Brief-stimulus presentations on multiform tandem schedules

Three experiments examined the influence of a brief stimulus (a light) on the behavior of food-deprived rats whose lever pressing on tandem schedules comprising components of different schedule types resulted in food presentation. In Experiment 1, either a tandem variable-ratio variable-interval or a tandem variable-interval variable-ratio schedule was used. The variable-interval requirement in the tandem variable-ratio variable-interval schedule was yoked to the time taken to complete the variable-ratio component in the tandem variable-interval variable-ratio schedule, and the length of the variable-interval component in the latter schedule was yoked to the variable-ratio component in the former schedule. If a brief stimulus occurred following completion of the first component, then behavior was differentiated in the two components; subjects responded more quickly in the variable-ratio than in the variable-interval component. If the stimulus was removed, then response rate was determined by the nature of the final component. Similar results were obtained in Experiments 2 and 3 with the use of a three-component tandem variable-ratio variable-interval variable-ratio schedule or tandem variable-interval variable-ratio variable-interval schedule. Thus, a brief stimulus that was not explicitly paired with reinforcement engendered behavior typical of the component schedule preceding its presentation.     

Schedule-induced defecation by rats during ratio and interval schedules of food reinforcement.

Lever pressing in rats was maintained by continuous and intermittent schedules of food while defecation was monitored. In Experiment 1, reinforcement densities were matched across variable-ratio and variable-interval schedules for three pairs of rats. Defecation occurred in all 3 rats on the variable-ratio schedule and in all 3 rats on the yoked variable-interval schedule. In Experiment 2, fixed-ratio and fixed-interval schedules with similar reinforcement densities maintained lever pressing. Defecation occurred in 3 of 4 rats on the fixed-ratio schedule and in 4 of 4 rats on the fixed-interval schedule. Almost no defecation occurred during continuous reinforcement in either experiment. These results demonstrate that defecation may occur during both ratio and interval schedules and that the inter-reinforcement interval is more important than the behavioral requirements of the schedule in generating schedule-induced defecation.     

Bouts of responding from variable-interval reinforcement of lever pressing by rats

Four rats obtained food pellets by lever pressing. A variable-interval reinforcement schedule assigned reinforcers on average every 2 min during one block of 20 sessions and on average every 8 min during another block. Also, at each variable-interval duration, a block of sessions was conducted with a schedule that imposed a variable-ratio 4 response requirement after each variable interval (i.e., a tandem variable-time variable-ratio 4 schedule). The total rate of lever pressing increased as a function of the rate of reinforcement and as a result of imposing the variable-ratio requirement. Analysis of log survivor plots of interresponse times indicated that lever pressing occurred in bouts that were separated by pauses. Increasing the rate of reinforcement increased total response rate by increasing the rate of initiating bouts and, less reliably, by lengthening bouts. Imposing the variable-ratio component increased response rate mainly by lengthening bouts. This pattern of results is similar to that reported previously with key poking as the response. Also, response rates within bouts were relatively insensitive to either variable.     

Suppression of operant behavior and schedule-induced licking in rats

The first experiment studied the effects of punishment on rats' lever pressing maintained by a fixed-interval schedule of food reinforcement and on the associated schedule-induced licking. When licking was followed by shock, licking was suppressed but lever pressing was largely unaffected. When lever pressing was followed by shock, lever pressing was suppressed but licking was unaffected. In both cases, the punished behavior recovered its previous unpunished level when the shocks were discontinued. In a second experiment, the rats' lever pressing was maintained by a variable-interval schedule of food reinforcement under which polydipsic licking also developed. Both lever pressing and licking were partially suppressed during a stimulus correlated with occasional unavoidable electric shocks. With a higher shock intensity, both behaviors were suppressed further. Both lever pressing and licking recovered their previous levels when shocks were discontinued. These results show that schedule-induced licking, which has been described as adjunctive behavior, can be suppressed by procedures that suppress reinforced lever pressing, an operant behavior.     

Intermittent punishment of human responding maintained by intermittent reinforcement

To determine the effects of variable-interval shock punishment on behavior maintained by variable-interval and variable-ratio reinforcement, human subjects' key-pressing behavior was reinforced with money on a four-component multiple schedule. Components 1 and 2 were variable-interval 30-sec, and Components 3 and 4 were variable-ratio 210. After responding was stabilized, response-contingent electric shock was scheduled on a variable-interval 10-sec schedule during the second and fourth components of each cycle. Subjects instructed as to the reinforcement contingencies showed gradually increasing suppression of variable-interval responding at increasing shock intensities and either very high or very low rates of variable-ratio responding at higher intensities. Minimally instructed subjects showed suppression at higher shock intensities, but no clear differential suppression as a function of reinforcement schedule. Recovery from initial suppression was observed within sessions.     

Compounding of discriminative stimuli that maintain responding on separate response levers

In Experiment 1, rats' responses were reinforced on a fixed-interval 30-sec schedule in the presence of either a light or a tone and were not reinforced in their absence. Each stimulus was correlated with its own response lever, with only one lever present during a session. When light and tone were compounded in the presence of the tone-correlated lever, no change in responding occurred. However, when tone was compounded with light in the presence of the light-correlated lever, level of responding was greater than to light alone (response summation). Summation was also found when each stimulus was correlated with the same lever. Next, light and tone were again correlated with separate levers, but both levers were always simultaneously present. Compounding produced both summation and emission of most responses on the light-correlated lever. This prepotency of light was reduced (1) by leaving a houselight on throughout the session; and (2) by correlating each stimulus with a different schedule (either fixed-interval 4.7-sec or fixed-interval 30-sec). With a medium- and high-intensity houselight and with the different reinforcement schedules, similar results were obtained during compounding, regardless of whether compounding occurred in the presence of the light- or tone-correlated lever.     

Differential reinstatement predicted by preextinction response rate

Reinstatement refers to the recovery of previously extinguished responding by the responseindependent delivery of a stimulus that was a reinforcer in training. Two experiments were conducted to examine relative reinstatement following the training of differential preextinction response rates, either with equal (Experiment 1) or unequal (Experiment 2) preextinction reinforcement rates. In Experiment 1, each of 3 pigeons first pecked at relatively high rates in the tandem variable-time 117-sec fixed-interval 3-sec component of a multiple schedule and at lower rates in a separate tandem variableinterval 117-sec fixed-time 3-sec component. Reinforcement rates were equal between components. Pecking then was extinguished in each component, before being reinstated under a multiple variabletime 120-sec variable-time 120-sec schedule. Greater reinstatement occurred in the component previously correlated with higher rates of pecking. In Experiment 2, in an initial condition, the mean rate of lever pressing for one group of 8 rats was significantly higher under a fixed-ratio 3 schedule than for another group of 8 rats under a fixed-ratio 1 schedule. Mean reinforcement rate was significantly higher for the group exposed to the fixed-ratio 1 schedule. For each group, lever pressing then was extinguished, before being reinstated under a variable-time 30-sec schedule. Significantly greater mean reinstatement occurred for the group previously exposed to the fixed-ratio 3 schedule. These results suggest that differential reinstatement may be predicted by preextinction response rate, perhaps independently of preextinction reinforcement rate.     

Concurrent fixed-interval variable-ratio schedules and the matching relation

Five rats responded under concurrent fixed-interval variable-ratio schedules of food reinforcement. Fixed-interval values ranged from 50-seconds to 300-seconds and variable-ratio values ranged from 30 to 360; a five-second changeover delay was in effect throughout the experiment. The relations between reinforcement ratios obtained from the two schedules and the ratios of responses and time spent on the schedules were described by Baum's (1974) generalized matching equation. All subjects undermatched both response and time ratios to reinforcement ratios, and all subjects displayed systematic bias in favor of the variable-ratio schedules. Response ratios undermatched reinforcement ratios less than did time ratios, but response ratios produced greater bias than did time ratios for every subject and for the group as a whole. Local rates of responding were generally higher on the variable-ratio than on the fixed-interval schedules. When responding was maintained by both schedules, a period of no responding on either schedule immediately after fixed-interval reinforcement typically was followed by high-rate responding on the variable-ratio schedule. At short fixed-interval values, when a changeover to the fixed-interval schedule was made, responding usually continued until fixed-interval reinforcement was obtained; at longer values, a changeover back to the variable-ratio schedule usually occurred when fixed-interval reinforcement was not forthcoming within a few seconds, and responding then alternated between the two schedules every few seconds until fixed-interval reinforcement finally was obtained.     

Rate changes after unscheduled omission and presentation of reinforcement

Changes in response rate similar to frustration effects were studied in a two-lever situation. Responding on one lever on a fixed-interval schedule produced access to water for 5 sec and an exteroceptive stimulus. In the presence of this stimulus, responding on another lever on a fixed-interval schedule produced access to water for 5 sec and terminated the stimulus. Occasional omission of a previously scheduled reinforcer after responding on the first lever resulted consistently in increases in rate on the second lever during the immediately succeeding interval. In another procedure, occasional presentation of a previously unscheduled reinforcer after responding on the first lever resulted consistently in decreases in rate on the second lever during the immediately succeeding interval. Changes occurred after the first omissions or presentations and were about the same in magnitude as the procedure continued over several sessions. Typically, an increase or decrease in rate was maintained throughout an entire 100-sec interval. Changes in rate on the second lever of approximately the same magnitude also occurred when rate on the first lever was near-zero under a schedule that differentially reinforced behavior other than lever pressing.     

Comparisons between variable-interval and fixed-interval schedules of electric shock delivery

Responding maintained in rats under a variable-interval 35-sec food schedule was suppressed more by 60-sec and 240-sec fixed-interval schedules of shock delivery than by 60-sec and 240-sec variable-interval schedules of shock delivery. When the delivery of shock was preceded by a 5-sec visual stimulus, little overall response suppression was found with either fixed-interval or variable-interval schedules. In a third experiment, the percentage of occasions on which a cue preceded each shock delivery was varied from 0% to 100%. For the fixed-interval shock condition, the most suppression occurred with the 0% treatment, the least with 100%, and an intermediate amount with the 50% treatment. For the variable-interval groups, the most suppression occurred in the 50% condition, the least in the 100% group, and an intermediate amount with 0%.     

Response-rate differences in variable-interval and variable-ratio schedules: An old problem revisited

In Experiment 1, a variable-ratio 10 schedule became, successively, a variable-interval schedule with only the minimum interreinforcement intervals yoked to the variable ratio, or a variable-interval schedule with both interreinforcement intervals and reinforced interresponse times yoked to the variable ratio. Response rates in the variable-interval schedule with both interreinforcement interval and reinforced interresponse time yoking fell between the higher rates maintained by the variable-ratio schedule and the lower rates maintained by the variable-interval schedule with only interreinforcement interval yoking. In Experiment 2, a tandem variable-interval 15-s variable-ratio 5 schedule became a yoked tandem variable-ratio 5 variable-interval x-s schedule, and a tandem variable-interval 30-s variable-ratio 10 schedule became a yoked tandem variable-ratio 10 variable-interval x-s schedule. In the yoked tandem schedules, the minimum interreinforcement intervals in the variable-interval components were those that equated overall interreinforcement times in the two phases. Response rates did not decline in the yoked schedules even when the reinforced interresponse times became longer. Experiment 1 suggests that both reinforced interresponse times and response rate–reinforcement rate correlations determine response-rate differences in variable-ratio 10 and yoked variable-interval schedules in rats. Experiment 2 suggests a minimal role for the reinforced interresponse time in determining response rates on tandem variable-interval 30-s variable-ratio 10 and yoked tandem variable-ratio 10 variable-interval x-s schedules in rats.     

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.     

Conditioned suppression and conditioned enhancement with the same positive UCS: an effect of CS duration

Previous experiments have shown that positively reinforced operant responding is suppressed during a conditioned stimulus terminated with an electric shock (conditioned suppression). In the present experiment, the conditioned stimulus was terminated with a positive unconditioned stimulus, and it was found that the duration of the conditioned stimulus was a key factor in determining whether response suppression or response enhancement was observed during the stimulus. The lever-pressing responses of rats were maintained by a variable-interval schedule of food reinforcement. While the rats were pressing the lever, a light was occasionally turned on, its offset coincident with a brief period of access to a sucrose solution. In consecutive blocks of sessions, the light duration was 40 sec, 12 sec, or 120 sec. Results showed that the rate of lever pressing was substantially suppressed during the 12-sec stimulus, slightly suppressed during the 40-sec stimulus, and enhanced during the 120-sec stimulus.     

Conditioned reinforcement versus time to reinforcement in chain schedules.

Pigeons were trained on three-component chain schedules in which the initial component was either a fixed-interval or variable-interval schedule. The middle and terminal components were varied among fixed-interval fixed-interval, variable-interval variable-interval, and an interdependent variable-interval variable-interval schedule in which the sum of the durations of the two variable-interval components was always equal to the sum of the fixed-interval fixed-interval components. At issue was whether the response rate in the initial component was controlled by its time to primary reinforcement or by the temporal parameters of the stimulus correlated with the middle terminal link. The fixed-interval initial-link schedule maintained much lower response rates than the variable-interval initial-link schedule regardless of the schedules in the middle and terminal links. Nevertheless, the intervening schedules played some role: With fixed-interval schedules in the initial links, response rates were consistently highest with independent variable-interval schedules in the middle and terminal links and intermediate with the interdependent variable-interval schedules; these initial-link differences were predicted by the response rates in the middle link of the chain. With variable-interval schedules in the initial links, response rates were lowest with the fixed-interval fixed-interval schedules following the initial link and were not systematically different for the two types of variable-interval variable-interval schedules. The results suggest that time to reinforcement itself accounts for little if any variance in initial-link responding.     

Molar And Molecular Control In Variable-interval And Variable-ratio Schedules

Response rates are typically higher under variable-ratio than under variable-interval schedules of reinforcement, perhaps because of differences in the dependence of reinforcement rate on response rate or because of differences in the reinforcement of long interresponse times. A variable-interval-with-added-linear-feedback schedule is a variable-interval schedule that provides a response rate/reinforcement rate correlation by permitting the minimum interfood interval to decrease with rapid responding. Four rats were exposed to variable-ratio 15, 30, and 60 food reinforcement schedules, variable-interval 15-, 30-, and 60-s food reinforcement schedules, and two versions of variable-interval-with-added-linear-feedback 15-, 30-, and 60-s food reinforcement schedules. Response rates on the variable-interval-with-added-linear-feedback schedule were similar to those on the variable-interval schedule; all three schedules led to lower response rates than those on the variable-ratio schedules, especially when the schedule values were 30. Also, reinforced interresponse times on the variable-interval-with-added-linear-feedback schedule were similar to those on variable interval and much longer than those produced by variable ratio. The results were interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that response rates on variable-interval schedules in rats are lower than those on comparable variable-ratio schedules, primarily because the former schedules reinforce long interresponse times.     

Concurrent variable-ratio schedules: Implications for the generalized matching law

Rats' responses were reinforced on concurrent variable-ratio variable-ratio schedules in which responses on one lever incremented the ratio counter and responses on a second lever changed the schedule and correlated stimulus. The relative frequency of reinforcement was varied from .10 to .99. In one set of conditions, responding on the main lever incremented both ratio counters, but reinforcement required a response in the presence of the stimulus correlated with the ratio that had been completed. In a second set of conditions, responses on the main lever incremented only the ratio correlated with the stimulus that was currently present. When main-lever responses incremented both ratio counters, subjects distributed responding and time in a manner consistent with the generalized matching law. When responses on the main lever incremented only the schedule currently in effect, the rats responded almost exclusively on the schedule producing the higher frequency of reinforcement. These results extend the applicability of the generalized matching law to dependent ratio schedules.     

A comparison of variable-ratio and variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

Four pigeons responded under a two-component multiple schedule of reinforcement. Responses were reinforced in one component under a variable-ratio schedule and in the other component under a variable-interval schedule. It was found that when rates of reinforcement were equal in the two components, the rate of response in the variable-ratio component was nearly twice that in the variable-interval component. Furthermore, for three of the four subjects, the function relating response rate to relative rate of reinforcement in the variable-ratio component had a slope 2.5 to 3 times the slope of the corresponding function for the variable-interval component.     

A direct comparison of four methods for eliminating a response

Thirty-two rats pressed one lever (lever A) on a VI 30-sec schedule of food reinforcement and were then shifted to one of four procedures for eliminating the lever A response: extinction, differential reinforcement of other behavior, reinforcement of a different response (pole pushing), and reinforcement of a similar response (pressing lever B). Effectiveness of a response-elimination procedure was measured by (1) how quickly lever A response rate fell to a low level when the procedure was in effect, (2) how much lever A responding recovered when the procedure was discontinued, and (3) how resistant lever A responding was to reinstatement when the VI reinforcement schedule was reimposed. No one method was superior by all three measures. Extinction produced the most variable behavior, while differential reinforcement of other behavior produced the least. Reinforcing alternative behavior produced the greatest recovery in the original lever A response when the response-elimination procedure was discontinued.     

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO): a yoked-control comparison

After training to press a lever on a variable-interval 30-sec schedule, one group of rats was shifted to a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior 10-sec schedule, while a second group was shifted to a noncontingent yoked-control schedule that provided the same frequency and distribution of reinforcement. Then, both groups were extensively retrained on the variable-interval schedule, after which the first group was shifted to a series of differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior 30-sec sessions alternating daily with variable-interval 30-sec sessions, while the second group was treated like the first on variable-interval days and yoked with the first as before on differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior days. In both phases, response-decrement was more rapid and more marked in the differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior animals than in the controls. The difference was due, at least in large measure, to sustainment of response in the control animals by adventitious reinforcement. All the differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior animals developed “other” behavior—the same distinctive pattern of waiting at the foodcup—but there was no direct evidence that it contributed in any way to the decrement in lever pressing.     

Behavior simultaneously maintained by both presentation and termination of noxious stimuli

Lever pressing by two squirrel monkeys was maintained under a 3-minute variable-interval schedule of response-produced electric-shock presentation. At the same time, responding on a second lever was maintained under a 3-minute fixed-interval schedule of termination of the shock-presentation schedule and shock-correlated stimuli. Under the termination schedule, the first response after a 3-minute period produced a 1-minute timeout, during which no events occurred and responding had no scheduled consequence. Relatively high and constant rates of responding were maintained on the lever where responding produced shock. Lower rates and positively accelerated patterns of responding occurred on the lever where responding terminated the shock schedule. Thus, responding was simultaneously maintained by presentation of an event and by termination of a stimulus associated with that event. Rates and patterns of responding on each lever were reversed when the schedules arranged on each lever were reversed on two occasions. When shock intensity was increased from 0 to 10 mA, responding maintained both by presentation of shock and by termination of the shock schedule increased, but responding maintained by shock presentation increased to a greater extent. Positive and negative reinforcement, usually regarded as separate behavioral processes involving different events, can coexist when behavior is controlled by different contingencies involving the same event.