Independence of sensitivity to relative reinforcement rate and discriminability in signal detection.

Six pigeons were trained to detect differences between two white stimuli, S1 and S2, differing in duration and arranged probabilistically on the center key of a three-key chamber. Detection performance was measured at two levels of discriminability. At one level, S1 was five seconds and S2 was thirty seconds. At the other level, S1 was twenty seconds and S2 was thirty seconds. The procedure was a standard signal-detection yes-no design in which stimulus-presentation probability was varied from .1 to .9 at both discriminability levels. On completion of the center-key stimulus, a peck on the center key darkened the center-key light and turned on the two red side keys. A left-key response was "correct" on S1 trials, and a right-key response was "correct" on S2 trials. Correct responses produced food reinforcement on a variable-ratio 1.3 schedule. Incorrect responses produced three second blackout. Discriminability was higher for the five-second versus thirty-second conditions than for the twenty-second versus thirty-second conditions, but there were no differences in sensitivity of behavior to reinforcement variation for the two stimulus pairs. Response bias was a function of the relative reinforcement rate for correct choice responses.     

Independence of stimulus discriminability from absolute rate of reinforcement in a signal-detection procedure.

Three experiments are reported in which two pigeons were trained to detect differences in stimulus duration under varying levels of absolute rate of reinforcement. Two red stimuli, differing in duration, were arranged probabilistically on the center key of a three-key chamber. On completion of the center-key duration, the center keylight was extinguished and the two side keys were illuminated white. Correct responses were left-key pecks following the shorter duration and right-key pecks following the longer duration. In Experiment 1, relative rate of reinforcement for correct responses was held constant and absolute rate of reinforcement was varied in seven conditions from continuous reinforcement to a variable-interval 90-second schedule. In Experiment 2, relative rate of reinforcement was manipulated across three different absolute rates of reinforcement (continuous reinforcement, variable-interval 15-second, and variable-interval 45-second). Stimulus discriminability was unaffected by changes in absolute or relative rates of reinforcement. Experiment 3 showed that discriminability was also unaffected by arranging the same consequences (three-second blackout) for unreinforced correct responses and errors.     

Signal probability, reinforcement and signal detection.

Five pigeons were trained to detect differences in light intensity. Two stimuli, S1 and S2, differing in intensity, were arranged on the center key of a three-key chamber according to set probabilities. A peck on the center key turned on the two side keys. When S1 was presented on the center key, a peck on the left key was "correct" and when S2 was presented, a peck on the right key was "correct." Correct responses produced reinforcement and incorrect responses produced 3-second blackout. Detection performance was measured under three procedures. The first was a standard signal-detection design in which the probability of S1 was varied and the number of reinforcements obtained for correct responses to S1 was allowed to covary. In the second procedure, the probability of S1 was again varied but the distribution of reinforcements between the two choices was kept equal. In the third procedure, probability of S1 was held constant while the distribution of reinforcements was varied between the two choices. Changes in response bias were a function of variations in the relative reinforcement ratio for the choice responses and not a function of variations in the probability of stimulus presentation. Discriminability remained constant across the three procedures.     

The relation between the generalized matching law and signal-detection theory

The generalized matching law can be applied to a signal-detection matrix to give two equations. The first relates responding in the presence of the stimulus to the reinforcements for the responses, and the second relates responding in the absence of the stimulus to the reinforcements for the responses. Evidence for stimulus discrimination is given by biases that are opposite in sign in the two equations. As the logarithmic ratio and z proportion transformations are similar, the combination of the absolute values of the two logarithmic biases gives a measure equivalent to the signal-detection measures d′ and η. The two equations can also be combined to eliminate the biases caused by the signalling stimuli and to produce a generalized matching-law statement relating overall performance to the obtained reinforcements.     

Stimulus discriminability in free-operant and discrete-trial detection procedures.

Six pigeons were trained to discriminate different light intensities in four experimental procedures. Experiment 1 compared stimulus discriminability in a yes-no signal-detection task with discriminability measures obtained from two free-operant procedures. Discriminability estimates were significantly lower in the detection procedure. Experiment 2 showed this lowered discriminability to be a function of the delay between stimulus presentation and the availability of the choice-response keys in the standard detection task. In addition, reinforcement sensitivity was lowest when correct choice responses were intermittently, rather than continuously, reinforced.     

Measures of response bias at minimum-detectable luminance levels in the pigeon

Using an operant analogue of the yes-no detection task, six pigeons were trained to detect luminance changes under two different reinforcement-scheduling procedures. In the first, an uncontrolled reinforcement-ratio procedure, the relative frequency of food reinforcers obtained for correct detections was free to vary with the birds' behavior as luminance levels were changed. In the second, a controlled reinforcement-ratio procedure, changes in preference could not alter the relative distribution of food reinforcers between the two response alternatives. Extreme response biases developed as luminance was decreased to threshold in the uncontrolled procedure. No progressive changes in response bias as a function of decreasing luminance were seen in the controlled procedure. Absolute thresholds for light intensity were lower in the controlled than in the uncontrolled procedure.     

On the discriminability of stimulus duration.

The performance of pigeons trained to detect differences in the duration of stimuli was analysed using a matching model of signal detection. Two white stimuli, S1 and S2, differing in duration, were arranged with equal probability on the center key of a three-key chamber. S1 was systematically varied from 5 seconds to 25 seconds while S2 remained constant at 30 seconds. On completion of the center-key stimulus, a peck on the center key turned on the two red side keys. A left-key response was "correct" when S1 had been in effect on the center key and a right-key response was "correct" on S2 trials. A correct response produced a 3-second magazine light accompanied intermittently by food. Incorrect responses produced 3-second blackouts. Detection performance was measured under two procedures. In the first, the obtained reinforcement ratio was uncontrolled by allowing the number of food reinforcements obtained for correct left- and right-key responses to vary as the stimuli were changed. In the second procedure, the presentation of food reinforcement was controlled by holding the obtained reinforcement ratio constant. Discriminability changed as a function of stimulus differences under both procedures. No such trend was found in response bias.     

Types of responding in a signal-detection task

Four pigeons were trained to discriminate between two line orientations in a two-alternative forced-choice procedure. The distribution of reinforcers for the two types of correct response was varied across conditions. Performance on each trial was recorded separately, including the time taken to make a choice response. Discriminability and response-bias measures were calculated for overall performance, and, following a median split of the data from each condition, for faster and slower choice responses in each condition. Discriminability between the stimuli did not vary systematically as a function of choice latency. Variations of the reinforcer distributions produced larger response biases for the faster responses than for the slower responses. Responses on trials following reinforcers were faster and showed a greater effect of the reinforcer distribution than did other responses. Behavioral models of signal detection should consider the speed of the choice response as a factor modulating the effects of reinforcer distributions.     

Choice between repleting/depleting patches: A concurrent-schedule procedure

Six pigeons responded on two concurrently available keys that defined patches with the following characteristics. Reinforcer stores repleted on a patch as a linear function of time when the bird had last responded to the other patch, or else did not replete. Repletion schedules thus timed only when the bird was absent from the patch. Reinforcer stores on a patch could be depleted and reinforcers obtained, again as a linear function of time, when the bird responded on a key. Depletion schedules thus timed only when the birds were present at a patch. Experiment 1 investigated changing relative depletion rates when repletion rates were constant and equal (Part 1) and changing relative repletion rates when the depletion rates were constant and equal (Part 2). Response- and time-allocation ratios conformed to a generalized matching relation with obtained reinforcer ratios, and there appeared to be no control by the size of the reinforcer stores. In Experiment 2, absolute depletion rates were varied with a pair of unequal repletion rates (Part 3), and absolute repletion rates were varied with a pair of unequal depletion rates (Part 4). Dwell times in the patches were not affected by either variation. Melioration theory predicted the results of Experiment 1 quite closely but erroneously predicted changing dwell times in Experiment 2. Molar maximization theory did not accurately predict the results of either experiment.     

Reinforcer control and human signal-detection performance

Eight humans participated in a two-choice signal-detection task in which stimulus disparity was varied over four levels. Two procedures arranged asymmetrical numbers of reinforcers received for correct left- and right-key responses (the reinforcer ratio). The controlled procedure ensured that the obtained reinforcer ratio remained constant over changes in stimulus disparity, irrespective of subjects' performances. In the uncontrolled procedure, the asymmetrical reinforcer ratio could covary with subjects' performances. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) patterns obtained from the controlled procedure approximated isobias functions predicted by criterion location measures of bias. The uncontrolled procedure produced variable ROC patterns that were somewhat like the isobias predictions made by likelihood ratio measures of bias; however, the obtained reinforcer ratio became more extreme as discriminability decreased. The obtained pattern of bias was directly related to the obtained reinforcer ratio. This research indicates that criterion location measures seem to be preferable indices of response bias.     

Reinforcement contingencies as discriminative stimuli: II. Effects of changes in stimulus probability.

Three pigeons were trained on a matching procedure involving a sample component and a choice component. Responding in the sample component, according to either a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule on some trials or a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule on other trials, produced access to the choice component in which each of two keys was illuminated with a unique color. The correct choice response was defined by the contingency that was met to produce the choice. The food hopper operated for 1.5 seconds following an appropriate sample response and for 3 seconds following a correct choice response. A signal-detection analysis showed that variations in the probability of presentation of the different contingencies systematically affected response bias but not sensitivity to the contingencies as stimuli. Substitution of a blackout for food at the end of the sample component did not differentially affect performance, but elimination of the delay between sample and choice components generally increased the sensitivity measure. The findings suggest a role for reinforcement contingency discrimination in schedule-controlled responding.     

Temporal discrimination and a free-operant psychophysical procedure.

Pigeons were presented a series of keylight time periods (separated by blackouts) during which two response keys were lit, one by blue light and the other either by orange or green. Blue-key responses changed the color on the other key. Orange-key responses sometimes produced food during the first half of a time period; green-key responses sometimes produced food during the second half. In three experiments, the probability of a green-key response increased as a function of elapsed time. Experiment 1 compared performance when the duration of the keylight periods was varied across a wide range. Discrimination of performance was similar across the range of durations. Experiment 2 varied both relative reinforcement rate and the local reinforcement rate for orange-key and green-key responses. These manipulations produced changes in response bias but not discrimination sensitivity. Experiment 3 varied the local temporal placement of reinforcers within time periods and demonstrated that choice behavior was affected by differential reinforcement at different points during the time periods. The results were consistent with previous research on duration discrimination that used psychophysical trials procedures.     

Multiple and concurrent schedule performance: independence from concurrent and successive schedule contexts

Six pigeons were trained on multiple variable-interval schedules and performance was measured in the presence or absence of another variable-interval schedule (the common schedule) arranged concurrently with both components. Manipulations included varying the rate of reinforcement on the common schedule, leaving the common schedule unchanged while the components of the multiple schedule were varied, varying the multiple schedule components in the absence of the common schedule, and varying one component of the multiple schedule while the other component and the common schedule were unchanged. The normal rate-increasing and rate-decreasing effects of reinforcement rate increase were found, except that changing one multiple schedule component did not affect the response rate in the successively available common schedule component. Both concurrent and multiple schedule performance undermatched obtained reinforcement-rate ratios, but the degree of undermatching in multiple schedules was reliably greater. Allocation of responses between multiple schedule components was unaffected by the concurrent availability of reinforcement, and allocation of responses between concurrent schedules was unaffected by the successive availability of different reinforcement rates.     

Signal detection and matching: analyzing choice on concurrent variable-interval schedules.

Pigeons' pecks on a red key and a green key were followed by access to grain according to pairs of concurrent independent variable-interval schedules in a combined signal detection/matching law paradigm. Pecks on the red key were reinforced by the richer variable-interval schedule if a short-duration tone had been presented; pecks on the green key were reinforced by the richer variable-interval schedule if a long-duration tone had been presented. Pecks on the green key given a short-duration tone, or on the red key given a long-duration tone, were reinforced by the leaner variable-interval schedule. The data were analyzed according to both signal detection's and the matching law's separate measures of, first, the discrimination of the choices and, second, the bias to make one response or another. Increasing the difficulty of the tone-duration discrimination decreased both methods' measures of the discrimination of the choices and did not change both methods' measures of the bias to make one response or another. Changing the leaner variable-interval schedule so that it approached the richer variable-interval schedule decreased signal detection's measure of discrimination but left its measure of response bias and the matching law measures unchanged. Data collected only until a subject's first changeover response following presentation of a long or a short tone showed higher values for both methods' measures of discrimination, no change in signal detection's measure of response bias, and lower values for the matching law's measure of response bias. Relationships between the matching law's and signal detection's methods of analyzing choice are discussed. It is concluded that a signal detection analysis is more efficient for examining changes in the difficulty of a discrimination, whereas a matching law analysis is more effective for examining the effects of changes in relative reinforcer frequency.     

The effects of number of sample stimuli and number of choices in a detection task on measures of discriminability

Six pigeons were trained on a conditional discrimination task involving the discrimination of various intensities of yellow light. The research asked whether stimulus—response discriminability measures between any pair of stimuli would remain constant when a third or fourth sample and reinforced response were added. The numbers of different sample stimuli presented and different responses reinforced were two (Part 1), three (Parts 2 and 4), and four (Part 3). Across conditions within parts, the ratios of reinforcers obtainable for correct responses were varied over at least five levels. In Part 5, the numbers of sample stimuli and reinforced responses were varied among two, three, and four, and the reinforcer ratio between consecutive remaining samples was constant at 2:1. It was found that once a particular response had been reinforced, subjects continued to emit that response when the conditional stimulus for that response was no longer presented. Data analysis using a generalization-based detection model indicated that this model was able to describe the data effectively. Four findings were in accord with the theory. First, estimates of stimulus—response discriminability usually decreased as the arranged physical disparity between the sample stimuli decreased. Second, stimulus—response discriminability measures were independent of response—reinforcer discriminability measures, preserving parameter invariance between these measures. Third, stimulus—response discriminability measures for constant pairs of conditional stimuli did not change systematically as conditional stimulus—response alternatives were added. Fourth, log stimulus—response discriminability values between physically adjacent conditional stimuli summed to values that were not significantly different from estimates of the discriminability values for conditional stimuli that were spaced further apart.     

On the measurement of time allocation on multiple variable-interval schedules

Six pigeons were trained on a modified multiple-schedule procedure. In a three-key chamber, the center key was lighted red or green, depending upon which component schedule was in effect. A response on this key transferred this color to each of two side keys, and responses on one of those keys produced reinforcers according to the component schedule. After 2 s, the side-key lights were extinguished, the center key was reilluminated, and a further center-key response was required to give access, as before, to the component schedules. Components alternated every 3 min. This limited-access procedure allowed both times spent switched into the side keys and time spent not switched in to be measured in the two components. Component reinforcer rates were varied over eight experimental conditions. Both component response rate and component time allocation were increasing functions of relative component reinforcer rate, and these functions were not significantly different. This finding implies that local response rates (responses divided by time switched in) were unaffected by changing component reinforcer rates on multiple schedules. Because a similar result was recently obtained for concurrent schedules, models of multiple and concurrent-schedule performance may need to consider only the time allocation of behavior emitted at equal tempo in the component schedules.     

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 in a variable environment: every reinforcer counts

Six pigeons were trained in sessions composed of seven components, each arranged with a different concurrent-schedule reinforcer ratio. These components occurred in an irregular order with equal frequency, separated by 10-s blackouts. No signals differentiated the different reinforcer ratios. Conditions lasted 50 sessions, and data were collected from the last 35 sessions. In Part 1, the arranged overall reinforcer rate was 2.22 reinforcers per minute. Over conditions, number of reinforcers per component was varied from 4 to 12. In Part 2, the overall reinforcer rate was six per minute, with both 4 and 12 reinforcers per component. Within components, log response-allocation ratios adjusted rapidly as more reinforcers were delivered in the component, and the slope of the choice relation (sensitivity) leveled off at moderately high levels after only about eight reinforcers. When the carryover from previous components was taken into account, the number of reinforcers in the components appeared to have no systematic effect on the speed at which behavior changed after a component started. Consequently, sensitivity values at each reinforcer delivery were superimposable. However, adjustment to changing reinforcer ratios was faster, and reached greater sensitivity values, when overall reinforcer rate was higher. Within a component, each successive reinforcer from the same alternative ("confirming") had a smaller effect than the one before, but single reinforcers from the other alternative ("disconfirming") always had a large effect. Choice in the prior component carried over into the next component, and its effects could be discerned even after five or six reinforcement and nonreinforcement is suggested.