pecking in the successive component; (b) when lever pressing was required in both multiple components; (c) when key pecking was required in both multiple components; and (d) when key pecking was required on one schedule and lever pressing was required on the concurrently-available schedule. Only the absolute level of responding was changed by different response requirements. Analyzed by the generalized matching law, performance under different response requirements resulted in a bias toward key pecking, and the measured response bias was the same in multiple and concurrent schedule arrangements. The bias in time measures obtained from concurrent schedule performance was reliably smaller than the obtained response biases. The sensitivity to reinforcement-rate changes was ordered: concurrent key-lever; multiple key-key; multiple lever-key; and, the least sensitive, multiple lever-lever. The results confirm that requirements of different topographical responses can be handled by the generalized matching law mainly in the bias parameter, but problems for this type of analysis may be caused by the changing sensitivity to reinforcement in multiple schedule performance as response requirements are changed.     

Drug discrimination under concurrent variable-ratio variable-ratio schedules

Pigeons were trained to discriminate 5 mg/kg pentobarbital from saline under concurrent variable-ratio (VR) VR schedules, in which responses on the pentobarbital-biased lever were reinforced under the VR schedule with the smaller response requirements when pentobarbital was given before the session, and responses on the saline-biased key were reinforced under the VR schedule with the larger response requirements. When saline was administered before the session, the reinforcement contingencies associated with the two response keys were reversed. When responding stabilized under concurrent VR 20 VR 30, concurrent VR 10 VR 40, or concurrent VR 5 VR 50 schedules, pigeons responded almost exclusively on the key on which fewer responses were required to produce the reinforcer. When other doses of pentobarbital and other drugs were substituted for the training dose, low doses of all drugs produced responding on the saline-biased key. Higher doses of pentobarbital and chlordiazepoxide produced responding only on the pentobarbital-biased key, whereas higher doses of ethanol and phencyclidine produced responding only on this key less often. d-Amphetamine produced responding primarily on the saline-biased key. When drugs generalized to pentobarbital, the shape of the generalization curve under concurrent VR VR schedules was more often graded than quantal in shape. Thus, drug discrimination can be established under concurrent VR VR schedules, but the shapes of drug-discrimination dose-response curves under concurrent VR VR schedules more closely resemble those seen under interval schedules than those seen under fixed-ratio schedules. Graded dose-response curves under concurrent VR VR schedules may relate to probability matching and difficulty in discriminating differences in reinforcement frequency.     

Are behaviors at one alternative in concurrent schedules independent of contingencies at the other alternative?

Some have reported changing the schedule at one alternative of a concurrent schedule changed responding at the other alternative (Catania, 1969), which seems odd because no contingencies were changed there. When concurrent schedules are programmed using two schedules, one associated with each alternative that operate continuously, changing the schedule at one alternative also changes the switch schedule at the other alternative. Thus, changes in responding at the constant alternative could be due to the change in the switch schedule. To assess this possibility, six rats were exposed to a series of conditions that alternated between pairs of interval schedules at both alternatives and a pair of interval schedules at one, constant, alternative and a pair of extinction schedules at the other alternative. Comparing run lengths, visit durations and response rates at the constant alternative in the alternating conditions did not show consistent increases and decreases when a strict criterion for changes was used. Using a less stringent definition (any change in mean values) showed changes. The stay/switch analysis suggests it may be inaccurate to apply behavioral contrast to procedures that change from concurrent variable‐interval variable‐interval schedules to concurrent variable‐interval extinction schedules because the contingencies in neither alternative are constant.