Time allocation and negative reinforcement

Pigeons' standing on one or the other side of a chamber was reinforced with timeout from electric shock on two concurrent variable-interval schedules. For two pigeons, the ratio of time spent on the left to time spent on the right approximately matched the ratio of timeouts obtained on the left to timeouts obtained on the right. The data of two other birds deviated from this relation, although in opposite directions. Overall, the results suggest that reduction in rate of electric shock plays a role in behavioral allocation analogous to that played by rate of positive reinforcement. It appears possible to describe aversive control and positive control within the same conceptual framework—that provided by the matching relation.     

Wyckoff's observing response: Pigeons learn to observe stimuli for free food but not stimuli for extinction

Four pigeons received periods of free food delivery alternating with periods of extinction. The experimental chamber was divided in half. Initially the subjects could produce stimuli selectively associated with these schedules by standing on the right side of the chamber and later by standing on the left side. In both phases, subjects produced the free food stimulus most of the time it was available but did not increase above baseline the time spent producing the extinction stimulus. Thus, when alternative stimuli are available, the pigeon prefers the stimulus associated with the greater frequency of reinforcement although the choice results in no biological advantage.     

Sensitivity to reinforcement in concurrent arithmetic and exponential schedules

The generalized matching law states that the logarithm of the ratio of responses emitted or time spent responding in concurrent variable-interval schedules is a linear function of the logarithm of the ratio of reinforcements obtained. The slope of this relation, sensitivity to reinforcement, varies about 1.0 but has been shown to be different when obtained in different laboratories. The present paper analyzed the results from 18 experiments on concurrent variable-interval schedule performance and showed that response-allocation sensitivity to reinforcement was significantly smaller when arithmetic, rather than exponential, progressions were used to produce variable-interval schedules. There were no differences in time-allocation sensitivity between the two methods of constructing variable-interval schedules. Since the two laboratories have consistently used different methods for constructing variable-interval schedules, the differences in obtained sensitivities to reinforcement are explained. The reanalysis suggests that animals may be sensitive to differences in the distribution of reinforcements in time.     

Some effects of relative reinforcement rate and changeover delay in response-independent concurrent schedules of reinforcement

Reinforcements were arranged independently of the pigeon's behavior by concurrent variable-interval schedules. The reinforcements arranged by one of the schedules occurred when the chamber was illuminated with amber light, and the reinforcements arranged by the other schedule occurred when the chamber was illuminated with blue light. Both schedules functioned concurrently, but reinforcers were delivered by each only in the presence of the appropriate stimulus condition. A response on a white key, the only key in the chamber, alternated the stimulus condition and the effective schedule. The results of this procedure were similar to those obtained with concurrent response-dependent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. The proportion of the total session time spent in the presence of a schedule component approximated the proportion of the total number of reinforcements in the component. Changeover rate was a decreasing function of the changeover delay and of the difference between the relative rates of reinforcement for each pair of concurrent schedules.     

IS MATCHING COMPATIBLE WITH REINFORCEMENT MAXIMIZATION ON CONCURRENT VARIABLE INTERVAL,VARIABLE RATIO?1

Four pigeons on concurrent variable interval, variable ratio approximated the matching relationship with biases toward the variable interval when time spent responding was the measure of behavior and toward the variable ratio when frequency of pecking was the measure of behavior. The local rates of responding were consistently higher on the variable ratio, even when there was overall preference for the variable interval. Matching on concurrent variable interval, variable ratio was shown to be incompatible with maximization of total reinforcement, given the observed local rates of responding and rates of alternation between the schedules. Furthermore, it was shown that the subjects were losing reinforcements at a rate of about 60 per hour by matching rather than maximizing.     

The matching law in and within groups of rats

In each of the two experiments, a group of five rats lived in a complex maze containing four small single-lever operant chambers. In two of these chambers, food was available on variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment I, nine combinations of variable intervals were used, and the aggregate lever-pressing rates (by the five rats together) were studied. The log ratio of the rates in the two chambers was linearly related to the log ratio of the reinforcement rates in them; this is an instance of Herrnstein's matching law, as generalized by Baum. Summing over the two food chambers, food consumption decreased, and response output increased, as the time required to earn each pellet increased. In Experiment II, the behavior of individual rats was observed by time-sampling on selected days, while different variable-interval schedules were arranged in the two chambers where food was available. Individual lever-pressing rates for the rats were obtained, and their median bore the same “matching” relationship to the reinforcement rates as the group aggregate in Experiment I. There were differences between the rats in their distribution of time and responses between the two food chambers; these differences were correlated with differences in the proportions of reinforcements the rats obtained from each chamber.     

Performance of rats under concurrent variable-interval schedules of negative reinforcement

The behavior of rats under concurrent variable-interval schedules of negative reinforcement was examined. A single one-minute variable-interval programmer determined the availability of 30-second timeouts from electric shock. These were assigned to one or the other of the two component schedules with a probability of 0 to 1.0. The response requirement for the component schedules was standing to the right or left of the center of the experimental chamber. With a six-second changeover delay, the relative time spent under one component schedule varied directly and linearly with the relative number of timeouts earned under that component schedule. The absolute number of changeovers was highest when a similar number of timeouts was earned under each component schedule, and lowest when all or nearly all timeouts were earned under one component schedule. In general, these relations are similar to those reported with concurrent variable-interval schedules of positive reinforcement.     

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.     

Choice between concurrent schedules

Six pigeons pecked for food in a three-key experiment. A subject at any time could choose the left or right key and receive reinforcement according to one two-key concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedule of reinforcement, or it could peck the center key. A peck on the center key arranged the complementary two-key concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedule on the left and right keys. The two different two-key concurrent schedules arranged reinforcements concurrently and were signalled by two different colors of key lights. Choice behavior in the presence of a given color conformed to the usual relationship in two-key concurrent schedules: the relative frequency of responding on a key approximately equalled the relative frequency of reinforcement on that key. Preference for a two-key concurrent schedule, which was equivalent to preference for a color, was measured by the percentage of all responses on the left and right keys in the presence of that color: this percentage approximately equalled the percentage of all reinforcements that were delivered in the presence of that color. Thus, choice between concurrent schedules conforms approximately to the same relationship as does choice between alternatives in a single concurrent schedule.     

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.     

Signal probability, reinforcement and signal detection.

Five pigeons were trained to detect differences in light intensity. Two stimuli, S1 and S2, differing in intensity, were arranged on the center key of a three-key chamber according to set probabilities. A peck on the center key turned on the two side keys. When S1 was presented on the center key, a peck on the left key was "correct" and when S2 was presented, a peck on the right key was "correct." Correct responses produced reinforcement and incorrect responses produced 3-second blackout. Detection performance was measured under three procedures. The first was a standard signal-detection design in which the probability of S1 was varied and the number of reinforcements obtained for correct responses to S1 was allowed to covary. In the second procedure, the probability of S1 was again varied but the distribution of reinforcements between the two choices was kept equal. In the third procedure, probability of S1 was held constant while the distribution of reinforcements was varied between the two choices. Changes in response bias were a function of variations in the relative reinforcement ratio for the choice responses and not a function of variations in the probability of stimulus presentation. Discriminability remained constant across the three procedures.     

Interval reinforcement of choice behavior in discrete trials

Pigeons were trained to peck at red or green keys presented simultaneously in discrete trials. In one experiment, reinforcements were arranged by concurrent variable-interval schedules. The proportion of responses to green approximately matched the proportion of reinforcements produced by pecking green. Detailed analysis of responding revealed a systematic decrease in the probability of switching from green to red within sequences of trials after reinforcement. This trend corresponded to sequential changes in the relative frequency of reinforcement, and not to sequential changes in probability of reinforcement. In a second experiment, reinforcements were scheduled probabilistically every seventh trial. Even though there were no contingencies on pecking during the first six post-reinforcement trials, choices of green on the first response after reinforcement matched the proportion of reinforcements for pecking green. These results extend the generality of overall matching under concurrent reinforcement.     

Choice, rate of reinforcement, and the changeover delay

Pigeons distribute their responses on concurrently available variable-interval schedules in the same proportion as reinforcements are distributed on the two schedules only when a changeover delay is used. The present study shows that this equality between proportions of responses and proportions of reinforcements (“matching”) is obtained when the value of the changeover delay is varied. When responses are partitioned into the set of rapid response bursts occurring during the delay interval and the set of responses occurring subsequently, the proportion of neither set of responses matches the proportion of reinforcements. Instead, each set deviates from matching but in opposite directions. Matching on the gross level results from the interaction of two patterns evident in the local response rates: (I) the lengthening of the changeover delay response burst is accompanied by a commensurate decrease in the number of changeovers; (2) the changeover delay response burst is longer than the scheduled delay duration. When delay responses are eliminated by introducing a blackout during the delay interval, response matching is eliminated; the pigeon, however, continues to match the proportion of time spent responding on a key to the proportion of reinforcements obtained on that key.     

A contextual model of concurrent-chains choice

An extension of the generalized matching law incorporating context effects on terminal-link sensitivity is proposed as a quantitative model of behavior under concurrent chains. The contextual choice model makes many of the same qualitative predictions as the delay-reduction hypothesis, and assumes that the crucial contextual variable in concurrent chains is the ratio of average times spent, per reinforcement, in the terminal and initial links; this ratio controls differential effectiveness of terminal-link stimuli as conditioned reinforcers. Ninety-two concurrent-chains data sets from 19 published studies were fitted to the model. Averaged across all studies, the model accounted for 90% of the variance in pigeons' relative initial-link responding. The model therefore demonstrates that a matching law analysis of concurrent chains—the assumption that relative initial-link responding equals relative terminal-link value—remains quantitatively viable. Because the model reduces to the generalized matching law when terminal-link duration is zero, it provides a quantitative integration of concurrent schedules and concurrent chains.     

Choice for aperiodic versus periodic ratio schedules: A comparison of concurrent and concurrent-chain procedures

Choice between mixed-ratio schedules, consisting of equiprobable ratios of 1 and 99 responses per reinforcement, and fixed-ratio schedules of food reinforcement was assessed by two commonly used procedures: concurrent schedules and concurrent-chains schedules. Rats were trained under concurrent fixed-ratio mixed-ratio schedules, in which both ratio schedules were simultaneously available, and under a concurrent-chains schedule, in which access to one of the mutually exclusive ratio schedules comprising the terminal links was contingent on a single “choice” response. The distribution of responses between the two ratio schedules was taken as the choice proportion under the concurrent procedure, and the distribution of “choice” responses was taken as the choice proportion under the concurrent-chains procedure. Seven of eight rats displayed systematic choice; of those, each displayed nearly exclusive choice for fixed-ratio 35 to the mixed-ratio schedule under the concurrent procedure, but each displayed nearly exclusive choice for the mixed-ratio schedule to fixed-ratio 35 under the concurrent-chains procedure. Thus, preference for a fixed or a mixed schedule of reinforcement depended on the procedure used to assess preference.     

Undermatching and overmatching as deviations from the matching law

A model of performance under concurrent variable-interval reinforcement schedules that takes as its starting point the hypothetical “burst” structure of operant responding is presented. Undermatching and overmatching are derived from two separate, and opposing, tendencies. The first is a tendency to allocate a certain proportion of response bursts randomly to a response alternative without regard for the rate of reinforcement it provides, others being allocated according to the simple matching law. This produces undermatching. The second is a tendency to prolong response bursts that have a high probability of initiation relative to those for which initiation probability is lower. This process produces overmatching. A model embodying both tendencies predicts (1) that undermatching will be more common than overmatching, (2) that overmatching, when it occurs, will tend to be of limited extent. Both predictions are consistent with available data. The model thus accounts for undermatching and overmatching deviations from the matching law in terms of additional processes added on to behavior allocation obeying the simple matching relation. Such a model thus enables processes that have been hypothesized to underlie matching, such as some type of reinforcement rate or probability optimization, to remain as explanatory mechanisms even though the simple matching law may not generally be obeyed.     

Undermatching: a reappraisal of performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

The extant data for pigeons' performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules were examined in detail. Least-squares lines relating relative pecks and time to the corresponding relative reinforcements were obtained for four studies. The between-study group slopes for time and pecks and five of seven within-study group slopes from individual studies were less than 1.00. This suggested the generality that pigeons respond less to the richer reinforcement schedule than predicted by matching. For pecks, a nonparametric test for distribution of points also supported this concept of undermatching (to the richer reinforcement schedule). In addition, using mean squared error as the criterion, a cubic curve fit the peck proportion data better than any line or other polynomial. This indicates that the relation between peck and reinforcement proportions may be nonlinear.     

Performances on ratio and interval schedules of reinforcement: Data and theory

Two differences between ratio and interval performance are well known: (a) Higher rates occur on ratio schedules, and (b) ratio schedules are unable to maintain responding at low rates of reinforcement (ratio “strain”). A third phenomenon, a downturn in response rate at the highest rates of reinforcement, is well documented for ratio schedules and is predicted for interval schedules. Pigeons were exposed to multiple variable-ratio variable-interval schedules in which the intervals generated in the variable-ratio component were programmed in the variable-interval component, thereby “yoking” or approximately matching reinforcement in the two components. The full range of ratio performances was studied, from strained to continuous reinforcement. In addition to the expected phenomena, a new phenomenon was observed: an upturn in variable-interval response rate in the midrange of rates of reinforcement that brought response rates on the two schedules to equality before the downturn at the highest rates of reinforcement. When the average response rate was corrected by eliminating pausing after reinforcement, the downturn in response rate vanished, leaving a strictly monotonic performance curve. This apparent functional independence of the postreinforcement pause and the qualitative shift in response implied by the upturn in variable-interval response rate suggest that theoretical accounts will require thinking of behavior as partitioned among at least three categories, and probably four: postreinforcement activity, other unprogrammed activity, ratio-typical operant behavior, and interval-typical operant behavior.     

Response and time allocation in concurrent second-order schedules

Six pigeons were trained on two-key concurrent variable-interval schedules in which the required response was the completion of a fixed number of key pecks. When the required number of pecks was equal on the two keys, response- and time-allocation ratios under-matched obtained reinforcement rate ratios. A similar result was found when the required number of pecks was unequal, except that performance, measured in response terms, was biased to the shorter required number of pecks and was less sensitive to reinforcement-rate changes. No such differences were found in the data on time spent responding. When the variable-interval schedules were kept constant and the required numbers of pecks were systematically varied, response ratios changed inversely with the ratio of the required number of pecks, but time-allocation ratios varied directly with the same independent variable. Thus, on response measures, pigeons “prefer” the schedule with the smaller peck requirement, but on time measures they “prefer” the schedule with the larger peck requirement. This finding is inconsistent with a commonsense notion of choice, which sees response and time-allocation measures as equivalent.     

Concurrent performances: inhibition of one response by reinforcement of another

In an analysis of interactions between concurrent performances, variable-interval reinforcement was scheduled, in various sequences, for both keys, for only one key, or for neither key of a two-key pigeon chamber. With changeover delays of 0.5 or 1.0 sec, and with each key's reinforcements discriminated on the basis of key-correlated feeder stimuli, reinforcement of pecks on one key reduced the pecking maintained by reinforcement on the other key. The decrease in pecking early after reinforcement was discontinued on one key was not substantially affected by whether pecks on the other key were reinforced, but after reinforcement was discontinued on both keys, reinstatement of reinforcement for one key sometimes produced transient increases in pecking on the other key. Correlating the availability of right-key reinforcements with a stimulus, which maintained right-key reinforcement while reducing right-key pecking to negligible levels, demonstrated that these interactions depended on concurrent reinforcement, not concurrent responding. Thus, reinforcement of a response, but not necessarily the occurrence of the response, inhibits other reinforced responses. Compared with accounts in terms of excitatory effects of extinction, often invoked in treatments of behavioral contrast, this inhibitory account has the advantage of dealing only with observed dimensions of behavior.