Two-key concurrent paced variable-interval paced variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

Nine pigeons were used in two experiments in which a response was reinforced if a variable-interval schedule had assigned a reinforcement and if the response terminated an interresponse time within a certain interval, or class, of interresponse times. One such class was scheduled on one key, and a second class was scheduled on a second key. The procedure was, therefore, a two-key concurrent paced variable-interval paced variable-interval schedule. In Exp. I, the lengths of the two reinforced interresponse times were varied. The relative frequency of responding on a key approximately equalled the relative reciprocal of the length of the interresponse time reinforced on that key. In Exp. II, the relative frequency and relative magnitude of reinforcement were varied. The relative frequency of responding on the key for which the shorter interresponse time was reinforced was a monotonically increasing, negatively accelerated function of the relative frequency of reinforcement on that key. The relative frequency of responding depended on the relative magnitude of reinforcement in approximately the same way as it depended on the relative frequency of reinforcement. The relative frequency of responding on the key for which the shorter interresponse time was reinforced depended on the lengths of the two reinforced interresponse times and on the relative frequency and relative magnitude of reinforcement in the same way as the relative frequency of the shorter interresponse time depended on these variables in previous one-key concurrent schedules of reinforcement for two interresponse times.     

The concurrent reinforcement of two interresponse times: the relative frequency of an interresponse time equals its relative harmonic length

The relative lengths of two concurrently reinforced interresponse times were varied in an experiment in which three pigeons obtained food by pecking on a single key. Visual discriminative stimuli accompanied the two time intervals in which reinforcements were scheduled according to a one-minute variable-interval. The steady-state relative frequency of an interresponse time approximately equalled the complement of its relative length, that is, its relative harmonic length. Thus, lengths of interresponse times and delays of reinforcement have the same effect on the relative frequencies of interresponse times and choices in one-key and two-key concurrent variable-interval schedules, respectively. A second experiment generalized further the functional equivalence between the effects of these one-key and two-key concurrent schedules by revealing that the usual matching-to-relative-immediacy in two-key concurrent schedules is undisturbed if reinforcement depends upon the occurrence of a response at the end of the delay interval, as it does in the one-key schedules. The results of both experiments are consistent with a quantitative theory of concurrent operant behavior.     

The reinforcement of four interresponse times in a two-alternative situation

Pigeons pecked for food in a two-key procedure. A concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedule of reinforcement for two classes of interresponse times was arranged on each key. A visual stimulus set the occasion for potential reinforcement of the four operant classes: shorter and longer interresponse times on left and right keys. In Exp. I, the relative frequency of respones on a key equalled the relative frequency of reinforcement on that key. In Exp. II, the relative frequency of an interresponse time equalled the relative reciprocal of its length. In Exp. III, the relative frequency of an interresponse time was a monotonically increasing function of its relative frequency of reinforcement. These functions relating the relative frequency of an interresponse time to its relative length and to its relative frequency of reinforcement were the same as if there had been no second key. Also, the distribution of responses between keys was independent of the relative frequency of an interresponse time on either key. Experiment IV replicated Exp. I except that choices between keys were controlled by a stimulus that signalled the availability of reinforcement on the right key. A comparison of Exp. I and IV suggested that the relative frequency of an interresponse time on one key generally was independent of behavior on the other key, but that the number of responses per minute on a key did depend on behavior on the other key.     

Synthetic variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

Three pigeons pecked for food on a synthetic variable-interval schedule of reinforcement that had two independent parts: a variable-interval schedule that arranged a distribution of interreinforcement intervals, and a device that randomly assigned each reinforcement to one of 10 classes of interresponse times. The frequencies of reinforcement for the 10 classes of interresponse times were systematically varied, while the overall frequency of reinforcement was held within a comparatively narrow range. The 10 classes extended either from 0.1 to 0.6 sec in 0.05-sec intervals, or from 1.0 to 6.0 sec in 0.5-sec intervals. In the former case, some control by reinforcement was obtained, but it was weak and no simple relationships were discernible. In the latter case, the relative frequency of an interresponse time was a generally increasing function of its relative frequency of reinforcement, and two simple controlling relationships were found. First, the function relating interresponse times per opportunity to reinforcements per opportunity was, over a restricted range, approximately linear with a slope of unity. Second, when all 10 classes of interresponse times were reinforced equally often, the relative frequency of an interresponse time approximately equalled the relative reciprocal of its length.     

Time-allocation, matching, and contrast

A variable-interval schedule arranged food reinforcement for key pecking by pigeons on a single operandum at two rates, corresponding to two classes of reinforced interresponse times ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 sec and from 3.5 to 4.5 sec. The scheduled reinforcement rate for the higher component response rate was constant and equivalent to that of a variable-interval 4-min schedule. The scheduled reinforcement rate for the lower component response rate varied from zero to over 100 per hour. The number of occurrences of the constant component response rate varied inversely with the reinforcement rate for the variable component. This result, by definition a concurrent reinforcement interaction, or contrast, was the combined effect of two time-allocation functions, which together determine mean response rate: the time allocated to both component rates as a function of the total reinforcement rate, and the time allocated to a particular component rate as a function of the percentage of reinforcements for that component. The present experiment reveals a further parallel between the controlling relations for free responding on a single operandum and those for choice between two operanda; in each case, a concurrent reinforcement interaction can be found that corresponds to matching.     

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.     

The reinforcement of short interresponse times

Five contingencies were superimposed successively on a variable-interval schedule of reinforcement. In each of the resulting conditions, a different short, interresponse time was reinforced and an interresponse-time distribution was obtained from each of three pigeons. The lower bound of the reinforced interresponse times ranged from 0.3 to 2.4 sec. The resulting distributions were combined, according to a rationale based upon concurrent operants, induction, and a property of variable-interval schedules, to describe the interresponse-time distributions from a variable-interval schedule.     

The concurrent reinforcement of two interresponse times: absolute rate of reinforcement

Three pigeons obtained food on a one-key schedule of reinforcement for two concurrent, discriminated interresponse times. The overall rate of reinforcement was determined by a family of variable-interval schedules and by a continuous reinforcement schedule. The average frequency of reinforcement varied from 1.1 to 300 reinforcements per hour; the relative frequency of reinforcement for each of the two interresponse times was 0.5 throughout the experiment. The number of responses per minute increased sharply as the number of reinforcements per hour increased from 1 to 20. Beyond 30 reinforcements per hour, the curve was approximately flat, although it sometimes decreased slightly at the highest reinforcement rates. The relative frequency of the shorter interresponse time also increased sharply as the number of reinforcements per hour increased from 1 to 20. The asymptote of the relative frequency function approximately equalled the relative reciprocal of the length of the shorter interresponse time for reinforcement rates greater than 30 or 40 reinforcements per hour. This approximation was obscured by the response-rate function.     

Local patterns of responding maintained by concurrent and multiple schedules

Local patterns of responding were studied when pigeons pecked for food in concurrent variable-interval schedules (Experiment I) and in multiple variable-interval schedules (Experiment II). In Experiment I, similarities in the distribution of interresponse times on the two keys provided further evidence that responding on concurrent schedules is determined more by allocation of time than by changes in local pattern of responding. Relative responding in local intervals since a preceding reinforcement showed consistent deviations from matching between relative responding and relative reinforcement in various postreinforcement intervals. Response rates in local intervals since a preceding changeover showed that rate of responding is not the same on both keys in all postchangeover intervals. The relative amount of time consumed by interchangeover times of a given duration approximately matched relative frequency of reinforced interchangeover times of that duration. However, computer simulation showed that this matching was probably a necessary artifact of concurrent schedules. In Experiment II, when component durations were 180 sec, the relationship between distribution of interresponse times and rate of reinforcement in the component showed that responding was determined by local pattern of responding in the components. Since responding on concurrent schedules appears to be determined by time allocation, this result would establish a behavioral difference between multiple and concurrent schedules. However, when component durations were 5 sec, local pattern of responding in a component (defined by interresponse times) was less important in determining responding than was amount of time spent responding in a component (defined by latencies). In fact, with 5-sec component durations, the relative amount of time spent responding in a component approximately matched relative frequency of reinforcement in the component. Thus, as component durations in multiple schedules decrease, multiple schedules become more like concurrent schedules, in the sense that responding is affected by allocation of time rather than by local pattern of responding.     

A local-rate-of-response and interresponse-time analysis of behavioral contrast

Three pigeons were exposed to a two-component multiple schedule in which a variable-interval 3-min schedule was always in effect in one component. The schedule in the other component was either variable-interval 3-min or extinction in alternate blocks of sessions. When the schedule was changed from multiple variable-interval 3-min variable-interval 3-min to multiple variable-interval 3-min extinction in the second and fourth phases of the experiment, overall response rates in the unchanged variable-interval 3-min component increased in two pigeons. Response rate declined when the schedule was changed to multiple variable-interval 3-min variable-interval 3-min again. Correlated with increases in overall response rate in the unchanged component were increases in local response rates at the beginning of the unchanged component and immediately after food presentation. Local rates 40 sec after food presentation did not increase greatly in the presence of the multiple variable-interval 3-min extinction schedule. An interresponse time analysis of three local rate samples showed small increases in the relative frequency of short-duration interresponse times at the beginning of the unchanged component and immediately after food presentation. Neither the postreinforcement pause nor the latency to the first response in the unchanged component changed systematically.     

Choice between response rates

Three pigeons were required to peck a single key at a higher and a lower rate, corresponding to two classes of shorter and longer concurrently reinforced interresponse times. Food reinforcers arranged by a single variable-interval schedule were randomly allocated to the two reinforced interresponse times. The absolute durations of reinforced interresponse times were varied while the total reinforcements per hour was held constant and the relative duration, i.e., the relative reciprocal, of the shorter reinforcer class was held constant at 0.70. Preference for the higher rate of responding, as measured by the relative frequency of responses terminating interresponse times in the shorter reinforced class, depended on the absolute reinforced response rates. Preference for the higher reinforced rate increased from a level of near-indifference (0.50) at high reinforced response rates, through the matching level (0.70) at intermediate reinforced response rates, to a virtually exclusive preference (>0.90) at low reinforced response rates. These results resemble corresponding preference functions obtained with two-key concurrent-chains schedules and thereby provide another sense in which it may be said that interresponse-time distributions from interval schedules estimate preference functions for the component response rates corresponding to different classes of reinforced interresponse times.     

Performance in concurrent interval schedules

Four pigeons were trained under concurrent variable-interval variable-interval and fixed-interval variable-interval schedules in a two-key situation. Both response allocation and time allocation to the two schedules were measured when various reinforcement rates were arranged on each key. All animals showed an approximately constant proportional preference for the variable-interval schedule over the fixed-interval schedule. These results support Schneider's (1969) analysis of fixed-interval schedule performance.     

Molecular contingencies in schedules of intermittent punishment

In two experiments, key pecking of pigeons was maintained by a variable-interval 180-s schedule of food presentation. Conjointly, a second schedule delivered response-dependent electric shock. In the first experiment, shocks were presented according to either a variable-interval or a nondifferential interval-percentile schedule. The variable-interval shock schedule differentially delivered shocks following long interresponse times. Although the nondifferential shock schedules delivered shocks less differentially with respect to interresponse times, the two shock schedules equally reduced the relative frequency of long interresponse times. The second experiment differentially shocked long or short interresponse times in different conditions, with resulting decreases in the relative frequency of the targeted interresponse times. These experiments highlight the importance of selecting the appropriate level of analysis for the interaction of behavior and environment. Orderly relations present at one level of analysis (e.g., interresponse times) may not be revealed at other levels of analysis (e.g., overall response rate).     

Choice and segmented interreinforcement intervals

Pigeons were trained on a two-key concurrent schedule, where food reinforcers on one key were arranged by a simple variable-interval schedule and on the other key by a chain variable-interval variable-interval schedule. When the initial link of the chain was in effect, the pigeons tended to respond more on the simple variable-interval schedule, and hence less on the chain, than would be expected from a comparison of both the local and overall rates of reinforcement of the two schedules. When the terminal link of the chain was in effect, the pigeons responded more on the chain than would be expected from a comparison of the rates of reinforcement of the schedules then in effect. Overall responding on the chain was not proportional to overall reinforcement on the chain but rather was a by-product of responding during initial- and terminal-link phases.     

Sequential dependencies in free-responding

Three pigeons pecked for food in an experiment in which reinforcements were arranged for responses terminating sequences of interresponse times. Each reinforced interresponse time belonged to a class extending either from 1.0 to 2.0 sec (class A) or from 3.0 to 4.5 sec (class B). Reinforcements were arranged by a single variable-interval schedule and a random device that assigned each reinforcement to one of four sequences of two successive interresponse times: AA, AB, BA, or BB. Throughout the experiment, half of the reinforcements were delivered for interresponse times in class A and half for those in class B. Over conditions, the interresponse time preceding a reinforced interresponse time always, half of the time, or never, belonged to class A. The duration of the interresponse time preceding a reinforced one had a pronounced effect on response patterning. It also had a pronounced effect on the overall response probability, which was highest, intermediate, and lowest, when the interresponse time preceding a reinforced interresponse time always, half of the time, or never, belonged to class A, respectively. In no case were successive interresponse times independent, so that overall response probability was not representative of momentary response probabilities.     

Duration and rate of reinforcement as determinants of concurrent responding

The duration and frequency of food presentation were varied in concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. In the first experiment, in which pigeons were exposed to a succession of eight different schedules, neither relative duration nor relative frequency of reinforcement had as great an effect on response distribution as they have when they are manipulated separately. These results supported those previously reported by Todorov (1973) and Schneider (1973). In a second experiment, each of seven pigeons was exposed to only one concurrent schedule in which the frequency and/or duration of reinforcement differed on the two keys. Under these conditions, each pigeon's relative rate of response closely matched the relative total access to food that each schedule provided. This result suggests that previous failures to obtain matching may be due to factors such as an insufficient length of exposure to each schedule or to the pigeons' repeated exposure to different concurrent schedules.     

Effects of timeout on spaced responding in pigeons

Three pigeons were trained under a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule of 20 sec, and then exposed to a schedule under which responses terminating interresponse times less than 20 sec produced timeout and responses terminating interresponse times greater than 20 sec produced reinforcement. Response-produced timeouts selectively decreased the probability of short interresponse times and thereby produced a higher frequency of reinforcement. The suppressive effect of timeout was independent of timeout duration, with timeouts of 5, 10, or 20 sec. Similar effects were found when the minimum interresponse time that could be terminated by response-produced reinforcement was increased to 30 sec. The suppressive effects of timeout on responding maintained by these schedules were similar to previous reports in which responding was punished with electric shock.     

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.     

Changes in functional response units with briefly delayed reinforcement

In two experiments, key-peck responding of pigeons was compared under variable-interval schedules that arranged immediate reinforcement and ones that arranged unsignaled delays of reinforcement. Responses during the nominal unsignaled delay periods had no effect on the reinforcer presentations. In Experiment 1, the unsignaled delays were studied using variable-interval schedules as baselines. Relative to the immediate reinforcement condition, 0.5-s unsignaled delays decreased the duration of the reinforced interresponse times and increased the overall frequency of short (<0.5-s) interresponse times. Longer, 5.0-s unsignaled delays increased the duration of the reinforced interresponse times and decreased the overall frequency of the short interresponse times. In Experiment 2, similar effects to those of Experiment 1 were obtained when the 0.5-s unsignaled delays were imposed upon a baseline schedule that explicitly arranged reinforcement of short interresponse times and therefore already generated a large number of short interresponse times. The results support earlier suggestions that the unsignaled 0.5-s delays change the functional response unit from a single key peck to a multiple key-peck unit. These findings are discussed in terms of the mechanisms by which contingencies control response structure in the absence of specific structural requirements.     

A test of the effectiveness of the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule

Pigeons and rats were used in a yoked-control design that equated the reinforcement distributions of differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate and variable-interval schedules. Both a between-subjects design and a within-subjects design found response rate higher for the variable-interval schedule than for the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule, thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate contingency. The interresponse-time distributions were unimodal for all subjects under the variable-interval schedule and bimodal for pigeons under the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule. The interresponse-time distributions for rats under the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule were also bimodal in three of four cases but the height of the modes at the shorter interresponse times were small in both absolute value and in relation to the height of the modes at the shorter interresponse times of the pigeons' distributions.