Stimulus control: part I

In his effort to distinguish operant from respondent conditioning, Skinner stressed the lack of an eliciting stimulus and rejected the prevailing stereotype of Pavlovian "stimulus-response" psychology. But control by antecedent stimuli, whether classified as conditional or discriminative, is ubiquitous in the natural setting. With both respondent and operant behavior, symmetrical gradients of generalization along unrelated dimensions may be obtained following differential reinforcement in the presence and the absence of the stimulus. The slopes of these gradients serve as measures of stimulus control, and they can be steepened without applying differential reinforcement to any two points along the test dimension. Increases and decreases in stimulus control occur under the same conditions as those leading to increases and decreases in observing responses, indicating that it is the increasing frequency and duration of observation (and perhaps also of attention) that produces the separation in performances during discrimination learning.     

Stimulus control during conditional discrimination

Pigeons were used to assess stimulus control during the development of a conditional discrimination. The training consisted of three stages. In Stage 1, key pecks were reinforced in the presence of a white line tilted 40 degrees to the right of vertical on a green background and non-reinforced when the same line appeared on a red background. In Stage 2, key pecks were reinforced when a white vertical line appeared on a red background and were non-reinforced in the presence of a 40 degrees slanted line on a red background. In Stage 3, key pecks were reinforced in the presence of the green background regardless of the line tilt, but were differentially reinforced in the presence of the red background (as in Stage 2). Generalization tests were conducted after each stage of training and consisted of five white lines on backgrounds that were green, red, or dark. The effects of the differential reinforcement contingencies on control by line orientation were restricted to the condition in which the red light appeared and resulted in behavioral control that could be characterized as: if red, pay closer attention to line tilt than if not red.     

Stimulus control of cocaine self-administration

Environmental stimuli that set the occasion wherein drugs are acquired can "trigger" drug-related behavior. Investigating the stimulus control of drug self-administration in laboratory animals should help us better understand this aspect of human drug abuse. Stimulus control of cocaine self-administration was generated here for the first time using multiple and chained schedules with short, frequently-alternating components--like those typically used to study food-maintained responding. The procedures and results are presented along with case histories to illustrate the strategies used to produce this stimulus control. All these multicomponent schedules contained variable-interval (VI) components as well as differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (DRO) or extinction components. Schedule parameters and unit dose were adjusted for each rat to produce stable, moderate rates in VI components, with minimal postreinforcement (infusion) pausing, and response cessation in extinction and DRO components. Whole-body drug levels on terminal baselines calculated retrospectively revealed that all rats maintained fairly stable drug levels (mean, 2.3 to 3.4 mg/kg) and molar rates of intake (approximately 6.0 mg/kg/hr). Within this range, no relation between local VI response rates and drug level was found. The stimulus control revealed in cumulative records was indistinguishable from that achieved with food under these schedules, suggesting that common mechanisms may underlie the control of cocaine- and food-maintained behavior.     

Stimulus control with fixed-ratio reinforcement

Pigeons were trained on a three-stimulus simultaneous discrimination with reinforcements given on fixed-ratio schedules ranging from one response per reinforcement to 205 responses per reinforcement. Responses to any of the three stimuli advanced the ratio, but, when it was completed, a reinforcement followed a response to one designated stimulus. Throughout the ratio, the birds responded mainly to the designated stimulus. The relatively few responses to the other stimuli usually occurred immediately after postreinforcement pauses. The distribution of responses to the various stimuli was not affected by omitting reinforcements.     

Stimulus control of Pavlovian facilitation

Two experiments were conducted using an autoshaping procedure with pigeons to examine whether dimensional stimulus control by a Pavlovian facilitator parallels the control established following operant discrimination training. Facilitation training consisted of the presentation of a black vertical line on a white background as the B stimulus in a feature-positive discrimination in which the A stimulus (white keylight) was followed by grain presentation only if preceded by B. In this way, B facilitates or sets the occasion for pecking at A. Subsequent testing for generalization along the line-orientation dimension produced decremental gradients when the facilitation paradigm incorporated an explicit feature-negative stimulus (B−). These results parallel the decremental control obtained following operant discrimination training and suggest that Pavlovian facilitators and instrumental discriminative stimuli are functionally equivalent.     

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.     

Stimulus control of avoidance behavior

The introduction of a warning signal preceding shocks greatly increased the effectiveness of avoidance responding. Periods of “warm-up” at the beginning of the session were eliminated, and the number of shocks received by the subjects was greatly reduced. With response-shock interval constant, response rate increased as the interval between the response and the onset of the warning signal was shortened. The response tended to occur shortly after the onset of the warning signal regardless of the duration of these “safe” periods. A greatly elevated response rate was maintained even when the duration of the safe period was reduced to 0.3 sec. Thus, the pre-shock signal obtained nearly exclusive control of the responding and overrode the usual “temporal discrimination” of the response-shock interval.     

Stimulus control and delayed reinforcement

Pigeons were tested for generalization along the line-orientation dimension, after being trained on various two-component multiple schedules. The first component contained either a variable-interval 1-min schedule of immediate reinforcement or an extinction schedule and was associated with a plain white key (S1). The second component contained a variable-interval 1-min schedule of delayed reinforcement and was associated with a black line on a white background (S2). The major results showed that (a) decremental gradients were obtained around the stimulus associated with the delayed reinforcement component when S1 was associated with extinction, but that incremental gradients were obtained when S1 was associated with immediate reinforcement, (b) the subjects' pretraining did not affect the generalization gradients if sufficient training on the terminal multiple schedule was provided, and (c) changing the S1 schedule from immediate reinforcement to extinction produced behavioral contrast if reinforcement was delayed for 10 sec during S2, but not if it was delayed for 20 sec.     

Stimulus intensity control and personality: A research note

Previous research has suggested that variations in augmenting-reducing, extraversion, and sensation seeking might be explained in terms of a common stimulus intensity control mechanism. However, empirical tests of this hypothesized relationship have produced equivocal findings. The present study attempts to clarify the issue by analyzing scores for extraversion, sensation seeking, and both cortical and questionnaire measures of augmenting-reducing obtained from the same sample of subjects. Apart from a significant positive correlation between the questionnaire index of reducing and sensation seeking, which have not previously been investigated, the results show no evidence of a systematic relationship among the variables.     

Stimulus control topography coherence theory: foundations and extensions

Stimulus control topography refers to qualitative differences among members of a functional stimulus class. Stimulus control topography coherence refers to the degree of concordance between the stimulus properties specified as relevant by the individual arranging a reinforcement contingency (behavior analyst, experimenter, teacher, etc.) and the stimulus properties that come to control the behavior of the organism (experimental subject, student, etc.) that experiences those contingencies. This paper summarizes the rationale for analyses of discrimination learning outcomes in terms of stimulus control topography coherence and briefly reviews some of the foundational studies that led to this perspective. We also suggest directions for future research, including pursuit of conceptual and methodological challenges to a complete stimulus control topography coherence analysis of processes involved in discriminated and generalized operants.     

Stimulus control in fixed ratio matching-to-sample

Pigeons were maintained on a fixed ratio (FR 9) schedule of reinforcement for correct matching-to-sample responses. Included in the test situation was a vertical array of lights, illuminated in relation to the successive steps of the fixed ratio. All five subjects showed regular decrements in matching errors across the sequence of unreinforced responses within the ratio cycle. In the form of a randomly introduced probe, the stimulus situation (array of lights) appropriate to having seven of the FR 9 steps already completed was occasionally introduced at the beginning of an FR cycle. Reinforcement followed the illumination of the two remaining lights by two correct matches. The number of errors in this probe condition was sharply lower than the errors characteristic of the first two steps of the basic FR 9.     

Stimulus control and associative learning.

Interest in operant research on stimulus control has declined at the same time that much interest has burgeoned in nonoperant areas. Several examples of this shift toward traditional learning theory are considered, all of which have sponsored theoretical approaches that attempt to characterize the underlying associative units. These theoretical approaches are defended on the grounds that they have generated a deeper understanding of a variety of often puzzling phenomena. My projection is that future research will be determined even more strongly by theories about the structure of associations. Particular issues for which such discussion will have major impact include (1) whether conditional stimulus control is qualitatively different than simpler forms of stimulus control, (2) whether stimulus control is organized hierarchically, and (3) the origin of categories of stimulus equivalence.     

Stimulus control and the response-reinforcement contingency

Pigeons were trained under a schedule in which reinforcement was made available at varying periods of time after a prior reinforcement. The first key peck after a reinforcer was available began a timer and a second key peck, which exceeded a specified minimal time interval, produced the reinforcer. It was shown that a contingency which contains a minimal interresponse time does not necessarily weaken stimulus control by an exteroceptive stimulus.     

Stimulus control of behavioral history.

Pigeons were exposed to two different reinforcement schedules under different stimulus conditions in each of two daily sessions separated by 6 hr (Experiments 1 and 2) or in a single session (Experiment 3). Following this, either a fixed-interval (Experiment 1) or a variable-interval schedule (Experiments 2 and 3) was effected in both stimulus conditions. In the first two experiments, exposure to fixed-ratio or differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules led to response-rate, but not pattern, differences in subsequent performance on fixed- or variable-interval schedules that persisted for up to 60 sessions. The effects of reinforcement-schedule history on fixed-interval schedule performance generally were more persistent. In Experiment 3, a history of high and low response rates in different components of a multiple schedule resulted in subsequent response-rate differences under identical variable-interval schedules. Higher response rates initially occurred in the component previously correlated with high response rates. For 3 of 4 subjects, the differences persisted for 20 or more sessions. Previous demonstrations of behavioral history effects have been confined largely to between-subject comparisons. By contrast, the present results demonstrate strong behavioral effects of schedule histories under stimulus control within individual subjects.     

Stimulus control of delayed matching in pigeons: Directed forgetting

Pigeons were trained in delayed matching-to-sample with two postsample stimuli. A postsample R-cue signaled that a matching choice phase would follow. A postsample F-cue signaled that a matching choice phase would not follow. Previous research found reduced matching accuracy on F-cued probe trials when comparison stimuli were presented in the choice phase. The present four experiments systematically varied the events following an F-cue to determine the conditions under which the F-cue reduces delayed-matching accuracy. When F-cues and R-cues controlled different behavior, matching on probe trials was poor. When both cues controlled the same behavior, matching on probe trials was good. This result is best explained by the theory that comparison stimuli retrieve the sample representation, but only in the behavioral context established by the R-cue. The present research supports the view that response-produced stimuli serve a contextual role in animal short-term memory.