Inhibitory stimulus control and the magnitude of delayed reinforcement

The key pecking of pigeons was reinforced according to a variable-interval 1-min schedule during each of two successively presented stimuli. When the key was illuminated by a black line on a white background, reinforcement was delayed for 10 sec. When the key was illuminated by a plain white light, reinforcement was not delayed. For half of the subjects, the delayed reinforcer was 4.0-sec access to mixed grain, and for the remaining subjects it was 1.5-sec access. The immediate reinforcer was 1.5-sec access for all subjects. All subjects responded at a lower rate during the presentation of the black line; no between-group difference in terms of terminal response rate during the presentation of the line was found. However, subjects that received 4.0 sec of delayed reinforcement responded at a lower terminal rate during presentation of the plain white light than subjects that received 1.5 sec of delayed reinforcement. A subsequent generalization test along the line-orientation dimension produced flatter U-shaped gradients for subjects that received 4.0-sec of delayed reinforcement.     

Differential reinforcement and stimulus control of not responding

Pigeons were trained to respond with equal variable-interval reinforcement in the presence of a white key and also a white key with a vertical line. They were then trained not to respond to the vertical line by extinguishing the response or by reinforcing its non-occurrence at various frequencies. During training, the rate of key-pecking in the presence of the white key, maintained by a constant variable-interval schedule of reinforcement, depended on the frequency of reinforcement in the presence of the line. When lines of different orientations were presented in a generalization test, birds trained with extinction responded more to other orientations than to the vertical line, whereas those trained with high frequencies of reinforcement for not responding tended to respond equally at all line orientations. Intermediate frequencies of reinforcement gave mixed results.     

Comparison of stimulus control and reinforcement control effects on imitative behavior

An attempt was made to evaluate reinforcement and stimulus control of imitative and non-imitative behavior. The imitative response required the subject to duplicate the experimenter's response by matching blocks that varied in color. The factor designed to evaluate stimulus control was fading, a procedure that systematically varies the differences between the imitative and non-imitative stimuli. The topography and duration of the non-imitative stimuli were faded in. The factors designed to evaluate reinforcement control were differential reinforcement of non-imitative behavior and time out from positive reinforcement. The results showed stimulus control of non-imitation to be more important than reinforcement control, and that reinforcing events were not sufficient to control non-imitation; while the arrangement of stimulus events was sufficient to control non-imitation. These results were related to studies providing evidence for the processes of discrimination and generalization.     

On the development of stimulus control

Pigeons were trained to peck one key when presented with white noise at any of five intensities lower than a reference intensity, and to peck another key when presented with white noise at any of five intensities greater than the reference intensity. The shape of the stimulus control curves (proportion of responses to one key versus stimulus intensity) changed from a horizontal line at the beginning of training to the sigmoid form of typical psychometric functions at the end of training. The development of stimulus control is described in terms of a model based on the theory of signal recognition and a concept of attention.     

Antecedent reinforcement contingencies in the stimulus control of an auditory discrimination

In order to assess possible confounding of discriminative stimulus effects with those produced by the reinforcing stimulus, three groups of four rats each were trained for 45 hr on a variable-interval 1-min reinforcement program. Two groups were run on a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule in which the reinforcement stimulus (S^D) and the nonreinforcement stimulus (S^Δ) were two intensities of a 4-kHz (cps) tone separated by 40 or 10 db. The third group was run on a mixed schedule with a single intensity constantly present. The mixed-schedule animals showed no discrimination of the reinforcement program. Under the multiple schedule, the highest S^Δ rates were obtained after S^D intervals, regardless of the reinforcement availability in the S^D interval. These local rate variations in S^Δ were small in proportion to those produced by the S^D versus S^Δ intensities.     

The establishment of stimulus control by instructions and by differential reinforcement

A repeated acquisition design was used to study the effects of instructions and differential reinforcement on the performance of complex chains by undergraduates. The chains required responding on a series of keys that corresponded to characters that appeared on a monitor. Each day, subjects performed a new chain in a learning session and later relearned the same chain in a test session. Experiment 1 replicated previous research by showing that instructional stimuli paired with the correct responses in the learning sessions, combined with differential reinforcement in both learning and test sessions, resulted in stimulus control by the characters in each link. Experiment 2 separated the effects of instructional stimuli and differential reinforcement, and showed that stimulus control by the characters could be established solely by differential reinforcement during the test sessions. Experiment 3 showed that when a rule specified the relation between learning and test sessions, some subjects performed accurately in the test sessions without exposure to any differential consequences. This rule apparently altered the stimulus control properties of the characters much as did differential reinforcement during testing. However, compared to differential reinforcement, the rule established stimulus control more quickly.     

Repeated measurements of reinforcement effects on gradients of stimulus control

Two experiments studied the effects of reinforcement schedules on generalization gradients. In Exp. 1, after pigeons' responding to a vertical line was reinforced, the pigeons were tested with 10 lines differing in orientation. Reconditioning and the redetermination of generalization gradients were repeated from 8 to 11 times with the schedule of reinforcement varied in the reconditioning phase. Stable gradients could not be observed because the successive reconditionings and tests steepened the gradients and reduced responding. Experiment 2 over-came these effects by first training the birds to respond to all of the stimuli. Then, brief periods of reinforced responding to the stimulus correlated with reinforcement alternated with the presentation of the 10 lines in extinction. The development of stimulus control was studied eight times with each bird, twice with each of four schedules of reinforcement. Gradients were similar each time a schedule was imposed; the degree of control by the stimulus correlated with reinforcement varied with particular schedules. Behavioral contrast occurred when periods of reinforcement and extinction alternated and was more durable with fixed-interval, variable-interval, and variable-ratio schedules than with fixed-ratio or differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules.     

Response discriminative and reinforcement factors in stimulus control of performance on multiple and chained schedules of reinforcement

Discriminative control of the response rates of two groups of rats was equated by training them to cease bar pressing in light-out no-tone ( + ) and to respond during tone and light. Multiple-schedule subjects received food at the same rate for responding during tone or light as for nonresponding in + . For the chained-schedule subjects responding in tone or light only produced + where food was received for nonresponding. In extinction tests multiple-schedule subjects emitted approximately twice the responses to tone-plus-light as to tone or light presented individually (additive summation). The rats trained on the chained schedule, in which the tone and light each controlled substantial response rates but were never paired with food, showed no summation when the tone and light were presented together. The results indicate that discriminative control of response rates and reinforcement differences between schedule components determine stimulus control.     

Factors influencing inhibitory stimulus control: discrimination training and prior non-differential reinforcement

In Exp. I, shallow U-shaped gradients of inhibition in the line-orientation dimension were obtained from birds that had a vertical (0°) line on a green surround correlated with extinction and a blank green surround correlated with reinforcement. Birds that had massed extinction in the presence of the 0° line showed flat gradients. Thus, discrimination training, but not massed extinction, appears to generate inhibitory control. In Exp. II, as in studies of control by a stimulus correlated with punishment, non-differential training across the line-orientation dimension preceded further sessions. Steep inverted gradients about the 0° line were obtained after discrimination training with the 0° line correlated with extinction. Gradients obtained after massed extinction tended to be flat. Again, discrimination training was critical in obtaining negative gradients of stimulus control.     

Establishing discriminative stimulus control within generalized oddity performance,without reinforcement

In two oddity learning studies with children, subjects were reinforced for oddity (or nonoddity) responding on line-tilt or dot numerosity problems. Interposed form and color problems were not reinforced. No instructions to make oddity choices were given. In Experiment I it was found that reinforcement for oddity or nonoddity responding on tilt and numerosity problems produced the corresponding tendency toward oddity or nonoddity performance on these problems and also on the nonreinforced form and color problems. These results show a generalized oddity phenomenon similar to generalized imitation. In Experiment II a third type of nonreinforced problem was presented in this same format: compound stimuli permitting either a color or a form solution. It was found that immediate prior training with nonreinforced form problems, interpolated among the reinforced tilt and numerosity problems, led to form-oddity choices in the compound problems. Similarily, color pretraining produced color-oddity choices. These results show that selective discriminative stimulus control can be obtained in oddity learning, without reinforcement for choices on either of the two dimensions involved.     

Emergent stimulus relations depend on stimulus correlation and not on reinforcement contingencies

We aimed to investigate whether novel stimulus relations would emerge from stimulus correlations when those relations explicitly conflicted with reinforced relations. In a symbolic matching-to-sample task using kanji characters as stimuli, we arranged class-specific incorrect comparison stimuli in each of three classes. After presenting either Ax or Cx stimuli as samples, choices of Bx were reinforced and choices of Gx or Hx were not. Tests for symmetry, and combined symmetry and transitivity, showed the emergence of three 3-member (AxBxCx) stimulus classes in 5 of 5 human participants. Subsequent tests for all possible emergent relations between Ax, Bx, Cx and the class-specific incorrect comparisons Gx and Hx showed that these relations emerged for 4 of 5 the participants after extended overtraining of the baseline relations. These emergent relations must have been based on stimulus-stimulus correlations, and were not properties of the trained discriminated operants, because they required control by relations explicitly extinguished during training. This result supports theoretical accounts of emergent relations that emphasize stimulus correlation over operant contingencies.     

Factors influencing inhibitory stimulus control: differential reinforcement of other behavior during discrimination training

Pigeons were trained to respond on a multiple variable-interval 1-min variable-interval 1-min schedule, then switched to a multiple variable-interval 1-min differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior discrimination training. The rate of reinforcement was held constant during the shift from non-differential reinforcement to discrimination training. Behavioral contrast and post-discrimination inhibitory stimulus control followed the observation of a reduction in the rate of responding to the stimulus correlated with reinforcement for the non-occurrence of pecking.     

The development of stimulus control with and without a lighted key

In two experiments, the effect of an illuminated response key on the acquisition of stimulus control by an airflow stimulus was assessed. In the first experiment, pigeons were given nondifferential training with airflow emerging from behind the response key in one of three conditions of illumination: trained to peck a lighted key, trained to peck an unlighted key with a houselight present, trained to peck a key in total darkness. After 10 days of training on a variable-interval schedule of reinforcement, all subjects were given a generalization test on airflow velocity. The gradients for subjects trained in the dark were sharp, while those for subjects trained in lighted conditions were shallow. In the second experiment, the effect of an irrelevant keylight on the acquisition of an airflow velocity discrimination was assessed. Two groups of pigeons were trained to discriminate two airflow velocities. One group was trained with a lighted response key and the other was trained to peck the response key in total darkness. The dark-trained subjects acquired the discrimination more rapidly. The results demonstrate that the acquisition of stimulus control by airflow with either a differential or nondifferential training procedure can be overshadowed by keylight.     

The roles of stimulus control and reinforcement frequency in modulating the behavioral effects of d-amphetamine in the rat.

The behavioral effects of d-amphetamine have been shown to be modulated by stimulus control, with less impairment of performance occurring when control is great. When the fixed-consecutive-number schedule is used (on which at least a specified consecutive number of responses must be made on one operandum before a single response on another will produce a reinforcer), response rate tends to be invariant but reinforcement frequency is not. This study asks whether the differences in reinforcement frequency that usually accompany changes in stimulus control could themselves be responsible for the performance differences. Two versions of the fixed-consecutive-number schedule of reinforcement were combined into a multiple schedule within which stimulus control was varied but differences in reinforcement frequency were minimized by omitting some reinforcer deliveries during the component that usually had the higher reinforcement frequency. In one component, a compound discriminative stimulus was added with the eighth consecutive response on the first lever; a single response on the second lever was then reinforced. In the other component, no such stimulus was presented. With no added stimulus, large decreases occurred in the number of runs satisfying the minimum requirement for reinforcement at doses of drug that produced only minimal changes when an added stimulus controlled behavior. Thus, increased stimulus control diminishes the behavioral changes produced by d-amphetamine even when the possible contribution by baseline reinforcement rate is minimized.     

Blocking the development of stimulus control when stimuli indicate periods of nonreinforcement

To learn whether prior discrimination training based on one stimulus would block learning about a subsequently added stimulus, rats were first trained to press a bar on a variable-interval schedule of food reinforcement. Occasional stimuli were presented during which no reinforcement was available. Responding became suppressed in the presence of these stimuli. Stimuli could be noise, light, or a compound of noise plus light. A group trained with noise in Phase 1, then trained with the compound in Phase 2, showed less suppression to light in a subsequent test than a group that had the same compound training in Phase 2 but only variable-interval training in Phase 1. This showed that prior training with noise blocked the development of control by light during compound training. Two further groups showed that noise training following compound training did not have the same effect on control by light.