Fixed-ratio performance with and without a postreinforcement timeout

Pigeons pecked a key, producing food reinforcement on fixed-ratio (FR) schedules requiring 50, 100, or 150 responses. In each session, 30-second timeouts were inserted before a random half of the FR trials, whereas the other trials began immediately after reinforcement. In general, preratio pauses were shorter on trials preceded by timeouts. On these trials, the probability of a first response tended to be highest in the first 20 seconds of the trials, suggesting that the shorter pauses were the result of transient behavioral contrast. Direct observations and analyses of interresponse times (IRTs) after the preratio pause indicated that IRTs could be grouped into three categories: (1) IRTs of about .1 second, which were produced by small head movements in the vicinity of the key; (2) IRTs of about .3 second, which were produced by distinct pecking motions; and (3) IRTs greater than .5 second, which were accompanied by pausing or movements away from the key. At all ratio sizes, as a subject progressed through a trial, the probability of a long IRT decreased, whereas the probability of an intermediate IRT usually increased at first and then decreased. The probability of a short IRT increased monotonically across a trial. The results show that responding changes systematically as a subject progresses through a ratio on an FR schedule. Some characteristics of performance varied as functions of the absolute size of the response requirement, whereas others appeared to depend on the relative location within a ratio (i.e., the proportion of the ratio completed at a given moment).     

Discriminated interresponse times: role of autoshaped responses.

When discriminated interresponse-time (IRT) procedures have been used to assess preference relations among temporally extended operants, deviations from matching have been obtained. Using a yoked-control procedure, the present study found that key pecking in a discriminated IRT procedure has two sources of strength--that arising from the response-reinforcer contingency that is explicitly arranged, and that arising from a stimulus-reinforcer contingency that is a by-product of the explicitly arranged contingency. The key pecking of all lead birds, and that of 3 of the 4 birds exposed to a yoked autoshaping procedure, was controlled by the keylight that signaled the lead birds' criterion IRTs. Because stimulus control of key pecking by the keylight, whether autoshaped or discriminative, fosters deviations from matching, the discriminated IRT procedure does not provide an appropriate basis for conclusions about preference relations among IRTs.     

Frequency of reinforcement as a determinant of extinction-induced aggression during errorless discrimination learning.

Seven pigeons were trained to discriminate without errors between a green keylight and a dark key. The key-pecking response was reinforced in the presence of green, and extinction was in effect in the presence of the dark key. The opportunity to attack a restrained target pigeon was present only during extinction. Both variable-interval 30-sec and fixed-ratio 1 schedules of reinforcement during the positive stimulus induced a higher rate of attack during extinction than a variable-interval 5-min schedule. The highest rate of attack during extinction occurred during the first 20 sec after the positive stimulus terminated. Hence, the withdrawal of the positive condition, rather than the consequences of the pecking response during extinction, appears to be one of the primary factors responsible for attack between pigeons during extinction. Behavioral contrast, defined as a decrease in the rate of responding when the positive stimulus was presented alone, was obtained from the four birds that displayed the lowest overall rates of attack while the three birds with the highest attack rates did not display behavioral contrast. For the birds without contrast, components of the attack response during the positive stimulus presumably competed with and reduced the rate of pecking the key, thereby recluding behavioral contrast.     

Discrimination and emission of temporal intervals by pigeons

Because the frequency distribution of IRTs showed little or no control by a DRL schedule, the schedule was modified so that the pigeon's behavior after each IRT would indicate whether or not it had discriminated the duration of the IRT. After every two pecks on a red key, the key changed to blue for 30 sec. Then it automatically became red again. Pecks on the blue key were reinforced with food on a VI schedule only when the preceding IRT on the red key had been longer than 18 sec. The birds did not selectively emit longer IRTs on the red key: the value of IRTs/op did not increase with IRT duration. However, they did discriminate the duration of the IRT emitted on the red key: the rate of pecking on the blue key was an increasing function of the duration of the preceding IRT on the red key.     

The role of intermittent food in the induction of attack in pigeons

The present experiments evaluated whether transitions in reinforcer probability are necessary to induce attack in pigeons. In Experiment I, three of six pigeons exposed to response-contingent constant-probability food schedules and a photograph of a conspecific as a target exhibited sustained postreinforcement attack on the target. The postreinforcement pattern of attack developed over the course of the experiment and was accompanied by a reduction in the rate of postreinforcement key pecking and an increase in the postreinforcement pause in key pecking. These effects on key pecking resulted in unprogrammed variations in the probability of reinforcement which may have been responsible for the induction of attack. In Experiment II, the attack-inducing properties of a constant-probability response-independent food schedule were compared to a periodic food schedule matched for overall rate of food delivery and to a no-food condition. In addition to attack, the spatial location of the subjects was monitored during each interfood interval. The periodic and aperiodic food schedules generated very different patterns of spatial location. Postfood attack was induced by both food schedules, although the constant-probability schedule induced attack in fewer birds. The no-food condition was not effective in inducing attack in any birds. These experiments indicate that intermittent food schedules without reductions in reinforcer probability are sufficient to induce attack in some pigeons, although not as effective as schedules with transitions in reinforcer probability.     

Performance on ratio and interval schedules with matched reinforcement rates

In the first study, rats were trained to pull a chain on a schedule (RPI) that regulates the probability of reinforcement to maintain a constant average reinforcement rate without differentially reinforcing long inter-response times (IRTs). Although the response rate was sensitive to the overall rate of reinforcement, performance was unaffected by variations between 1 and 50 in the IRT memory size used in programming the schedule. In the second study, two groups of animals performed on either a random-interval (RI) schedule or a RPI schedule, with reinforcement rates determined by those generated by a third group performing on a random ratio (RR) 20 schedule. The RI group responded at a lower rate than the RPI group, which, in turn, responded at a lower rate than the RR group, even though the three groups experienced comparable rates of reinforcement. The fact that the RPI group responded at a lower rate than the RR group suggests that the standard response rate difference observed between ratio and interval schedules, which have been matched for reinforcement rate, cannot be attributed solely to the fact that conventional interval schedules differentially reinforce long IRTs.     

Aggression during the fixed-ratio and extinction components of a multiple schedule of reinforcement

Pigeons were trained to key peck for food on multiple reinforcement schedules including components of continuous and fixed-ratio reinforcement and extinction. At the end of the chamber opposite the response key was a restrained target pigeon. The target restraining equipment was designed to record automatically blows struck against the target. When the experimental pigeons were paired with restrained target pigeons they attacked the target. Attack occurred during extinction after both continuous and fixed-ratio reinforcement. Attack also occurred occasionally during fixed-ratio 25 and fixed-ratio 40 and frequently during fixed-ratio 60 and fixed-ratio 120. No attack occurred during fixed-ratio 15 and continuous reinforcement. After a history of stable responding without a target bird present, the introduction of a target bird resulted in severely strained key-peck responding characterized by long periods of neither key pecking nor aggressing.     

Pictorial target control of schedule-induced attack in White Carneaux pigeons

Three pigeons with a history of attacking a mirror target, and two of six pigeons with no prior exposure to targets, attacked a colored photograph of a conspecific during exposure to intermittent schedules of reinforcement for key pecking. Rate of attack on the photograph decreased when the reinforcement schedule was removed. The topography, temporal pattern, and locus of attack on the picture were comparable to schedule-induced attack on live, stuffed, and mirror targets. When silhouette, outline, and plain paper targets were used, schedule-induced attack was more sensitive to a change in target characteristics with a concurrent target-preference procedure than with an analogous successive-testing procedure. The combined results of the two testing procedures indicated that an “upright” white-on-black silhouette of a pigeon with or without an eye was more effective in controlling attack than was a comparable “inverted” silhouette, an outline of a pigeon, or a piece of colored paper.     

Schedule-induced mirror responding in the pigeon

Two pigeons that were previously exposed to a multiple schedule of reinforcement in the presence of a stuffed and a live pigeon, and two of three naive pigeons, responded on a mirror during exposure to multiple fixed-ratio, fixed-ratio schedules of reinforcement for key pecking. Both the topography and temporal pattern of mirror responding were comparable to schedule-induced “attack” on live and stuffed targets. Rate of target responding was reduced when either the mirror was covered with paper or when the multiple schedule was removed. A reversal in the relationship between reinforcement schedules and discriminative stimuli demonstrated that mirror responding was controlled by the stimulus correlated with the higher fixed-ratio schedule. With one component of the multiple schedule held constant at fixed ratio 25 and the ratio requirement of the other component varying from 25 to 150, there was an inverted U-shaped relationship between rate of mirror responding and fixed-ratio schedule in the varied component. As in Flory's study (1969b) there was an inverted U-shaped relationship between target responding and inter-food intervals. The combined results of these studies suggest that the relationship between rate of target responding and reinforcement schedules is controlled primarily by the inter-food intervals resulting from the schedules.     

Time allocation on concurrent schedules with asymmetrical response requirements

Pigeons were trained on concurrent schedules in which key pecking was required by both schedules (concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules) and on concurrent schedules in which key pecking was required by only one of the schedules (concurrent variable-interval variable-time schedules). The distribution of reinforcements was systematically varied with both types of concurrent schedules. The distribution of time between the schedules depended on the reinforcement distribution and was independent of the symmetry of the response requirement. The relation between time and reinforcement distributions appears to be invariant over a wide range of manipulations of responding maintained by concurrent schedules.     

The differentiation of response numerosities in the pigeon

Two experiments examined how pigeons differentiate response patterns along the dimension of number. In Experiment 1, 5 pigeons received food after pecking the left key at least N times and then switching to the right key (Mechner's Fixed Consecutive Number schedule). Parameter N varied across conditions from 4 to 32. Results showed that run length on the left key followed a normal distribution whose mean and standard deviation increased linearly with N; the coefficient of variation approached a constant value (the scalar property). In Experiment 2, 4 pigeons received food with probability p for pecking the left key exactly four times and then switching. If that did not happen, the pigeons still could receive food by returning to the left key and pecking it for a total of at least 16 times and then switching. Parameter p varied across conditions from 1.0 to .25. Results showed that when p= 1.0 or p=.5, pigeons learned two response numerosities within the same condition. When p=.25, each pigeon adapted to the schedule differently. Two of them emitted first runs well described by a mixture of two normal distributions, one with mean close to 4 and the other with mean close to 16 pecks. A mathematical model for the differentiation of response numerosity in Fixed Consecutive Number schedules is proposed.     

A comparison of the key-peck and treadle-press operants in the pigeon: differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule of reinforcement

Key pecking and treadle pressing in pigeons were compared under concurrent (key-treadle) and single-operant differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules of food reinforcement ranging from 5 to 60 sec (concurrent procedure) or 5 to 120 sec (single-operant procedure). Under both procedures, the two operants followed the same general law: decreasing response rate and reinforcement rate and increasing number of responses per reinforcement as a function of increasing schedule interval. High correlations were found between key pecking and treadle pressing for the measures of response rate, reinforcement rate, and responses per reinforcement. Regression equations allowed the prediction of treadle pressing from key pecking. More bursting occurred in responding to the key, and key pecking showed a more precise temporal discrimination than treadle pressing. A test for sequential dependencies between key and treadle responses showed significant dependencies not only under the concurrent procedure but also in data created artificially by merging key and treadle sequences from different pigeons under the concurrent procedure and from the same pigeon under the single-operant procedure. It seems likely that the sequential dependencies found were due to the independent action of the schedule on each operant and that behavioral dependencies did not occur with the concurrent training procedure. The key-peck operant does not appear to have any special qualities that preclude its use in discovering general laws of behavior, at least under the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule. The usefulness of the key peck in other situations requires direct experimental study.     

Controls for and constraints on auto-shaping

Auto-shaping the pigeon's key-peck response was examined as a respondent conditioning procedure with the use of Rescorla's truly-random control procedure. In the first experiment, pigeons received presentations of brief light on the response key and brief presentations of food where the light and the food were independently presented. All birds failed to key peck after many light and food presentations, but explicit pairing of the light and food rapidly conditioned pecking to the light. Experiment 2 showed that even when an independent light/food presentation schedule was reduced to variable-time 30 sec, additional naive birds would not key peck and only one bird pecked when the schedules were variable-time 15 sec. A third experiment examined an explicit-unpairing control procedure, where the light and food were not only presented on independent schedules but were also separated by a minimum time, and found that auto-shaping did not occur. A fourth experiment investigated a number of control procedures and found them ineffective. A fifth experiment investigated the effects of a physical separation of the locus of the response key and the food dispenser, and a sixth experiment investigated using a tone in place of the light. It was concluded that pecking is generated by auto-shaping procedures only when an intermittently presented keylight is regularly paired with food.     

Absence of shock-elicited aggression in pigeons

Two pigeons that attacked a taxidermically prepared target pigeon during a schedule of positive reinforcement for key pecking, and two that did not, were shocked through implanted electrodes in the presence of the target. Shock intensities of 2 and 4 mA, durations of 0.1 and 1.3 sec, and frequencies of 2, 6, 20, and 35 per minute were delivered across 16 sessions with 180 shocks per session. No pigeon attacked the target; one pecked the shockplug on its back. The two pigeons that had not attacked during the positive reinforcement schedules were conditioned to peck the target for food reinforcement before another 16 sessions of shock. No attack was observed in these shock sessions. During subsequent positive reinforcement of key pecking, the target was attacked by the two pigeons that had originally attacked and by one that had not. Absence of shock-elicited attack in these pigeons may be related to the parameters of the experiment or may be yet another instance of the absence of shock-elicited attack in the class Aves. At least under the present conditions, it was not possible to predict the level of attack during electric shock from the level of attack during schedules of positive reinforcement for key pecking.     

An operant discrimination task allowing variability of reinforced response patterning

Five pigeons were trained to perform a discrimination task allowing variability of reinforced response patterning. The task consisted of moving a stimulus light within an 4×4 matrix of lights from the top left position to the bottom right position by pecking on two keys in succession in order to obtain a reinforcement. A peck on one key moved the light one position to the right and a peck on the other key moved it one position down. After preliminary training on alternating fixed-ratio 3 schedules of reinforcement, the birds could peck on either key in any order, but more than three responses on a key resulted in a blackout followed by the return of the stimulus light to the start position. Results indicate that initially the birds used a wide variety of response patterns to obtain reinforcement, but with continued practice, response patterns became more stereotyped.     

The influence of prior choices on current choice

Three pigeons chose between random-interval (RI) and tandem, continuous-reinforcement, fixed-interval (crf-FI) reinforcement schedules by pecking either of two keys. As long as a pigeon pecked on the RI key, both keys remained available. If a pigeon pecked on the crf-FI key, then the RI key became unavailable and the crf-FI timer began to time out. With this procedure, once the RI key was initially pecked, the prospective value of both alternatives remained constant regardless of time spent pecking on the RI key without reinforcement (RI waiting time). Despite this constancy, the rate at which pigeons switched from the RI to the crf-FI decreased sharply as RI waiting time increased. That is, prior choices influenced current choice-an exercise effect. It is argued that such influence (independent of reinforcement contingencies) may serve as a sunk-cost commitment device in self-control situations. In a second experiment, extinction was programmed if RI waiting time exceeded a certain value. Rate of switching to the crf-FI first decreased and then increased as the extinction point approached, showing sensitivity to both prior choices and reinforcement contingencies. In a third experiment, crf-FI availability was limited to a brief window during the RI waiting time. When constrained in this way, switching occurred at a high rate regardless of when, during the RI waiting time, the crf-FI became available.     

Concurrent performances: a baseline for the study of reinforcement magnitude

When a pigeon's pecking on a single key was reinforced by a variable-interval (VI) schedule of reinforcement, the rate of pecking was insensitive to changes in the duration of reinforcement from 3 to 6 sec. When, however, the pigeon's pecking on each of two keys was concurrently reinforced by two independent VI schedules, one for each key, the rate of pecking was directly proportional to the duration of reinforcement.     

Responding Under Homogeneous Versus Heterogeneous Chained Schedules

Four pigeons responded under chained variable-interval schedules in which the required response topographies were either similar (i.e., a homogeneous chain) or dissimilar (i.e., a heterogeneous chain). The pigeons were exposed to all possible combinations of initial-link key pecking or treadle pressing and terminal-link pecking or treadling. Three of four birds displayed higher initial-link response rates under the homogeneous chains. These results were explained in terms of an induction effect in which the strengthening effect of reinforcing a particular terminal-link response topography generalizes to similar responses earlier in the chain but not to topographically different responses.

     

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.