Sensitivity to relative reinforcer rate in concurrent schedules: independence from relative and absolute reinforcer duration

Twelve pigeons responded on two keys under concurrent variable-interval (VI) schedules. Over several series of conditions, relative and absolute magnitudes of reinforcement were varied. Within each series, relative rate of reinforcement was varied and sensitivity of behavior ratios to reinforcer-rate ratios was assessed. When responding at both alternatives was maintained by equal-sized small reinforcers, sensitivity to variation in reinforcer-rate ratios was the same as when large reinforcers were used. This result was observed when the overall rate of reinforcement was constant over conditions, and also in another series of concurrent schedules in which one schedule was kept constant at VI ached 120 s. Similarly, reinforcer magnitude did not affect the rate at which response allocation approached asymptote within a condition. When reinforcer magnitudes differred between the two responses and reinforcer-rate ratios were varied, sensitivity of behavior allocation was unaffected although response bias favored the schedule that arranged the larger reinforcers. Analysis of absolute response rates ratio sensitivity to reinforcement occurrred on the two keys showed that this invariance of response despite changes in reinforcement interaction that were observed in absolute response rates on the constant VI 120-s schedule. Response rate on the constant VI 120-s schedule was inversely related to reinforcer rate on the varied key and the strength of this relation depended on the relative magnitude of reinforcers arranged on varied key. Independence of sensitivity to reinforcer-rate ratios from relative and absolute reinforcer magnitude is consistent with the relativity and independence assumtions of the matching law.     

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.     

Bias and sensitivity to reinforcement in a concurrent-chain schedule

Six pigeons were trained on concurrent-chain schedules in which the initial links were either dependent (Experiment 1) or independent (Experiment 2) concurrent variable-interval schedules and the terminal links were fixed-duration delays to reinforcement in blackout. A changeover delay of three seconds operated in the initial links. Both the initial- and terminal-link schedule values were varied over 61 experimental conditions. An analysis of the data using the generalized matching law showed that the sensitivity of initial-link response allocation to the frequency of terminal-link production was independent of both the duration of the terminal-link delays and, though less clearly, of the duration of the initial-link schedules. Sensitivity of initial-link response allocation to terminal-link reinforcer-rate ratios was a joint function of the terminal-link durations and the smaller average initial-link duration. The results showed that the generalized matching law is useful in analyzing concurrent-chain schedule performance and that a changeover delay in the initial links eliminates some terminal- to initial-link interactions that have made quantitative predictions for concurrent-chain performances difficult.     

Choice and delay of reinforcement: Effects of terminal-link stimulus and response conditions

In two experiments, pigeons were exposed to concurrent-chains schedules in which a single initial-link variable-interval schedule led to access to terminal links composed of fixed-interval or fixed-delay schedules. In Experiment 1, an 8-s (or 16-s) delay to reinforcement was associated with the standard key, while reinforcer delay values associated with the experimental key were varied from 4 to 32 s. The results of Experiment 1 showed undermatching of response ratios to delay ratios with terminal-link fixed-delay schedules, whereas in some pigeons matching or overmatching was evident with the fixed-interval schedules. In Experiment 2, one pair of reinforcer delay values, either 8 versus 16 s or 16 versus 32 s, was used. In the first condition of Experiment 2, different delays were associated with different keylight stimuli (cued condition). In the second condition, different terminal-link delays were associated with the same stimulus, either a blackout (uncued-blackout condition) or a white key (uncued-white condition). To examine the role of responses emitted during delays, the keys were retracted during a delay (key-absent condition) in the third condition and responses were required by a fixed-interval schedule in the fourth condition. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the choice proportions for the shorter delay were more extreme in the cued condition than in the uncued-blackout condition, and that the response requirement imposed by the fixed-interval schedules did not affect choice of the shorter delay, nor did the key-absent and key-present conditions. These results indicate that the keylight-stimulus conditions affected preference for the shorter of two delays and that the findings obtained in Experiment 1 depended mainly on the keylight-stimulus conditions of the terminal links (i.e., the conditioned reinforcing value of the terminal-link stimuli).     

Delayed matching-to-sample performance: Effects of relative reinforcer frequency and of signaled versus unsignaled reinforcer magnitudes

Six pigeons were trained on a delayed red-green matching-to-sample task that arranged four delays within sessions. Matching responses intermittently produced either 1.5-s access to food or 4.5-s access to food, and nonmatching responses produced either 1.5-s or 4.5-s blackout. Two phases were conducted: a signaled phase in which the reinforcer magnitudes (small and large) were signaled by houselights (positioned either on the left or right of the chamber), and an unsignaled phase in which there was no correlation between reinforcer magnitude and houselight position. In both phases, the relative frequency with which red and green matching responses produced food was varied across five values. Both matching accuracy and the sensitivity of performance to the distribution of reinforcers for matching responses decreased with increasing delays in both phases. In addition, accuracy and reinforcer sensitivity were significantly lower on signaled small-reinforcer trials compared with accuracy and sensitivity values on signaled large-reinforcer trials and on both types of unsignaled trials. These results are discussed in the context of research on both nonhuman animal and human memory.     

Concurrent schedules: Effects of time- and response-allocation constraints

Five pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules arranged on two keys. In Part 1 of the experiment, the subjects responded under no constraints, and the ratios of reinforcers obtainable were varied over five levels. In Part 2, the conditions of the experiment were changed such that the time spent responding on the left key before a subsequent changeover to the right key determined the minimum time that must be spent responding on the right key before a changeover to the left key could occur. When the left key provided a higher reinforcer rate than the right key, this procedure ensured that the time allocated to the two keys was approximately equal. The data showed that such a time-allocation constraint only marginally constrained response allocation. In Part 3, the numbers of responses emitted on the left key before a changeover to the right key determined the minimum number of responses that had to be emitted on the right key before a changeover to the left key could occur. This response constraint completely constrained time allocation. These data are consistent with the view that response allocation is a fundamental process (and time allocation a derivative process), or that response and time allocation are independently controlled, in concurrent-schedule performance.     

Concurrent-schedule performance: Effects of relative and overall reinforcer rate

Six pigeons were trained to respond on two keys, each of which provided reinforcers on an arithmetic variable-interval schedule. These concurrent schedules ran nonindependently with a 2-s changeover delay. Six sets of conditions were conducted. Within each set of conditions the ratio of reinforcers available on the two alternatives was varied, but the arranged overall reinforcer rate remained constant. Each set of conditions used a different overall reinforcer rate, ranging from 0.22 reinforcers per minute to 10 reinforcers per minute. The generalized matching law fit the data from each set of conditions, but sensitivity to reinforcer frequency (a) decreased as the overall reinforcer rate decreased for both time allocation and response allocation based analyses of the data. Overall response rates did not vary with changes in relative reinforcer rate, but decreased with decreases in overall reinforcer rate. Changeover rates varied as a function of both relative and overall reinforcer rates. However, as explanations based on changeover rate seem unable to deal with the changes in generalized matching sensitivity, discrimination accounts of choice may offer a more promising interpretation.     

Concurrent schedules: Interaction of reinforcer frequency and reinforcer duration

Six pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules with unequal reinforcer durations for the two responses. The schedules arranged on the two keys were kept equal while they were varied in absolute size. As the overall reinforcer rate was increased, both response-allocation and time-allocation measures of choice showed a trend toward indifference, and measures of sensitivity to reinforcer-duration ratios significantly decreased. Recent reports have shown that the generalized matching law cannot describe the changes in behavior allocation under constant delay-, duration-, or rate-ratios when changes are made in the absolute levels of each of these variables. The present results complement these findings by demonstrating that the concatenated generalized matching law cannot describe the interactions of two reinforcer variables on behavior allocation.     

Levels of aggregation: Relative time allocation in concurrent-schedule performance

The proportion of time allocated to one component of a concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedule was computed for groups of interchangeover times (aggregates) within several intact time series. Variability in obtained proportions decreased as the number of interchangeover times within each aggregate increased; however, modal proportions failed to correspond to overall relative time allocation computed over the course of an entire experimental session, even at the largest aggregate size. The aggregated time series showed periodicities at small aggregate sizes and general trends in local preference at larger aggregate sizes. It is suggested that overall relative time allocation represents a molar extreme in the aggregation of behavior that may not accurately reflect central tendency in the allocation of time to available alternatives within the context of ongoing behavior.     

DEVIATIONS FROM MATCHING AS A MEASURE OF PREFERENCE FOR ALTERNATIVES IN PIGEONS

Preferences for larger or smaller formally defined response classes were investigated in a concurrent schedule procedure. Twelve pigeons were run on a series of concurrent variable-interval reinforcement schedules, from which baseline matching functions were obtained. An experimental phase followed, in which a second response key was available in one concurrent schedule alternative. For half the birds, the second key was programmed identically with the first; for the other half, the added key was programmed for extinction, with position irrelevant. Comparison of baseline and experimental matching functions revealed no systematic changes in either slope or intercept for birds in the latter group. Systematic shifts in function intercepts in the former group indicate a response bias toward the response-constrained (single-key) schedule alternative. Although contrary to the literature of preference for choice, this finding may be interpretable through an account dealing with imposed variability of responding.     

Temporal constraint on choice: Sensitivity and bias in multiple schedules

In multiple schedules of reinforcement, ratios of responses in successive components are relatively insensitive to ratios of obtained reinforcers. An analysis is proposed that attributes changes in absolute response rates to concurrent interactions between programmed reinforcement and extraneous reinforcement in other components. The analysis predicts that ratios of responses in successive components vary with reinforcer ratios, qualified by a term describing the reinforcement context, that is, programmed and extraneous reinforcers. Two main predictions from the analysis were confirmed in an experiment in which pigeons' responses were reinforced in the components of a multiple schedule and analog extraneous reinforcement was scheduled for an alternative response in each component. Sensitivity of response and time ratios to reinforcer ratios in the multiple schedules varied as a function of the rate of extraneous reinforcers. Bias towards responding in one component of the multiple schedule varied as an inverse function of the ratios of extraneous reinforcer rate in the two components. The data from this and previous studies of multiple-concurrent performance were accurately predicted by our analysis and supported our contention that the allocation of behavior in multiple-schedule components depends on the relative values of concurrently-available reinforcers within each component.     

Choice and the relative immediacy of reinforcement

The relative immediacy of reinforcement in concurrent-chain schedules was varied while the relative reduction in the overall average time to reinforcement associated with terminal-link entry was held constant. For each of four pigeons, choice did not vary with relative immediacy of reinforcement. Subsequently, choice by the same subjects was shown to be sensitive to relative reduction in average time to reinforcement.     

Effects of response-allocation constraints on multiple-schedule performance

Four pigeons were trained on multiple variable-interval schedules in which components alternated after a fixed number of responses had been emitted. In Part 1, each component change occurred after 20 responses; in Part 2, the number was 40; and in Part 3, the number of responses before change was 10. Component reinforcer rates were varied over five experimental conditions in each of Parts 1 to 3. Component response rates decreased as the specified number of responses per component was increased. However, the relation between component response-rate ratios and component reinforcer-rate ratios was independent of the specified number of responses per component, and was similar to that found when components alternate after fixed time periods. In the fourth part of the experiment, the results from Parts 1 to 3 were systematically replicated by keeping the component reinforcer rates constant, but different, while the number of responses that produced component alternation was varied from 5 to 60 responses. The results showed that multiple-schedule performance under component-response-number constraint is similar to that under conventional component-duration constraint. They further suggest that multiple-schedule response rates are controlled by component reinforcer rates and not by principles of maximizing overall reinforcer rates or meliorating component reinforcer rates.     

Concurrent-schedule performance in transition: changeover delays and signaled reinforcer ratios

Six pigeons were trained in experimental sessions that arranged six or seven components with various concurrent-schedule reinforcer ratios associated with each. The order of the components was determined randomly without replacement. Components lasted until the pigeons had received 10 reinforcers, and were separated by 10-s blackout periods. The component reinforcer ratios arranged in most conditions were 27:1, 9:1, 3:1, 1:1, 1:3, 1:9 and 1:27; in others, there were only six components, three of 27:1 and three of 1:27. In some conditions, each reinforcement ratio was signaled by a different red-yellow flash frequency, with the frequency perfectly correlated with the reinforcer ratio. Additionally, a changeover delay was arranged in some conditions, and no changeover delay in others. When component reinforcer ratios were signaled, sensitivity to reinforcement values increased from around 0.40 before the first reinforcer in a component to around 0.80 before the 10th reinforcer. When reinforcer ratios were not signaled, sensitivities typically increased from zero to around 0.40. Sensitivity to reinforcement was around 0.20 lower in no-changeover-delay conditions than in changeover-delay conditions, but increased in the former after exposure to changeover delays. Local analyses showed that preference was extreme towards the reinforced alternative for the first 25 s after reinforcement in changeover-delay conditions regardless of whether components were signaled or not. In no-changeover-delay conditions, preference following reinforcers was either absent, or, following exposure to changeover delays, small. Reinforcers have both local and long-term effects on preference. The former, but not the latter, is strongly affected by the presence of a changeover delay. Stimulus control may be more closely associated with longer-term, more molar, reinforcer effects.     

Choice: Effects of changeover schedules on concurrent performance

The components of concurrent schedules were separated temporally by placing interval schedules on the changeover key. The rates of responding on both the main and changeover keys were examined as a function of the reinforcement rates. In the first experiment, the sensitivity of main-key performance to changing reinforcement rates was inversely related to the temporal separation of components, and changeover performance was monotonically related to the ratio of the reinforcement rates. In the second experiment, when the ratio of the reinforcement rates was scheduled to remain constant while the frequency of reinforcement was varied, changeover performance did not remain constant. A “sampling” interpretation of changeover responding was proposed and subsequently tested in a third experiment where extinction was always scheduled in one component and the frequency of reinforcement was varied in the second component. It was concluded that changeover performance can be interpreted using molar measures of reinforcement and that animals sample activities available to them at rates which are controlled by relative reinforcement rates.     

Component probability and component reinforcer rate as biasers of free-operant detection

Six pigeons were trained on multiple schedules whose components were concurrent variable-interval extinction and concurrent extinction variable-interval schedules. In Experiments 1a and 1b the stimuli signaling the components were two different light intensities, and in Experiments 2a and 2b they were two identical intensities. The components of the multiple schedule changed probabilistically after each reinforcer. In Experiments 1a and 2a, the probability of presenting the components was varied over five conditions and a replication. In Experiments 1b and 2b, the component probability was .5 and the component reinforcer rates were varied systematically over five conditions and a replication. The data, analyzed according to the Davison-Tustin behavioral detection model, confirmed that the discriminability of the stimuli signaling the components was high when the stimuli were different, and low when the stimuli were the same. Discriminability, measured by log d, was unaffected by component probability variation and by component reinforcer-rate variation. When discriminability was high, bias, or the response allocation between the two keys, was more strongly affected by variation of reinforcer rate within components than by variation of component probability, but the reverse was found when discriminability was low. The results suggest that free-operant detection performance is controlled by the rates of reinforcers in periods of time in which stimuli signal differential contingencies. These periods comprise the components when the component stimuli are discriminable, and comprise the total session when the components are indiscriminable. An extension of the Davison-Tustin behavioral detection model that incorporates these results is presented.     

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.     

Multiple schedule component duration: a reanalysis of Shimp and Wheatley (1971) and Todorov (1972)

The tendency for relative response rate to approach matching as multiple schedule component duration decreases has been interpreted as confirming a prediction of Herrnstein's multiple schedule equation. However, the equation predicts that absolute response rate will decrease in both multiple schedule components as component duration decreases. The absolute response-rate data of two studies of component duration do not support this prediction; absolute rate either increased or remained relatively constant.     

Resistance to change and the law of effect

Three experiments using multiple schedules of reinforcement explored the implications of resistance-to-change findings for the response-reinforcer relation described by the law of effect, using both steady-state responding and responding recorded in the first few sessions of conditions. In Experiment 1, when response-independent reinforcement was increased during a third component, response rate in Components 1 and 2 decreased. This response-rate reduction was proportionately greater in a component in which reinforcer magnitude was small (2-s access to wheat) than in the component in which it was large (6-s access to wheat). However, when reinforcer rates in the two components were varied together in Experiments 2 and 3, response-rate change was the same regardless of the magnitude of reinforcers used in the two components, so that sensitivity of response rates to reinforcer rates (Experiment 2) and of response-rate ratios to reinforcer-rate ratios (Experiment 3) was unaffected by the magnitude of the reinforcers. Therefore, the principles determining resistance to change, described by behavioral momentum theory, seem not to apply when the source of behavior change is the variation of reinforcement contingencies that maintain the behavior. The use of extinction as a manipulation to study resistance to change is questioned.