Behavioral contrast for key pecking as a function of component duration when only one component varies

Pigeons pecked keys for food reinforcers delivered by multiple variable-interval 2-min variable-interval 2-min schedules. Positive behavioral contrast was created by changing one component to extinction; negative contrast was achieved by changing one component to a variable-interval 15-s schedule. The duration of each component was varied independently of the other from 5 to 960 s. The size of positive contrast was greatest when the extinction component was 30 or 60 s long. It did not change significantly with changes in the duration of the variable-interval 2-min component. The absolute size of negative contrast decreased with increases in the duration of the variable-interval 2-min component. It did not change significantly with changes in the duration of the variable-interval 15-s component. These results show that the size of contrast is determined primarily by the duration of the component that provides the less favorable conditions of reinforcement. These results are not predicted by current theories.     

Undermatching and contrast within components of multiple schedules

Six multiple variable-interval schedules each comprised one variable-interval sixty second component and an alternated component which was varied. Four pigeons' responses were recorded in five successive subintervals of each component. Response rate changes across subintervals revealed instances of local contrast and small local induction effects in the changed component. In the constant component, smaller local contrast and larger local induction effects obtained. Accordingly, the magnitude of behavioral contrast, defined as an inverse relation between response rate in the constant component and reinforcement rate in the changed component, did not change reliably across subintervals of the constant component. Ratios of response rates in initial subintervals were highly sensitive to reinforcement ratios. Sensitivity decreased sharply over the first two-fifths of the components and remained constant for the remainder. The results demonstrated that changes in multiple schedule sensitivity are a function of time since the alternation of successive components.     

Contrast and undermatching with regular or irregular alternation of components

Behavioral contrast and response-ratio sensitivity to reinforcement were compared in multiple schedules in which components alternated strictly or according to a pseudorandom sequence. Average component durations in the two regimes were always 60 s, and order of presentation of component alternation regimes was counterbalanced across subjects. In Part 1, the reinforcer rate in one component was reduced from 60 per hour to zero, while that in the other component was unchanged. Positive behavioral contrast occurred in the constant component in that response rates increased, but neither the reliability nor the magnitude of contrast was affected by the manner in which components alternated. Part 2 was similar, except that a number of different reinforcer rates were used in the varied component. Neither contrast nor sensitivity of response ratios to changes in reinforcer ratios depended on the regime of component alternation. Thus, the predictability in time of future reinforcement conditions, which is a feature of regular multiple scheduling, does not appear to be a determinant of multiple-schedule performance.     

Effects of reinforcer duration on responding in two-link chained interval schedules

Each of five pigeons was exposed to two or more durations of access to mixed grains on two-link, chained, interval schedules in which both links were identical fixed-interval or variable-interval schedules. Response rates were an increasing function of reinforcer duration for both initial and terminal links. For both types of interval schedules, initial-link response rates were more sensitive to reinforcer duration than were terminal-link response rates. The present results, together with prior ones, suggest that chaining and choice procedures are each sufficient for demonstrating substantial sensitivity of responding to changes in reinforcer duration.     

Contrast and autoshaping in multiple schedules varying reinforcer rate and duration

Thirteen master pigeons were exposed to multiple schedules in which reinforcement frequency (Experiment I) or duration (Experiment II) was varied. In Phases 1 and 3 of Experiment I, the values of the first and second components' random-interval schedules were 33 and 99 seconds, respectively. In Phase 2, these values were 99 seconds for both components. In Experiment II, a random-interval 33-second schedule was associated with each component. During Phases 1 and 3, the first and second components had hopper durations of 7.5 and 2.5 seconds respectively. During Phase 2, both components' hopper durations were 2.5 seconds. In each experiment, positive contrast obtained for about half the master subjects. The rest showed a rate increase in both components (positive induction). Each master subject's key colors and reinforcers were synchronously presented on a response-independent basis to a yoked control. Richer component key-pecking occurred during each experiment's Phases 1 and 3 among half these subjects. However, none responded during the contrast condition (unchanged component of each experiment's Phase 2). From this it is inferred that autoshaping did not contribute to the contrast and induction findings among master birds. Little evidence of local contrast (highest rate at beginning of richer component) was found in any subject. These data show that (a) contrast can occur independently from autoshaping, (b) contrast assays during equal-valued components may produce induction, (c) local contrast in multiple schedules often does not occur, and (d) differential hopper durations can produce autoshaping and contrast.     

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.     

Conditioned reinforcement as a function of duration of stimulus

Pigeons were provided with three keys. Pecking the center key produced grain on a schedule that alternated at unpredictable times between a variable-interval component and extinction. On concurrent variable-interval schedules, pecking either side key produced a stimulus associated with the variable-interval component on the center key provided that said schedule was currently in effect. The independent variable was the length of time this stimulus remained on the keys. Pecking one side key produced the stimulus for 27 seconds, whereas the duration produced by pecking the other key varied for successive blocks of sessions. For the first four birds, the values tested were 3, 9, 27, and 81 seconds. For the second group, numbering three birds, the values tested were 1, 3, 9, and 27 seconds. The dependent variable was the proportion of total side key pecks that occurred on the variable key. For all birds, the function was positive in slope and negative in acceleration. This finding supports a formulation that ascribes the maintenance of observing responses in a normal setting to the fact that the subject exposes itself to the positive discriminative stimulus for a longer mean duration than it does to the negative stimulus.     

Positive and negative contrast as a function of component duration for key pecking and treadle pressing

Pigeons responded on several multiple schedules for food reinforcers. The duration of the components varied from four seconds to 16 minutes. The absolute size of positive (Experiment 1) and negative (Experiment 2) behavioral contrast varied inversely with component duration when key pecks produced the reinforcers. The absolute size of negative contrast varied directly with component duration, when treadle presses produced the reinforcers (Experiment 3). These results conform to theories that suggest that positive and negative contrast are symmetrical when pigeons peck keys. They also conform to theories that suggest that the same principles do not govern contrast when pigeons peck keys as when they press treadles. Finally, the results support the measurement of behavioral contrast by the differences between baseline rates of responding and the rates emitted when contrast is present.     

Contrast effects in multiple fixed-interval reinforcement schedules

Pigeons were exposed to a multiple fixed-interval one-minute fixed-interval three-minute schedule of reinforcement following training on either a multiple fixed-interval one-minute fixed-interval one-minute schedule or a multiple fixed-interval three-minute fixed-interval three-minute schedule. For all birds, large negative local contrast effects developed during the first of four three-minute intervals in a component; response rate was depressed and postreinforcement pause lengthened in this interval. Positive local contrast effects were evident during the first of 12 one-minute intervals in a component for five of six birds; at asymptote, the pause was very short and response rate slightly elevated during this interval. Overall positive contrast was generally transient and varied considerably across subjects, while overall negative contrast effects, if they occurred, appeared only after a large number of sessions.     

Contrast and induction in multiple schedules of discrete-trial concurrent reinforcement

Three pigeons were exposed to two-key discrete-trial concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Red and white key colors alternated irregularly and the assignment of reinforcers depended on key color. The red-key schedules were held constant, with the scheduled relative frequency of reinforcement for left-key pecks set at 0.75, while the white-key schedules varied. When the location of white-key reinforcement was changed from one side to the other, while its overall frequency was constant, red-key choices shifted in the same direction as white-key choices, an induction effect. When the overall frequency of white-key reinforcement was changed while its location remained constant, red key choices shifted in a direction opposite to white-key choices, a contrast effect. Both induction and contrast effects were clearer when the overall frequency of red-key reinforcement was reduced. These data demonstrate that the allocation of responding may exhibit schedule interaction effects similar to those commonly reported for response rate.     

Negative behavioral contrast on multiple treadle-press schedules

Eight pigeons pressed treadles for food reinforcers delivered by several multiple variable-interval schedules. The rate of reinforcement for responding during one component schedule was held constant at 30 reinforcers per hour. The rate of reinforcement for responding during the other component varied from 0 to 120 or 240 reinforcers per hour. The schedules were presented in different orders for different subjects. The rate of responding emitted during the variable component schedule varied directly with the rate of reinforcement it provided. The rate of responding during the constant component did not increase consistently when the rate of reinforcement obtained from the variable component decreased from 30 to 0 reinforcers per hr. The rate of responding emitted during the constant component decreased when the rate of reinforcement obtained from the variable component increased from 30 reinforcers per hour to a higher rate. That is, negative but not positive behavioral contrast occurred. The failure to find positive contrast is consistent with one of the predictions of the additive theories of behavioral contrast. Finding negative contrast has ambiguous implications for the additive theories.     

Contrast and reallocation of extraneous reinforcers as a function of component duration and baseline rate of reinforcement

Four pigeons responded on multiple schedules arranged on a “main” key in a two-key experimental chamber. A constant schedule component was alternated with another component that was varied over conditions. On an extra response key, conjoint schedules of reinforcement that operated in both components were arranged concurrently with the multiple schedule on the main key. On the main key, changes in reinforcement rate in the varied component were inversely related to changes in response rates in the constant component (behavioral contrast). On the extra key, some reinforcers were reallocated between components, depending on the schedules in effect on the main key in the varied component. In the varied component, the obtained rates of reinforcement on the extra key were inversely related to main-key reinforcement rate. In the constant component, extra-key reinforcer rates were positively related to main-key reinforcer rates obtained in the varied component, and were not a function of response rates on the extra key. In two comparisons, the rate at which components alternated and the value of the main-key schedule in the constant component were varied. Consistent with earlier work, long components reduced the extent of contrast. Reductions in contrast as a function of component duration were accompanied by similar reductions in the extent of reinforcer reallocation on the extra key. In the second comparison, lowering the rate of reinforcement in the constant component increased the rate at which extra-key reinforcers were obtained, reduced the extent of reinforcer reallocation, and reduced contrast. Overall, the results are consistent with the suggestion that some contrast effects are due to the changes in extraneous reinforcement during the constant component, and that manipulations of component duration, and manipulations of the rate of reinforcement in the constant component, affect contrast because they influence the extent of extraneous reinforcer real-location.     

Signalled reinforcement and multiple schedules

The responses of four pigeons were first reinforced in the presence of two different wave-lengths (green and red) on a two-ply multiple schedule with identical variable-interval 3-min schedules of reinforcement associated with each component. While the constant-component reinforcement schedule remained unchanged during the experiment, the schedule associated with the variable component was changed to (1) signalled variable time, (2) unsignalled variable time, or (3) signalled variable interval. The probability with which the availability of the reinforcer was signalled in the variable-interval schedules was either 0.5 or 1.0. Positive contrast occurred in both signalled variable-interval and variable-time schedules, but only when the availability of all the variable-component reinforcers was signalled. Signalling the availability of only 50% of the reinforcers in signalled variable-interval schedules resulted in negative induction. The present data suggest that positive behavioral contrast resulting from signalled reinforcer availability is due to the presence of an extinction-correlated stimulus.     

Short-component multiple schedules: effects of relative reinforcement duration

Pigeons were exposed to multiple variable-interval 2-min variable-interval 2-min schedules of food presentation in which relative duration of food presentation was manipulated. When components alternated every 5 sec and were scheduled on separate response keys, relative response rates closely matched relative reinforcement duration in three of four pigeons. On the other hand, relative response rates were insensitive to relative reinforcement duration when components scheduled on a single response key alternated every 5 sec, and when components scheduled on separate response keys alternated every 2 min. Thus, both rapid alternation and spatial separation of components were necessary to produce approximate matching of relative responding to relative reinforcement duration. This finding contrasts with previous findings that only rapid component alternation is necessary for matching when relative rate of reinforcement is manipulated.     

Choice, relative reinforcer duration, and the changeover ratio

Relative reinforcer duration was varied in concurrent schedules with a fixed-ratio four changeover requirement. The schedule in effect after each reinforcer was randomly chosen. For all three pigeons, relative response rates overmatched relative reinforcer durations. Time allocation was less extreme and, on the average, matched relative reinforcer duration. In a subsequent manipulation, the level of preference was shown to depend on the size of the changeover requirement. These results are similar to those from related unequal reinforcement-frequency procedures.     

Choice, foraging, and reinforcer duration.

Pigeons were exposed to a foraging schedule characterized by three different states, beginning with a search state in which completion of a variable interval on a white key led to a choice state. In the choice state the subject could, by appropriate responding on a fixed ratio of three, either accept or reject the schedule offered. If the subject accepted the schedule, it entered a handling state in which the appropriate reinforcer amount was presented according to a variable-interval schedule. In Experiment 1 the shorter duration reinforcer was more likely to be accepted the longer the duration of the search state and the shorter the equal durations of the handling states. In Experiment 2 the shorter duration reinforcer was more likely to be accepted the longer the handling time preceding the longer duration reinforcer. All of the results were in qualitative--and some were in quantitative--agreement with those predicted by the delay-reduction hypothesis and the optimal-diet model.     

Concurrent schedules: reinforcer magnitude effects

Five pigeons were trained on pairs of concurrent variable-interval schedules in a switching-key procedure. The arranged overall rate of reinforcement was constant in all conditions, and the reinforcer-magnitude ratios obtained from the two alternatives were varied over five levels. Each condition remained in effect for 65 sessions and the last 50 sessions of data from each condition were analyzed. At a molar level of analysis, preference was described well by a version of the generalized matching law, consistent with previous reports. More local analyses showed that recently obtained reinforcers had small measurable effects on current preference, with the most recently obtained reinforcer having a substantially larger effect. Larger reinforcers resulted in larger and longer preference pulses, and a small preference was maintained for the larger-magnitude alternative even after long inter-reinforcer intervals. These results are consistent with the notion that the variables controlling choice have both short- and long-term effects. Moreover, they suggest that control by reinforcer magnitude is exerted in a manner similar to control by reinforcer frequency. Lower sensitivities when reinforcer magnitude is varied are likely to be due to equal frequencies of different sized preference pulses, whereas higher sensitivities when reinforcer rates are varied might result from changes in the frequencies of different sized preference pulses.     

Pausing under variable-ratio schedules: Interaction of reinforcer magnitude, variable-ratio size, and lowest ratio

Pigeons pecked a key under two-component multiple variable-ratio schedules that offered 8-s or 2-s access to grain. Postreinforcement pausing and the rates of responding following the pause (run rates) in each component were measured as a function of variable-ratio size and the size of the lowest ratio in the configuration of ratios comprising each schedule. In one group of subjects, variable-ratio size was varied while the size of the lowest ratio was held constant. In a second group, the size of the lowest ratio was varied while variable-ratio size was held constant. For all subjects, the mean duration of postreinforcement pausing increased in the 2-s component but not in the 8-s component. Postreinforcement pauses increased with increases in variable-ratio size (Group 1) and with increases in the lowest ratio (Group 2). In both groups, run rates were slightly higher in the 8-s component than in the 2-s component. Run rates decreased slightly as variable-ratio size increased, but were unaffected by increases in the size of the lowest ratio. These results suggest that variable-ratio size, the size of the lowest ratio, and reinforcer magnitude interact to determine the duration of postreinforcement pauses.     

Concurrent schedules: undermatching and control by previous experimental conditions.

Five pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules. A series of conditions in which the ratio of reinforcement rates on two keys was progressively increased and then decreased was arranged twice. The birds were then exposed to an irregular sequence of conditions. Each condition in which reinforcement was available on both keys lasted six sessions. Performance in the first, third, and sixth sessions after a condition change was analyzed. Following a condition change, preference was biased toward the preference in the last condition, but this effect largely disappeared before the sixth session of training. The birds' preferences also appeared less sensitive to reinforcement rates in early sessions after a transition. Preference in a session was a function of both the reinforcements in that session and the reinforcements obtained in as many as four or five previous sessions. The effects of reinforcements in previous sessions could be summarized by the performance in the immediately preceding session, giving a relatively simple relation between present performance and a combination of present reinforcement and prior session performance. While such hysteresis could cause undermatching when only a small number of sessions are arranged in a condition, undermatching in a stable-state performance probably arises elsewhere.