Rate of conditioned reinforcement affects observing rate but not resistance to change

The effects of rate of conditioned reinforcement on the resistance to change of operant behavior have not been examined. In addition, the effects of rate of conditioned reinforcement on the rate of observing have not been adequately examined. In two experiments, a multiple schedule of observing-response procedures was used to examine the effects of rate of conditioned reinforcement on observing rates and resistance to change. In a rich component, observing responses produced a higher frequency of stimuli correlated with alternating periods of random-interval schedule primary reinforcement or extinction. In a lean component, observing responses produced similar schedule-correlated stimuli but at a lower frequency. The rate of primary reinforcement in both components was the same. In Experiment 1, a 4:1 ratio of stimulus production was arranged by the rich and lean components. In Experiment 2, the ratio of stimulus production rates was increased to 6:1. In both experiments, observing rates were higher in the rich component than in the lean component. Disruptions in observing produced by presession feeding, extinction of observing responses, and response-independent food deliveries during intercomponent intervals usually were similar in the rich and lean components. When differences in resistance to change did occur, observing tended to be more resistant to change in the lean component. If resistance to change is accepted as a more appropriate measure of response strength than absolute response rates, then the present results provide no evidence that higher rates of stimuli generally considered to function as conditioned reinforcers engender greater response strength.     

Conditioned reinforcement value and resistance to change

Three experiments examined the effects of conditioned reinforcement value and primary reinforcement rate on resistance to change using a multiple schedule of observing-response procedures with pigeons. In the absence of observing responses in both components, unsignaled periods of variable-interval (VI) schedule food reinforcement alternated with extinction. Observing responses in both components intermittently produced 15 s of a stimulus associated with the VI schedule (i.e., S+). In the first experiment, a lower-valued conditioned reinforcer and a higher rate of primary reinforcement were arranged in one component by adding response-independent food deliveries uncorrelated with S+. In the second experiment, one component arranged a lower valued conditioned reinforcer but a higher rate of primary reinforcement by increasing the probability of VI schedule periods relative to extinction periods. In the third experiment, the two observing-response components provided similar rates of primary reinforcement but arranged different valued conditioned reinforcers. Across the three experiments, observing-response rates were typically higher in the component associated with the higher valued conditioned reinforcer. Resistance to change was not affected by conditioned reinforcement value, but was an orderly function of the rate of primary reinforcement obtained in the two components. One interpretation of these results is that S+ value does not affect response strength and that S+ deliveries increase response rates through a mechanism other than reinforcement. Alternatively, because resistance to change depends on the discriminative stimulus-reinforcer relation, the failure of S+ value to impact resistance to change could have resulted from a lack of transfer of S+ value to the broader discriminative context.     

Resistance to change and relapse of observing

Four experiments examined relapse of extinguished observing behavior of pigeons using a two-component multiple schedule of observing-response procedures. In both components, unsignaled periods of variable-interval (VI) food reinforcement alternated with extinction and observing responses produced stimuli associated with the availability of the VI schedule (i.e., S+). The components differed in the rate of food arranged (Rich = VI 30 s; Lean = VI 120 s). In Experiment 1, following baseline training, extinction of observing involved removal of both food and S+ deliveries, and reinstatement was examined by presenting either response-independent food or S+ deliveries. In Experiment 2, extinction involved removal of only food deliveries while observing responses continued to produce S+. Reinstatement was examined by delivering food contingent upon the first two food-key responses occurring in the presence of the S+. Experiment 3 assessed ABA renewal of observing by extinguishing food-key and observing responses in the presence of one contextual stimulus (i.e., B) and then returning to the original training context (i.e., A) during continued extinction. Experiment 4 examined resurgence by introducing food reinforcement for an alternative response during extinction, and subsequently removing that alternative source of food. Across experiments, relative resistance to extinction and relapse of observing tended to be greater in the component previously associated with the higher rate of primary reinforcement. Relapse of observing or attending to stimuli associated with primary reinforcement appears to be impacted by frequency of primary reinforcement in a manner similar to responding maintained directly by primary reinforcement.     

Disruption of responding maintained by conditioned reinforcement: alterations in response-conditioned-reinforcer relations

An observing procedure was used to investigate the effects of alterations in response-conditioned-reinforcer relations on observing. Pigeons responded to produce schedule-correlated stimuli paired with the availability of food or extinction. The contingency between observing responses and conditioned reinforcement was altered in three experiments. In Experiment 1, after a contingency was established in baseline between the observing response and conditioned reinforcement, it was removed and the schedule-correlated stimuli were presented independently of responding according to a variable-time schedule. The variable-time schedule was constructed such that the rate of stimulus presentations was yoked from baseline. The removal of the observing contingency reliably reduced rates of observing. In Experiment 2, resetting delays to conditioned reinforcement were imposed between observing responses and the schedule-correlated stimuli they produced. Delay values of 0, 0.5, 1, 5, and 10 s were examined. Rates of observing varied inversely as a function of delay value. In Experiment 3, signaled and unsignaled resetting delays between observing responses and schedule-correlated stimuli were compared. Baseline rates of observing were decreased less by signaled delays than by unsignaled delays. Disruptions in response-conditioned-reinforcer relations produce similar behavioral effects to those found with primary reinforcement.     

On conditioned reinforcing effects of negative discriminative stimuli

Observing responses by pigeons were studied during sessions in which a food key and an observing key were available continuously. A variable-interval schedule and extinction alternated randomly on the food key. In one condition, food-key pecking during extinction decreased reinforcement frequency during the next variable-interval component, and in the other condition such pecking did not affect reinforcement frequency. Observing responses either changed both keylight colors from white to green (S+) or to red (S−) depending on the condition on the food key, or the observing responses never produced the S+ but produced the S− when extinction was in effect on the food key. Observing responses that produced only S− were maintained only when food-key pecking during extinction decreased reinforcement frequency in the subsequent variable-interval component. The red light conformed to conventional definitions of a negative discriminative stimulus, rendering results counter to previous findings that production of S− alone does not maintain observing. Rather than offering support for an informational account of conditioned reinforcement, the results are discussed in terms of a molar analysis to account for how stimuli acquire response-maintaining properties.     

Observing behavior in squirrel monkeys under a multiple schedule of reinforcement availability

Observing behavior of two squirrel monkeys was examined under a multiple schedule of four components. Lever (observing) responses produced either a stimulus indicating the availability of food or another stimulus indicating food was not available. Key responses in the presence of the food-available stimulus produced food on a continuous reinforcement schedule. In the absence of food-available stimuli, responding on the key had no scheduled consequences. Observing responses produced food-available stimuli according to three different random-interval schedules with mean interstimulus availability times of 1, 2, and 4 min. In the fourth component of the multiple schedule (observing extinction) food-available stimuli never occurred. Each component of the schedule was correlated with a distinctive auditory stimulus. Observing rates decreased with decreasing frequency of the food-available stimulus. Observing rates during extinction continued decreasing when the brief stimulus indicating food unavailability was no longer produced by lever pressing. When the brief stimulus was reinstated response rates increased abruptly.     

The generality of selective observing

Four rats obtained food pellets by poking a key and 5-s presentations of the discriminative stimuli by pressing a lever. Every 1 or 2 min, the prevailing schedule of reinforcement for key poking alternated between rich (either variable-interval [VI] 30 s or VI 60 s) and lean (either VI 240 s, VI 480 s, or extinction) components. While the key was dark (mixed-schedule stimulus), no exteroceptive stimulus indicated the prevailing schedule. A lever press (i.e., an observing response), however, illuminated the key for 5 s with either a steady light (S+), signaling the rich reinforcement schedule, or a blinking light (S-), signaling the lean reinforcement schedule. One goal was to determine whether rats would engage in selective observing (i.e., a pattern of responding that maintains contact with S+ and decreases contact with S-). Such a pattern was found, in that a 5-s presentation of S+ was followed relatively quickly by another observing response (which likely produced another 5-s period of S+), whereas exposure to S- resulted in extended breaks from observing. Additional conditions demonstrated that the rate of observing remained high when lever presses were effective only when the rich reinforcement schedule was in effect (S+ only condition), but decreased to a low level when lever presses were effective only during the lean reinforcement component (S- only condition) or when lever presses had no effect (in removing the mixed stimulus or presenting the multiple-schedule stimuli). These findings are consistent with relativistic conceptualizations of conditioned reinforcement and extend the generality of selective observing to procedures in which the experimenter controls the duration of stimulus presentations, the schedule components both offer intermittent food reinforcement, and rats serve as subjects.     

Matching and conditioned reinforcement rate

Attempts to examine the effects of variations in relative conditioned reinforcement rate on choice have been confounded by changes in rates of primary reinforcement or changes in the value of the conditioned reinforcer. To avoid these problems, this experiment used concurrent observing responses to examine sensitivity of choice to relative conditioned reinforcement rate. In the absence of observing responses, unsignaled periods of food delivery on a variable-interval 90-s schedule alternated with extinction on a center key (i.e., a mixed schedule was in effect). Two concurrently available observing responses produced 15-s access to a stimulus differentially associated with the schedule of food delivery (S+). The relative rate of S+ deliveries arranged by independent variable-interval schedules for the two observing responses varied across conditions. The relation between the ratio of observing responses and the ratio of S+ deliveries was well described by the generalized matching law, despite the absence of changes in the rate of food delivery. In addition, the value of the S+ deliveries likely remained constant across conditions because the ratio of S+ to mixed schedule food deliveries remained constant. Assuming that S+ deliveries serve as conditioned reinforcers, these findings are consistent with the functional similarity between primary and conditioned reinforcers suggested by general choice theories based on the concatenated matching law (e.g., contextual choice and hyperbolic value-added models). These findings are inconsistent with delay reduction theory, which has no terms for the effects of rate of conditioned reinforcement in the absence of changes in rate of primary reinforcement.     

OBSERVING RESPONSES AND SERIAL STIMULI: SEARCHING FOR THE REINFORCING PROPERTIES OF THE S−

The control exerted by a stimulus associated with an extinction component (S−) on observing responses was determined as a function of its temporal relation with the onset of the reinforcement component. Lever pressing by rats was reinforced on a mixed random-interval extinction schedule. Each press on a second lever produced stimuli associated with the component of the schedule in effect. In Experiment 1 a response-dependent clock procedure that incorporated different stimuli associated with an extinction component of a variable duration was used. When a single S− was presented throughout the extinction component, the rate of observing remained relatively constant across this component. In the response-dependent clock procedure, observing responses increased from the beginning to the end of the extinction component. This result was replicated in Experiment 2, using a similar clock procedure but keeping the number of stimuli per extinction component constant. We conclude that the S− can function as a conditioned reinforcer, a neutral stimulus or as an aversive stimulus, depending on its temporal location within the extinction component.     

Resistance to change of forgetting functions and response rates

This experiment examined the effects of reinforcement probability on resistance to change of remembering and response rate. Pigeons responded on a two-component multiple schedule in which completion of a variable-interval 20-s schedule produced delayed matching-to-sample trials in both components. Each session included four delays (0.1 s, 2 s, 4 s, and 8 s) between sample termination and presentation of comparison stimuli in both components. The two components differed in the probability of reinforcement arranged for correct matches (i.e., rich, p = .9; lean, p = .1). Response rates during the variable-interval portion of the procedure were higher in the rich component during baseline and more resistant to the disruptive effects of intercomponent food and extinction. Forgetting functions were constructed by examining matching accuracy as a function of delay duration. Baseline accuracy was higher in the rich component than in the lean component as measured by differences in the gamma-intercept of the forgetting functions (i.e., initial discrimination), rather than from differences in the slope of the forgetting function (i.e., rate of forgetting). Intercomponent food increased the rate of forgetting relatively more in the lean component than in the rich component, but initial discrimination was not systematically affected. Extinction reduced initial discrimination relatively more in the lean component than in the rich component, but did not systematically affect rate of forgetting. These results are consistent with our previous data suggesting that, as for response rate, accuracy and resistance to change of discriminating are positively related to rate of reinforcement. These data also suggest that the disruptability of remembering depends on the conditions of reinforcement, but the way in which remembering is disrupted depends on the nature of the disruptor.     

Reinforcement schedule thinning following treatment with functional communication training

We evaluated four methods for increasing the practicality of functional communication training (FCT) by decreasing the frequency of reinforcement for alternative behavior. Three participants whose problem behaviors were maintained by positive reinforcement were treated successfully with FCT in which reinforcement for alternative behavior was initially delivered on fixed-ratio (FR) 1 schedules. One participant was then exposed to increasing delays to reinforcement under FR 1, a graduated fixed-interval (FI) schedule, and a graduated multiple-schedule arrangement in which signaled periods of reinforcement and extinction were alternated. Results showed that (a) increasing delays resulted in extinction of the alternative behavior, (b) the FI schedule produced undesirably high rates of the alternative behavior, and (c) the multiple schedule resulted in moderate and stable levels of the alternative behavior as the duration of the extinction component was increased. The other 2 participants were exposed to graduated mixed-schedule (unsignaled alternation between reinforcement and extinction components) and multiple-schedule (signaled alternation between reinforcement and extinction components) arrangements in which the durations of the reinforcement and extinction components were modified. Results obtained for these 2 participants indicated that the use of discriminative stimuli in the multiple schedule facilitated reinforcement schedule thinning. Upon completion of treatment, problem behavior remained low (or at zero), whereas alternative behavior was maintained as well as differentiated during a multiple-schedule arrangement consisting of a 4-min extinction period followed by a 1-min reinforcement period.     

Pavlovian contingencies and resistance to change in a multiple schedule

According to theoretical accounts of behavioral momentum, the Pavlovian stimulus—reinforcer contingency determines resistance to change. To assess this prediction, 8 pigeons were exposed to an unsignaled delay-of-reinforcement schedule (a tandem variable-interval fixed-time schedule), a signaled delay-of-reinforcement schedule (a chain variable-interval fixed-time schedule), and an immediate, zero-delay schedule of reinforcement in a three-component multiple schedule. The unsignaled delay and signaled delay schedules employed equal fixed-time delays, with the only difference being a stimulus change in the signaled delay schedule. Overall rates of reinforcement were equated for the three schedules. The Pavlovian contingency was identical for the unsignaled and immediate schedules, and response—reinforcer contiguity was degraded for the unsignaled schedule. Results from two disruption procedures (prefeeding subjects prior to experimental sessions and adding a variable-time schedule to timeout periods separating baseline components) demonstrated that response—reinforcer contiguity does play a role in determining resistance to change. The results from the extinction manipulation were not as clear. Responding in the unsignaled delay component was consistently less resistant to change than was responding in both the immediate and presignaled segments of the signaled delay components, contrary to the view that Pavlovian contingencies determine resistance to change. Probe tests further supported the resistance-to-change results, indicating consistency between resistance to change and preference, both of which are putative measures of response strength.     

Human observing: Maintained by stimuli correlated with reinforcement but not extinction

College students received points exchangeable for money (reinforcement) on a variable-time 60-second schedule that alternated randomly with an extinction component. Subjects were informed that responding would not influence either the rate or distribution of reinforcement. Instead, presses on either of two levers (“observing responses”) produced stimuli. In each of four experiments, stimuli positively correlated with reinforcement and/or stimuli uncorrelated with reinforcement were each chosen over stimuli correlated with extinction. These results are consistent with prior results from pigeons in supporting the conditioned-reinforcement hypothesis of observing and in not supporting the uncertainty-reduction hypothesis.     

Within-subject testing of the signaled-reinforcement effect on operant responding as measured by response rate and resistance to change

Response rates under random-interval schedules are lower when a brief (500 ms) signal accompanies reinforcement than when there is no signal. The present study examined this signaled-reinforcement effect and its relation to resistance to change. In Experiment 1, rats responded on a multiple random-interval 60-s random-interval 60-s schedule, with signaled reinforcement in only one component. Response resistance to alternative reinforcement, prefeeding, and extinction was compared between these components. Lower response rates, and greater resistance to change, occurred in the component with the reinforcement signal. In Experiment 2, response rates and resistance to change were compared after training on a multiple random-interval 60-s random-interval 60-s schedule in which reinforcer delivery was unsignaled in one component and a response-produced uncorrelated stimulus was presented in the other component. Higher response rates and greater resistance to change occurred with the uncorrelated stimulus. These results highlight the significance of considering the effects of an uncorrelated signal when used as a control condition, and challenge accounts of resistance to change that depend solely on reinforcer rate.     

Resistance to change of responding maintained by unsignaled delays to reinforcement: a response-bout analysis

Previous experiments have shown that unsignaled delayed reinforcement decreases response rates and resistance to change. However, the effects of different delays to reinforcement on underlying response structure have not been investigated in conjunction with tests of resistance to change. In the present experiment, pigeons responded on a three-component multiple variable-interval schedule for food presented immediately, following brief (0.5 s), or following long (3 s) unsignaled delays of reinforcement. Baseline response rates were lowest in the component with the longest delay; they were about equal with immediate and briefly delayed reinforcers. Resistance to disruption by presession feeding, response-independent food during the intercomponent interval, and extinction was slightly but consistently lower as delays increased. Because log survivor functions of interresponse times (IRTs) deviated from simple modes of bout initiations and within-bout responding, an IRT-cutoff method was used to examine underlying response structure. These analyses suggested that baseline rates of initiating bouts of responding decreased as scheduled delays increased, and within-bout response rates tended to be lower in the component with immediate reinforcers. The number of responses per bout was not reliably affected by reinforcer delay, but tended to be highest with brief delays when total response rates were higher in that component. Consistent with previous findings, resistance to change of overall response rate was highly correlated with resistance to change of bout-initiation rates but not with within-bout responding. These results suggest that unsignaled delays to reinforcement affect resistance to change through changes in the probability of initiating a response bout rather than through changes in the underlying response structure.     

A comparison of signaled and unsignaled delay of reinforcement

Pigeons were trained on either a variable-interval 60-second schedule, or on a schedule that differentially reinforced responses that were spaced at least 20 seconds apart. The birds were then exposed to several durations of reinforcement delay, with comparisons between signaled and unsignaled delays. Although unsignaled delays of 5 and 10 seconds produced large decreases in response rate, signaled delays of up to 10 seconds produced only moderate decreases in response rates. In addition, some subjects responded more rapidly with a .5 or 1.0 second duration of unsignaled delay than with immediate reinforcement. These response rate changes occurred regardless of whether the rate of reinforcement concomitantly decreased or increased.     

Accuracy of discrimination,rate of responding,and resistance to change

Pigeons were trained on multiple schedules in which responding on a center key produced matching-to-sample trials according to the same variable-interval 30-s schedules in both components. Matching trials consisted of a vertical or tilted line sample on the center key followed by vertical and tilted comparisons on the side keys. Correct responses to comparison stimuli were reinforced with probability .80 in the rich component and .20 in the lean component. Baseline response rates and matching accuracies generally were higher in the rich component, consistent with previous research. When performance was disrupted by prefeeding, response-independent food during intercomponent intervals, intrusion of a delay between sample and comparison stimuli, or extinction, both response rates and matching accuracies generally decreased. Proportions of baseline response rate were greater in the rich component for all disrupters except delay, which had relatively small and inconsistent effects on response rate. By contrast, delay had large and consistent effects on matching accuracy, and proportions of baseline matching accuracy were greater in the rich component for all four disrupters. The dissociation of response rate and accuracy with delay reflects the localized impact of delay on matching performance. The similarity of the data for response rate and accuracy with prefeeding, response-independent food, and extinction shows that matching performance, like response rate, is more resistant to change in a rich than in a lean component. This result extends resistance to change analyses from the frequency of response emission to the degree of stimulus control, and suggests that the strength of discriminating, like the strength of responding, is positively related to rate of reinforcement.     

The relationship between observing behavior and food-key response rates under mixed and multiple schedules of reinforcement

Pigeons were trained under an observing response procedure in which pecks on one key (food key) were reinforced under a mixed fixed-interval 30-sec extinction schedule. A response on a second (observing) key replaced the mixed-schedule stimulus with either of two multiple-schedule stimuli (red and green keylights) for 5 sec. Observing response rates were positively correlated with food-key response rates in the presence of multiple-schedule stimuli and inversely related to food-key response rates in the presence of mixed-schedule stimuli. These results suggest that observing response output is controlled not only by the stimuli produced by observing responses but also by the stimuli in the presence of which observing responses occur. The possibility that observing responses alter the probability of reinforcement is advanced.     

Combinations of response-dependent and response-independent schedule-correlated stimulus presentation in an observing procedure

Pigeons pecked a response key on a variable-interval (VI) schedule, in which responses produced food every 40 s, on average. These VI periods, or components, alternated in irregular fashion with extinction components in which food was unavailable. Pecks on a second (observing) key briefly produced exteroceptive stimuli (houselight flashes) correlated with the component schedule currently in effect. Across conditions within a phase, the dependency between observing and presentation of the stimuli was decreased systematically while the density of stimulus presentation was held constant. Across phases, the proportion of session time spent in the VI component was adjusted from 0.5 to 0.25, and then to 0.75. Results indicate that rate of observing decreased as the dependency between responses and stimulus presentations was decreased. Further, discriminative control by the schedule-correlated stimuli was systematically weakened as dependency was decreased. Increasing the proportion of session time spent in VI decreased the rate of observing. This effect was additive with the manipulation of the dependency between observing and presentation of the stimuli. Overall, these results show that conditioned reinforcers function similarly to unconditioned reinforcers with respect to response-consequence dependencies, and that stimulus control is enhanced under conditions in which the relevant stimuli are produced by an organism's behavior.     

Unsignaled delay of reinforcement, relative time, and resistance to change

Two experiments with pigeons examined the effects of unsignaled, nonresetting delays of reinforcement on responding maintained by different reinforcement rates. In Experiment 1, 3-s unsignaled delays were introduced into each component of a multiple variable-interval (VI) 15-s VI 90-s VI 540-s schedule. When considered as a proportion of the preceding immediate reinforcement baseline, responding was decreased similarly for the three multiple-schedule components in both the first six and last six sessions of exposure to the delay. In addition, the relation between response rates and reinforcement rates was altered such that both parameters of the single-response version of the matching law (i.e., k and Re) were decreased. Experiment 2 examined the effects of unsignaled delays ranging from 0.5 s to 8.0 s on responding maintained by a multiple VI 20-s VI 120-s schedule of reinforcement. Response rates in both components increased with brief unsignaled delays and decreased with longer delays. As in Experiment 1, response rates as a proportion of baseline were affected similarly for the two components in both the first six and last six sessions of exposure to the delay. Unlike delays imposed between two stimulus events, the effects of delays between responses and reinforcers do not appear to be attenuated when the average time between reinforcers is longer. In addition, the disruptions produced by unsignaled delays appear to be inconsistent with the general finding that responding maintained by higher rates of reinforcement is less resistant to change.