Decision rules and signal detectability in a reinforcement-density discrimination

Two probabilistic schedules of reinforcement, one richer in reinforcement, the other leaner, were overlapping stimuli to be discriminated in a choice situation. One of two schedules was in effect for 12 seconds. Then, during a 6-second choice period, the first left-key peck was reinforced if the richer schedule had been in effect, and the first right-key peck was reinforced if the leaner schedule had been in effect. The two schedule stimuli may be viewed as two binomial distributions of the number of reinforcement opportunities. Each schedule yielded different frequencies of 16 substimuli. Each substimulus had a particular type of outcome pattern for the 12 seconds during which a schedule was in effect, and consisted of four consecutive light-cued 3-second T-cycles, each having 0 or 1 reinforced center-key pecks. Substimuli therefore contained 0 to 4 reinforcers. On any 3-second cycle, the first center-key peck darkened that key and was reinforced with probability .75 or .25 in the richer or leaner schedules, respectively. In terms of the theory of signal detection, detectability neared the maximum possible d′ for all four pigeons. Left-key peck probability increased when number of reinforcers in a substimulus increased, when these occurred closer to choice, or when pellets were larger for correct left-key pecks than for correct right-key pecks. Averaged over different temporal patterns of reinforcement in a substimulus, substimuli with the same number of reinforcers produced choice probabilities that matched relative expected payoff rather than maximized one alternative.     

Response and time allocation in concurrent second-order schedules

Six pigeons were trained on two-key concurrent variable-interval schedules in which the required response was the completion of a fixed number of key pecks. When the required number of pecks was equal on the two keys, response- and time-allocation ratios under-matched obtained reinforcement rate ratios. A similar result was found when the required number of pecks was unequal, except that performance, measured in response terms, was biased to the shorter required number of pecks and was less sensitive to reinforcement-rate changes. No such differences were found in the data on time spent responding. When the variable-interval schedules were kept constant and the required numbers of pecks were systematically varied, response ratios changed inversely with the ratio of the required number of pecks, but time-allocation ratios varied directly with the same independent variable. Thus, on response measures, pigeons “prefer” the schedule with the smaller peck requirement, but on time measures they “prefer” the schedule with the larger peck requirement. This finding is inconsistent with a commonsense notion of choice, which sees response and time-allocation measures as equivalent.     

The role of the peck-food contingency on fixed-interval schedules

Pigeons were trained to peck on a fixed-interval schedule of food reinforcement and then exposed to three schedules in which there was either no, or an indirect, relation between pecking and food delivery: (a) a conjunctive schedule in which food was delivered at fixed intervals, providing at least one peck was emitted in the interval; (b) a recycling version of the conjunctive schedule that essentially eliminated occasional peck-food contiguities (recycling conjunctive); (c) delivery of food at fixed intervals independently of the birds' behavior (fixed time). The rates and patterns of pecking sustained by these procedures depended on interfood interval and relative proximity of pecks to food.     

Studies of operant and reflexive key pecks in the pigeon

The duration of pigeons' key pecks was studied in three experiments. Experiment I revealed that key pecks early in exposure to continuous reinforcement were of short duration, as were key pecks observed on an omission procedure in which pecks prevented food delivery. Key pecks later in exposure to continuous reinforcement, and those that occurred on positive automaintenance procedures, were of long duration. In Experiment II, pigeons were exposed to fixed-interval and fixed-ratio reinforcement schedules, and durations were recorded separately for each quarter of each interval or ratio. On fixed interval, durations were shorter in the first quarter of each interval than in subsequent quarters; on fixed ratio, durations were longer in the first quarter of the ratio than in subsequent quarters. These data parallel observations of concurrent operant responding and salivation in dogs. In Experiment III, pigeons were exposed to a discrete trial, differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 6-sec schedule. Durations of responses in the first 2 sec of the trial were substantially shorter than those of responses that occurred later. The data from all three experiments support the view that the pigeon's "key peck" actually consists of two subclasses of peck, one reflexive and one operant.     

Reinforcement schedules: the role of responses preceding the one that produces the reinforcer

In a two-key pigeon chamber, variable-interval reinforcement was scheduled for a specified number of pecks, emitted either on a single key or in a particular sequence on the two keys. Although the distribution of pecks between the two keys was affected by whether pecks were required on one or on both keys, the total pecks emitted was not; the change from a one-key to a two-key requirement simply moved some pecks from one key to the other. Thus, each peck preceding the one that produced the reinforcer contributed independently to the subsequent rate of responding; the contribution of a particular peck in the sequence was determined by the time between its emission and the delivery of the reinforcer (delay of reinforcement), and was identified by the proportion of pecks moved from one key to the other when the response requirement at that point in the sequence was moved from one key to the other.     

Pigeons respond to produce periods in which rewards are independent of responding

Pecks by pigeons on a response key produced an ON state during which intermittent rewards were freely available, i.e., independently of responding. Pecks during the ON state caused it to remain ON. If no pecks occurred, the state changed to OFF—the key color changed—and rewards were not presented. The state remained OFF until the next response. Thus, responses controlled the state in the chamber but did not cause immediate reinforcement. Four dimensions of the schedule were varied: the rates of response-independent rewards during ON; the duration of ON produced by each peck; the pattern of rewards during ON; and the presence vs absence of exteroceptive cues during ON and OFF. The results showed that rates of responding were primarily controlled by the duration of ON produced by each response. When each response caused a long period of ON, pecks occurred infrequently; when each response caused a brief period of ON, pecks were frequent.     

EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE REINFORCEMENT: DOES THE SOURCE MATTER?1

In a chamber with a single response key, pigeon's key pecks were reinforced with food according to a variable-interval schedule. In addition, extra reinforcements occurred concurrently according to an independent schedule. In one condition, availability of the extra reinforcements was signalled by a change in key color from white to red. The extra reinforcements occurred after a peck on the red key. In a second condition, the extra reinforcements were unsignalled and occurred only after a 2-sec pause in pecking for one group of subjects and were unsignalled and occurred freely as scheduled for another group of subjects. In the first two conditions, duration of reinforcement was varied. A third condition duplicated the second but varied rate rather than duration of reinforcement. The rate of pecking varied inversely with the amount of extra reinforcement per unit time according to the same function, regardless of the condition regulating occurrence of the extra reinforcements, and regardless of whether or not a 2-sec pause was required for their occurrence. The shape of this function was predicted by Herrnstein's (1970) matching law.     

The effects of chlorpromazine and imipramine on rate and stimulus control of matching to sample.

Pigeons were trained to perform simultaneous, two-color matching to sample under a multiple fixed-ratio fixed-interval schedule of food presentation. The sequence terminating with a peck on the matching key (a "match") was treated as a unit, analogous to a single key peck in conventional schedules. Except for intermittent reinforcement of matches, no consequent stimulus distinguished matches from mismatches (sequences terminating with pecks on the nonmatching key). The pattern of matches during nondrug sessions resembled that of simpler operants maintained by similar schedules. Matches increased in rate toward the end of both components; mismatch rates increased more slowly. Imipramine increased the rate of mismatches, disrupted schedule patterning, and lowered accuracy in a dose-dependent fashion. Chlorpromazine lowered the overall rate of matches but affected schedule patterns and accuracy less than imipramine. The types of errors during drug sessions were not systematically related to the types of errors that appeared during nondrug sessions. Stimulus control was evaluated for each of the four possible color configurations and was found to be by the entire configuration of colors, not simply by the color of the sample.     

Behavioral variability and frequency-dependent selection.

In Experiment 1, two conditions were compared: (a) a variability schedule in which food reinforcement was delivered for the fourth peck in a sequence that differed from the preceding N four-peck sequences, with the value of N continuously adjusted to maintain reinforcement probability approximately constant; and (b) a control condition in which the variability constraint was dropped but reinforcement probability remained constant. Pigeons responded approximately randomly under the variability schedule but showed strong stereotyped behavior under the control condition. Experiments 2 and 3 tested the idea that variability is the outcome of a type of frequency-dependent selection, namely differential reinforcement of infrequent behavior patterns. The results showed that pigeons alternate when frequency-dependent selection is applied to single pecks because alternation is an easy-to-learn stable pattern that satisfies the frequency-dependent condition. Nevertheless, 2 of 4 pigeons showed random behavior when frequency-dependent selection was applied to two pecks, even though double alternation is a permissible and stable stereotype under these conditions. It appears that random behavior results when pigeons are unable to acquire the stable stereotyped behavior under a given frequency-dependent schedule.     

Constituents of response rates

Response rate and the proportion of time pigeons allocated to a key-pecking activity were measured on several basic types of reinforcement schedules. Reinforcement frequency was varied within each type of basic schedule, and the effects on two constituents of response rate were noted. Propensity, the proportion of time the birds spent on a platform in front of the key, showed very consistent effects as reinforcement frequency varied: in general, it decreased when reinforcement frequency markedly decreased and it increased when reinforcement frequency increased. Speed, key pecks per unit of time spent on the platform, showed inconsistent effects when reinforcement frequency varied. Consequently, response rate showed less consistent effects than did propensity. Cumulative response records demonstrated the existence of several different types of transitions or boundary states between the key-pecking activity and other activities. The types of transitions that occurred between activities depended on both the type of reinforcement schedule and the frequency of reinforcement. The propensity data support the position that general laws of behavior can be based on temporal measures of behavior. The speed data suggest that, if a complete assessment of the dynamic properties of behavior is to be achieved, measures of behavior must incorporate the structural variations in the operant unit.     

Effects of delayed reinforcement in a concurrent situation

Pigeons were trained to peck either of two response keys for food reinforcement on equated aperiodic schedules. Delays of reinforcement for pecks at one key reduced the relative frequency of pecking exponentially as a function of the delay interval. Similar functions were obtained when other dependent variables were plotted against the delay interval.     

DOES CONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT STRENGTHEN OPERANT BEHAVIOR?

In Experiment 1, pigeons were trained to peck keys with equal food-reinforcement schedules in components that ended with either noncontingent or contingent transitions to a third component with a five-fold richer schedule. Response rates were higher in the initial component with contingent transitions, but resistance to prefeeding or extinction was not consistently greater. Experiment 2 also included noncontingent or contingent transitions to a signaled period of nonreinforcement. There was no effect of the contingency on transitions to nonreinforcement, but the difference in response rates maintained by contingent versus noncontingent transitions to the richer schedule was replicated. In addition, response rates were higher in components that preceded nonreinforcement than in components that preceded the richer schedule. However, resistance to extinction was greater for noncontingent transitions to the richer schedule than to nonreinforcement, implicating stimulus–reinforcer relations in the determination of resistance to change. Resistance to change was also somewhat greater for noncontingent than for contingent transitions to the richer schedule. The latter result, together with the results of Experiment 1 and related research, suggests that response-contingent reinforcement does not increase resistance to change.     

Yoked variable-ratio and variable-interval responding in pigeons

Pigeons' key pecks were maintained by variable-ratio or variable-interval schedules of food reinforcement. For pairs of pigeons in one group, variable-ratio reinforcement was arranged for one pigeon's pecks; for the second pigeon, reinforcement was arranged according to a variable-interval schedule yoked to the interreinforcement times produced by the first pigeon. For pairs of pigeons in another group, variable-interval reinforcement was arranged for one pigeon's pecks; for the second pigeon, reinforcement was arranged according to a variable-ratio schedule yoked to the interreinforcement responses produced by the first pigeon. For each pair, the yoking procedure was maintained for four or five consecutive sessions of 50 reinforcements each. In more than three-quarters of the pairs, variable-ratio response rates were higher than variable-interval rates within two sessions; in all cases, the rate difference developed within four sessions.     

A test of the reinforcing properties of stimuli correlated with nonreinforcement

The information hypothesis of conditioned reinforcement predicts that a stimulus that “reduces uncertainty” about the outcome of a trial will acquire reinforcing properties, even when the stimulus reliably predicts nonreinforcement. Four pigeons' key pecks produced one of two 5-sec stimuli with 0.50 probability according to a discriminated variable-interval schedule. One stimulus was followed by reinforcement; a second stimulus was followed by blackout. To the same extent, therefore, both stimuli reduced uncertainty about the possibility that food would arrive at the termination of the schedule interval. When a second key in the chamber was lighted, each peck on it could produce the stimulus preceding reinforcement, the stimulus preceding nonreinforcement, a novel stimulus, or no stimulus, across separate conditions. The stimulus preceding food maintained responding at substantial levels on the second, stimulus-producing, key. Such responding was not maintained by other stimuli. These data, replicated when the stimuli were reversed on the variable-interval schedule, do not support the prediction that uncertainty-reducing stimuli are necessarily conditioned reinforcers.     

Mechanisms underlying the effects of unsignaled delayed reinforcement on key pecking of pigeons under variable-interval schedules.

Three experiments were conducted to test an interpretation of the response-rate-reducing effects of unsignaled nonresetting delays to reinforcement in pigeons. According to this interpretation, rates of key pecking decrease under these conditions because key pecks alternate with hopper-observing behavior. In Experiment 1, 4 pigeons pecked a food key that raised the hopper provided that pecks on a different variable-interval-schedule key met the requirements of a variable-interval 60-s schedule. The stimuli associated with the availability of the hopper (i.e., houselight and keylight off, food key illuminated, feedback following food-key pecks) were gradually removed across phases while the dependent relation between hopper availability and variable-interval-schedule key pecks was maintained. Rates of pecking the variable-interval-schedule key decreased to low levels and rates of food-key pecks increased when variable-interval-schedule key pecks did not produce hopper-correlated stimuli. In Experiment 2, pigeons initially pecked a single key under a variable-interval 60-s schedule. Then the dependent relation between hopper presentation and key pecks was eliminated by arranging a variable-time 60-s schedule. When rates of pecking had decreased to low levels, conditions were changed so that pecks during the final 5 s of each interval changed the keylight color from green to amber. When pecking produced these hopper-correlated stimuli, pecking occurred at high rates, despite the absence of a peck-food dependency. When peck-produced changes in keylight color were uncorrelated with food, rates of pecking fell to low levels. In Experiment 3, details (obtained delays, interresponse-time distributions, eating times) of the transition from high to low response rates produced by the introduction of a 3-s unsignaled delay were tracked from session to session in 3 pigeons that had been initially trained to peck under a conventional variable-interval 60-s schedule. Decreases in response rates soon after the transition to delayed reinforcement were accompanied by decreases in eating times and alterations in interresponse-time distributions. As response rates decreased and became stable, eating times increased and their variability decreased. These findings support an interpretation of the effects of delayed reinforcement that emphasizes the importance of hopper-observing behavior.     

Conjunctive schedules of reinforcement: I. Rate-dependent effects of pentobarbital and d-amphetamine

Key pecking of pigeons was maintained under conjunctive schedules of food presentation in which both a fixed-interval and a fixed-ratio schedule had to be completed before a peck produced food. For two pigeons, pecks on a single key completed both schedule requirements (fixed-interval 3-min, fixed-ratio 50 for one bird, fixed-interval 5-min, fixed-ratio 50 for the second). For two other pigeons, each requirement was scheduled on a separate key. On the two-key schedule, a peck after 5 min on the key scheduling the fixed-interval requirement produced food if at least 10 pecks had occurred on the ratio key (conjunctive fixed-interval 5-min, fixed-ratio 10). When each requirement was scheduled on a separate key, response rates on the fixed-ratio key were generally higher in the early portion of the interval and declined as the interval progressed; responding on the fixed-interval key, once initiated, typically remained at a constant rate throughout the interval. Responding under the single-key schedule was characterized by a high rate early in the interval; this then changed to a lower rate that continued until a peck produced food. For all pigeons, increases in response rates with pentobarbital and d-amphetamine were inversely related to the control rate of responding. When equivalent rates on each key of the two-key schedule were compared, both drugs increased rates on the fixed-ratio key less. Although the effects of both drugs were rate dependent, each drug differentially modified the pattern of responding under the single-key schedule.     

Two types of pigeon key pecking: suppression of long- but not short-duration key pecks by duration-dependent shock

The key pecking of eight pigeons was maintained on a variable-interval 1-minute schedule of food reinforcement. Sometimes, all responses between 35 and 50 milliseconds in duration produced a shock; sometimes, all responses between 10 and 25 milliseconds produced a shock; sometimes, shocks were produced by pecks without regard to duration (nondifferential punishment), and sometimes shocks were delivered independently of responding. Punishment of 35- to 50-millisecond responses selectively suppressed those responses, while punishment of 10- to 25-millisecond responses and nondifferential punishment suppressed responding overall but did not suppress responses of particular duration. Punishment of 35- to 50-millisecond responses suppressed key pecking slightly less than did nondifferential punishment. Punishment of 10- to 25-millisecond responses and response-independent shock produced roughly equal amounts of suppression, substantially less than the other punishment procedures. The data support the view that there are at least two kinds of key peck, identifiable on the basis of duration, one of which (short duration) is insensitive to its consequences.     

Alternative reinforcement effects on fixed-interval performance

Pigeons' key pecks were reinforced with food on a fixed-interval schedule. Food also was available at variable time periods either independently of responding or for not key pecking (a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule). The latter condition arranged reinforcement following the first pause of t seconds after it became available according to a variable-time schedule. This schedule allowed separation of the effects of pause requirements ≤ five-seconds and reinforcement frequency. The time spent pausing increased as the duration of the pause required for reinforcement increased from 0 to 30 seconds and as the frequency of reinforcement for pausing increased from 0 to 2 reinforcers per minute. Key pecking was more evenly distributed within each fixed interval with shorter required pauses and with more frequent reinforcement for pausing. The results complement those obtained with other concurrent schedules in which the same operant response was reinforced in both components.     

The effects of unsignalled delayed reinforcement

Pigeons' pecks were reinforced according to a variable-interval schedule. A delay-of-reinforcement procedure was then added to the schedule, or a yoked-control procedure was arranged where the reinforcers occurred independently of responding according to the same variable-interval schedule. During the delay-of-reinforcement procedure, the first peck after a reinforcer was scheduled began a delay timer and the reinforcer was delivered at the end of the interval. No stimulus change signalled the delay interval and responses could occur during it, so that the obtained delays were often shorter than those scheduled. Responding under this procedure was highly variable but, in general, behavior was substantially reduced even with the shortest delay used, 3 sec. In addition, the rates maintained by delayed reinforcement were only slightly greater than those maintained by the yoked-control procedure, suggesting that adventitious pairings of response and reinforcer were responsible for some of the maintenance of behavior that did occur. The results challenge recent conceptions of reinforcement as involving response-reinforcer correlations and re-emphasize the role of temporal proximity between response and reinforcer.     

Titration of schedule parameters by pigeons

Pigeons were tested in a computer-controlled two-key chamber. A standard (nonchanging) schedule of reinforcement was in force on one key, and an adjusting schedule on the other. The schedules were available concurrently after each reinforcement, but after the first peck on either key (the choice peck), the schedule on the other key was made inoperative. The parameter of the adjusting schedule was decreased when the standard schedule was chosen and increased when the adjusting schedule was chosen. The standard schedule was changed only between sessions. Fixed intervals and fixed ratios were used as standard schedules, and intervals and ratios were used as adjusting schedules. When standard and adjusting schedules were of the same type, median parameters on the adjusting key equalled those of the standard schedules, at four values of each standard schedule. For four of five birds, and for the group median, similar curves could be plotted through the indifference points obtained from a standard ratio with an adjusting interval, and from a standard interval with an adjusting ratio. These points showed consistent individual differences, but they could be predicted by assuming that the median time from the choice peck to reinforcement should be the same on both keys. This is equivalent to treating the schedule as a concurrent chain and assuming that Herrnstein's quantitative law of effect applies.