Response acquisition with delayed reinforcement: a comparison of two-lever procedures.

Groups of 8 experimentally naive rats were exposed during 8-hr sessions to resetting delay procedures in which responses on one lever (the reinforcement lever) produced water after a delay of 8, 16, 32, or 64 s. For rats in one condition, responses on a second (no-consequences) lever had no programmed consequences. For rats in another condition, responses on a second (cancellation) lever during a delay initiated by a response on the reinforcement lever prevented delivery of the scheduled reinforcer; responses on the cancellation lever at other times had no programmed consequences. Under both conditions and at all delays, most subjects emitted more responses on the reinforcement lever than did control rats that never received water emitted on either lever. At 8-s delays, both conditions engendered substantially more responding on the reinforcement lever than on the other lever, and performance closely resembled that of immediate-reinforcement controls. At delays of 16 and 32 s, however, there was clear differential responding on the two levers under the cancellation condition but not under the other condition. When the delay was 64 s, differential responding on the two levers did not occur consistently under either condition. These findings provide strong evidence that the behavior of rats is sensitive to consequences delayed by 8, 16, and 32 s, but only equivocal evidence of such sensitivity to consequences delayed 64 s. They also indicate that acquisition depends, in part, on the measure of performance used to index it.     

Acquisition of lever-press responding in rats with delayed reinforcement: A comparison of three procedures

The present study examined the acquisition of lever pressing in rats under three procedures in which food delivery was delayed by 4, 8, and 16 seconds relative to the response. Under the nonresetting delay procedure, food followed the response selected for reinforcement after a specified interval elapsed; responses during this interval had no programmed effect. Under the resetting procedure, the response selected for reinforcement initiated an interval to food delivery that was reset by each subsequent response. Under the stacked delay procedure, every response programmed delivery of food t seconds after its occurrence. Two control groups were studied, one that received food immediately after each lever press and another that never received food. With the exception of the group that did not receive food, responding was established with every procedure at every delay value without autoshaping or shaping. Although responding was established under the resetting delay procedure, response rates were generally not as high as under the other two procedures. These findings support the results of other recent investigations in demonstrating that a response not previously reinforced can be brought to strength by delayed reinforcement in the absence of explicit training.     

Effects of D-amphetamine on response acquisition with immediate and delayed reinforcement.

The present study examined in 8-hour sessions the effects of d-amphetamine (1.0, 5.6, and 10 mg/kg) on the acquisition of lever-press responding in rats that were exposed to procedures in which water delivery was delayed by 0, 8, or 16 seconds relative to the response that produced it. Both nonresetting- and resetting-delay conditions were studied. Although neither shaping nor autoshaping occurred, substantial levels of operative-lever responding developed under all conditions in which responses produced water. The lowest dose (1.0 mg/kg) of d-amphetamine either had no effect on or increased operative-lever pressing, whereas higher doses typically produced an initial reduction in lever pressing. Nonetheless, overall rates of operative-lever pressing at these doses were as high as, or higher than, those observed with vehicle. Thus, response acquisition was observed under all reinforcement procedures at all drug doses. In the absence of the drug, most responding occurred on the operative lever when reinforcement was immediate. Such differential responding also developed under both nonresetting- and resetting-delay procedures when the delay was 8 seconds, but not when it was 16 seconds. d-Amphetamine did not affect the development of differential responding under any procedure. Thus, consistent with d-amphetamine's effects under repeated acquisition procedures, the drug had no detrimental effect on learning until doses that produced general behavioral disruption were administered.     

The effects of behavioral history on response acquisition with immediate and delayed reinforcement

Effects of prior exposure to the experimental chamber with levers present or absent and variable-time (VT) 60-s water deliveries arranged during one, five, or no 1-hr sessions were examined in rats during a 6-hr response-acquisition session in which presses on one lever produced water delivery immediately or after a 15-s resetting delay, and presses on the other lever canceled scheduled water deliveries. Response acquisition was (a) slower to occur when water deliveries were delayed, (b) most consistent in groups that had received five VT sessions, and (c) impaired by the presence of levers only when there had been five VT sessions and water deliveries were delayed during the acquisition session.     

Behavioral effects of delayed timeouts from reinforcement

Timeouts are sometimes used in applied settings to reduce target responses, and in some circumstances delays are unavoidably imposed between the onset of a timeout and the offset of the response that produces it. The present study examined the effects of signaled and unsignaled timeouts in rats exposed to concurrent fixed‐ratio 1 fixed‐ratio 1 schedules of food delivery, where each response on one lever, the location of which changed across conditions, produced both food and a delayed 10‐s timeout. Delays of 0 to 38 s were examined. Delayed timeouts often, but not always, substantially reduced the number of responses emitted on the lever that produced timeouts relative to the number emitted on the lever that did not produce timeouts. In general, greater sensitivity was observed to delayed timeouts when they were signaled. These results demonstrate that delayed timeouts, like other delayed consequences, can affect behavior, albeit less strongly than immediate consequences.     

Response induction during the acquisition and maintenance of lever pressing with delayed reinforcement

The acquisition of lever pressing by rats and the occurrence of unreinforced presses at a location different from that of the reinforced response were studied using different delays of reinforcement. An experimental chamber containing seven identical adjoining levers was used. Only presses on the central (operative) lever produced food pellets. Groups of 3 rats were exposed to one of seven different tandem random-interval (RI) fixed-time (FT) schedules. The average RI duration was the complement of the FT duration such that their sum yielded a nominal 32-s interreinforcement interval on average. Response rate on the operative lever decreased as the FT value was lengthened. The spatial distribution of responses on the seven levers converged on the operative lever when the FT was 0 or 2 s and spread across the seven levers as the FT value was lengthened to 16 or 32 s. Presses on the seven levers were infrequent during the FT schedule. Both operative- and inoperative-lever pressing intertwined in repetitive patterns that were consistent within subjects but differed between subjects. These findings suggest that reinforcer delay determined the response-induction gradient.     

Contingency tracking during unsignaled delayed reinforcement

Three experiments were conducted with rats in which responses on one lever (labeled the functional lever) produced reinforcers after an unsignaled delay period that reset with each response during the delay. Responses on a second, nonfunctional, lever did not initiate delays, but, in the first and third experiments, such responses during the last 10 s of a delay did postpone food delivery another 10 s. In the first experiment, the location of the two levers was reversed several times. Responding generally was higher on the functional lever, though the magnitude of the difference diminished with successive reversals. In the second experiment, once a delay was initiated by a response on the functional lever, in different conditions responses on the nonfunctional lever either had no effect or postponed food delivery by 30 s. The latter contingency typically lowered response rates on the nonfunctional lever. In the first two experiments, both the functional and nonfunctional levers were identical except for their location; in the third experiment, initially, a vertically mounted, pole-push lever defined the functional response and a horizontally mounted lever defined the nonfunctional response. Higher response rates occurred on the functional lever. These results taken together suggest that responding generally tracked the response-reinforcer contingency. The results further show how nonfunctional-operanda responses are controlled by a prior history of direct reinforcement of such responses, by the temporal delay between such responses and food delivery, and as simple generalization between the two operanda.     

Effects of reinforcement rate and delay on the acquisition of lever pressing by rats.

The acquisition of lever pressing by naive rats, in the absence of shaping, was studied as a function of different rates and unsignaled delays of reinforcement. Groups of 3 rats were each exposed to tandem schedules that differed in either the first or the second component. First-component schedules were either continuous reinforcement or random-interval 15, 30, 60 or 120 s; second-component schedules were fixed-time 0, 1, 3, 6, 12, or 24 s. Rate of responding was low under continuous immediate reinforcement and higher under random-interval 15 s. Random interval 30-s and 60-s schedules produced lower rates that were similar to each other. Random-interval 120 s controlled the lowest rate in the immediate-reinforcement condition. Adding a constant 12-s delay to each of the first-component schedule parameters controlled lower response rates that did not vary systematically with reinforcement rate. The continuous and random-interval 60-s schedules of immediate reinforcement controlled higher global and first-component response rates than did the same schedules combined with longer delays, and first-component rates showed some graded effects of delay duration. In addition, the same schedules controlled higher second-component response rates in combination with a 1-s delay than in combination with longer delays. These results were related to those from previous studies on acquisition with delayed reinforcement as well as to those from similar reinforcement procedures used during steady-state responding.     

Body weight and response acquisition with delayed reinforcement.

The relation between body weight and responding established with unsignaled delayed reinforcement was investigated. In three experiments, naive rats were deprived to either 70%, 80%, or 90% of ad libitum weight and were then exposed to tandem variable-interval 15-s differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior 30-s schedules. The tandem schedule defined a resetting unsignaled delay-of-reinforcement procedure. In the first experiment, speed of magazine training, acquisition of lever pressing, and final rate of lever pressing were related to body weight. In the next experiment, lever pressing was established and maintained in rats that were magazine trained at 70% of ad libitum weight but that were then exposed to the delay procedure at 90% of ad libitum weight. Responding did not change consistently either across or within subjects in subsequent conditions in which body weight was manipulated. In the final experiment, lever pressing was established and maintained with delayed reinforcement in the absence of magazine training for each of 2 rats at 70% and for 1 of 2 rats at 90% of ad libitum weight. The results further illuminate the conditions under which responding can be established in the absence of training and when such responses are reinforced only following an unsignaled delay period.     

Acquisition of cocaine self-administration with unsignaled delayed reinforcement in rhesus monkeys

Six experimentally naive rhesus monkeys produced 0.01 mg/kg/infusion cocaine by lever pressing under a tandem fixed-ratio 1 differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule. One lever press initiated an unsignaled 15- or 30-s delay culminating in cocaine delivery. Each press made during the delay reset the delay interval. With two exceptions, responding was acquired and maintained at higher rates than responding on a second (inoperative) lever. For the exceptions, a cancellation contingency was arranged in which each formerly inoperative-lever response reset the tandem schedule. This manipulation reduced presses on the inoperative lever. Subsequently, the consequences of responding on the two levers were reversed, and the monkeys again responded at higher rates on the operative lever. As a comparison, 3 additional experimentally naive monkeys received response-independent cocaine deliveries. Although lever pressing was observed, it extinguished and was subsequently reestablished under the tandem schedule. The results suggest that although response-reinforcer contiguity is not required for cocaine to acquire reinforcing functions, a response-reinforcer relation appears necessary.     

Running and responding reinforced by the opportunity to run: effect of reinforcer duration.

The present study investigated the effect of reinforcer duration on running and on responding reinforced by the opportunity to run. Eleven male Wistar rats responded on levers for the opportunity to run in a running wheel. Opportunities to run were programmed to occur on a tandem fixed-ratio 1 variable-interval 30-s reinforcement schedule. Reinforcer duration varied across conditions from 30 to 120 s. As reinforcer duration increased, the rates of running and lever pressing declined, and latency to lever press increased. The increase in latency to respond was consistent with findings that unconditioned inhibitory aftereffects of reinforcement increase with reinforcer magnitude. The decrease in local lever-pressing rates, however, was inconsistent with the view that response strength increases with the duration of the reinforcer. Response rate varied inversely, not directly, with reinforcer duration. Furthermore, within-session data challenge satiation, fatigue, and response deprivation as determinants of the observed changes in running and responding. In sum, the results point to the need for further research with nonappetitive forms of reinforcement.     

Responding for sucrose and wheel-running reinforcement: effects of sucrose concentration and wheel-running reinforcer duration

Six male albino rats were placed in running wheels and exposed to a fixed-interval 30-s schedule of lever pressing that produced either a drop of sucrose solution or the opportunity to run for a fixed duration as reinforcers. Each reinforcer type was signaled by a different stimulus. In Experiment 1, the duration of running was held constant at 15 s while the concentration of sucrose solution was varied across values of 0, 2.5. 5, 10, and 15%. As concentration decreased, postreinforcement pause duration increased and local rates decreased in the presence of the stimulus signaling sucrose. Consequently, the difference between responding in the presence of stimuli signaling wheel-running and sucrose reinforcers diminished, and at 2.5%, response functions for the two reinforcers were similar. In Experiment 2, the concentration of sucrose solution was held constant at 15% while the duration of the opportunity to run was first varied across values of 15, 45, and 90 s then subsequently across values of 5, 10, and 15 s. As run duration increased, postreinforcement pause duration in the presence of the wheel-running stimulus increased and local rates increased then decreased. In summary, inhibitory aftereffects of previous reinforcers occurred when both sucrose concentration and run duration varied; changes in responding were attributable to changes in the excitatory value of the stimuli signaling the two reinforcers.     

The control of responding by sounds: unusual effect of reinforcement.

Naive rats were trained to respond on one lever in the presence of noise bursts from one speaker and on a second lever in the presence of noise bursts from a second speaker. The speakers were mounted behind the levers. When responding on the lever adjacent to the sounding speaker was reinforced, control developed within fewer than five trials. When responding on the nonadjacent lever was selectively reinforced, responding on the lever adjacent to the sounding speaker increased in probability for several sessions. Naive rats were trained to respond on the nonadjacent lever following preexposure to the sound. Responding on the lever adjacent to the sounding speaker increased in probability, showing that novelty was not responsible for the effect. Naive rats were run on automaintenance procedures in which there was no explicit pairing of sound and magazine operation, 100% pairing of sound and magazine operation, or magazine operation following 40% of sound presentations. None of the rats acquired the response of approaching and sniffing the sounding speaker, indicating that sound-magazine pairing was not responsible for the effect.     

Conditioned reinforcement dynamics in three-link chained schedules.

In two experiments rats were trained on three-link concurrent-chains schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, additional entries to one terminal link were added during one of the middle links to a baseline schedule that was otherwise equal for the two chains, and, depending on the condition, these additional terminal-link presentations ended either in food or in no food. When food occurred, preference was always in favor of the chain with the additional terminal-link presentations (which also entailed a higher rate of reinforcement). When no food occurred at the end of the additional terminal links, the outcome depended on the nature of the stimuli associated with these additional terminal links. When stimuli different from the reinforced baseline terminal links were used for the no-food terminal links, preference was against the choice alternative that led to the extra periods of extinction. When the same stimulus was used for the two kinds of terminal links, preference was near indifference, that is, significantly greater than when different stimuli were used. In Experiment 2, rats learned repeated reversals of a simultaneous discrimination under a three-link concurrent-chains schedule, in which the food or no-food choice outcomes were delayed until the end of the chain. Different conditions were defined by the point in the chain at which differential stimuli occurred. When the middle and terminal links provided no differential stimuli, discrimination was acquired more slowly than when differential stimuli occurred in both links. When differential stimuli occurred in the middle but not the terminal links, acquisition rates were intermediate. Both experiments together show that the effects of stimuli in a chain schedule are due partly to the time to food correlated with the stimuli and partly to the time to the next conditioned reinforcer in the sequence.     

Response persistence under ratio and interval reinforcement schedules

In Experiment 1, rats were exposed to progressive-ratio schedules of food reinforcement while other rats were exposed simultaneously to yoked-interval schedules that arranged equivalent interreinforcer intervals but required only a single response at the end of the interval for food delivery. In Experiment 2, a within-subject yoked-control procedure was employed in which pigeons were exposed to alternating sessions (one per day) of progressive-ratio schedules and yoked-interval schedules as described above. In both experiments, responding under the yoked-interval schedule persisted beyond the point at which responding under the progressive-ratio schedule had ceased. The progressive-ratio schedules controlled break-and-run distributions, and the yoked-interval schedules controlled more even distributions of responses in time. Response rates decreased and postreinforcement pauses increased over time within individual sessions under both schedules. The results suggest that responding maintained by interval schedules is more persistent than that maintained by ratio schedules. The limitations and implications of this conclusion are discussed in the context of other investigations of response strength and behavioral momentum.     

Observing behavior: effects of rate and magnitude of primary reinforcement

Four experiments examined the free-operant observing behavior of rats. In Experiment 1, observing was a bitonic function of random-ratio schedule requirements for the primary reinforcer. In Experiment 2, decreases in the magnitude of the primary reinforcer decreased observing. Experiment 3 examined observing when a random-ratio schedule or a yoked random-time schedule of primary reinforcement was in effect across conditions. Removing the response requirement for the primary reinforcer increased observing, suggesting that the effects of the random-ratio schedule in Experiment 1 likely were due to an interaction between observing and responding for the primary reinforcer. In Experiment 4, decreasing the rate of primary reinforcement by increasing the duration of a random-time schedule decreased observing monotonically. Overall, these results suggest that observing decreases with decreases in the rate or magnitude of the primary reinforcer, but that behavior related to the primary reinforcer can affect observing and potentially affect measurement of conditioned reinforcing value.     

Social reinforcement of operant behavior in rats: a methodological note.

An apparatus was developed to study social reinforcement in the rat. Four Long-Evans female rats were trained to press a lever via shaping, with the reinforcer being access to a castrated male rat. Responding under a fixed-ratio schedule and in extinction was also observed. Social access was found to be an effective reinforcer. When social reinforcement was compared with food reinforcement under similar conditions of deprivation and reinforcer duration, no significant differences were observed.     

Force and rate relations in responding during variable-interval reinforcement

Four rats responded on one-minute variable-interval schedules with several variations in peak-force of response required for food reinforcement. Measures of peak force and rate were taken for the responses, which were the downward exertions of force against a static force-transducing operandum. The analysis distinguished responses, a generic class of measured behavior, from criterion responses, an operationally specified subclass required for reinforcement. Absolute rate of response showed no systematic change, but the rate of responses meeting a newly required criterion of peak-force invariably increased through changes in the absolute rate of response, the relative-frequency distributions of peak force, or some combination of both. The relative frequency of responses meeting an elevated force criterion during variable-interval reinforcement exceeded that maintained with the same criterion with continuous reinforcement. The requirement of more effortful responding for reinforcement does not necessarily reduce response rate. Conformity of the behavior to the requirement for reinforcement is the salient effect.     

Quantification of rats' behavior during reinforcement periods

What is treated as a single unit of reinforcement often involves what could be called a reinforcement period during which two or more acts of ingestion may occur, and each of these may have associated with it a series of responses, some reflexive, some learned, that lead up to ingestion. Food-tray presentation to a pigeon is an example of such a “reinforcement period.” In order to quantify this behavior, a continuous-reinforcement schedule was used as the reinforcement period and was chained to a fixed-ratio schedule. Both fixed-ratio size and reinforcement-period duration were manipulated. Rats were used as subjects, food as reinforcement, and a lever press as the operant. Major findings included (a) a rapid decline in response rates during the first 15 to 20 seconds of the reinforcement periods, and (b) a strong positive relationship between these response rates and the size of the fixed ratio. Also revealed was a short scallop not normally found in fixed-ratio response patterns, whose length was a function of fixed-ratio size and reinforcement-period duration. It is suggested that rapidly fluctuating excitatory processes can account for many of these findings and that such processes are functionally significant in terms of behavioral compensation.