Response acquisition with delayed reinforcement

Discrete responses of experimentally naive, food-deprived White Carneaux pigeons (key pecks) or Sprague-Dawley rats (bar or omnidirectional lever presses) initiated unsignaled delay periods that terminated with food delivery. Each subject first was trained to eat from the food source, but no attempt was made to shape or to otherwise train the response. In both species, the response developed and was maintained. Control procedures excluded the simple passage of time, response elicitation or induction by food presentation, type of operandum, food delivery device location, and adventitious immediate reinforcement of responding as the basis for the effects. Results revealed that neither training nor immediate reinforcement is necessary to establish new behavior. The conditions that give rise to both the first and second response are discussed, and the results are related to other studies of the delay of reinforcement and to explanations of behavior based on contingency or correlation and contiguity.     

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.     

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.     

"Turning back the clock" on serial-stimulus sign tracking.

Two experiments examined the effects of a negative (setback) response contingency on key pecking engendered by a changing light-intensity stimulus clock (ramp stimulus) signaling fixed-time 30-s food deliveries. The response contingency specified that responses would immediately decrease the light-intensity value, and, because food was delivered only after the highest intensity value was presented, would delay food delivery by 1 s for each response. The first experiment examined the acquisition and maintenance of responding for a group trained with the contingency in effect and for a group trained on a response-independent schedule with the ramp stimulus prior to introduction of the contingency. The first group acquired low rates of key pecking, and, after considerable exposure to the contingency, those rates were reduced to low levels. The rates of responding for the second group were reduced very rapidly (within four to five trials) after introduction of the setback contingency. For both groups, rates of responding increased for all but 1 bird when the contingency was removed. A second experiment compared the separate effects of each part of the response contingency. One group was exposed only to the stimulus setback (stimulus only), and a second group was exposed only to the delay of the reinforcer (delay only). The stimulus-only group's rates of responding were immediately reduced to moderate levels, but for most of the birds, these rates recovered quickly when the contingency was removed. The delay-only groups's rates decreased after several trials, to very low levels, and recovery of responding took several sessions once the contingency was removed. The results suggest that (a) sign-tracking behavior elicited by an added clock stimulus may be reduced rapidly and persistently when a setback contingency is imposed, and (b) the success of the contingency is due both to response-dependent stimulus change and response-dependent alterations in the frequency of food delivery. The operation of the contingency is compared with the effects of secondary reinforcement and punishment procedures.     

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.     

The role of response-reward correlation in stimulus-response overshadowing

Rats pressed levers for food reward which was delivered, when appropriate, 0·4 s after the response. For one group, the delay interval was filled by a light cue; for the other group, the same number of lights was given but they were not correlated with food delivery. In Experiment I, all lever presses were reinforced and there were no differences in response rate between groups. In Experiments II and III, lever pressing was rewarded according to a VI and VR schedule respectively. Group differences were observed in Experiment II but they disappeared in Experiment III. The results of Experiments I and II show that a reward-related stimulus does not overshadow a lever response unless the stimulus is a better predictor of reward. Differences in salience or competition from sign-tracking behaviors were ruled out as causes of this phenomenon. Experiment III demonstrated, however, that a weak response-reward correlation is not a sufficient condition for the overshadowing effect. A fourth experiment replicated the results of Experiment III using naive animals. The results of these last two experiments are not consistent with an information theory approach unless (a) a response-units concept is adopted or (b) the cue involved in overshadowing is not the pre-food light but the end of a temporal interval, whose salience is enhanced by the light.     

The effects of differing response-force requirements on fixed-ratio responding of rats.

Rats were exposed to two-component multiple schedules of food delivery. In the first experiment, 15 responses were required to produce food in both components. A downward force of 0.25 N (25 g) was always required to operate the response lever in one component. In the other, the required force was 0.25, 0.50, 1.00, or 2.00 N (25, 50, 100, or 200 g). In the second experiment, 0.25 N of force operated the lever in one component, but in the other, the force requirement for five consecutive responses at the beginning, middle, or end of each ratio was increased from 0.25 to 2.00 N. In the third experiment, the number of responses required to produce food was reduced from 15 to 5, and then to 1. Again, the effects of altering response force from 0.25 to 2.00 N were examined. In general, as response force increased in all experiments, mean response rates decreased and mean interresponse times increased.     

Omission Learning after Instrumental Pretraining

Hungry rats were pretrained to press two levers on a concurrent schedule for food pellets. Following either limited or extended pretraining, presentations of a sucrose solution were programmed on a random time schedule while the animals continued pressing on a concurrent schedule for food pellets. Presses on one of the levers-the omission lever-postponed deliveries of the sucrose solution scheduled to occur within a fixed period of time following the press, whereas presses on the other, control lever had no effect on the random time contingency. The animals pressed less frequently on the omission lever than on the control lever following limited pretraining but failed to discriminate between the two levers following extended pretraining. The insensitivity to the omission contingency produced by extended pretraining was due to either the number of presses performed during the initial training or the number of reinforced presses, rather than the number of reinforcers received. Finally, the insensitivity of performance on the omission lever to sucrose devaluation suggests that adaptation tothis negative contingency was mediated by an inhibitory stimulus-response association.     

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.     

Response duration is sensitive to both immediate and delayed reinforcement

We investigated the duration of lever pressing by rats when the delivery of appetitive reinforcers was contingent upon response duration. In the first experiment, response durations increased when duration requirements were imposed, and they decreased when duration requirements were removed. This effect occurred whether reinforcers were immediate or delayed by 8 s. In order to maintain the integrity of the delay intervals, reinforcer delivery was dependent upon both lever depression and release. In a second experiment, lever depression only and a response duration of at least 4 s were required for reinforcer delivery. Compared to immediate reinforcement conditions, delayed reinforcers increased both variability and the length of the maximum response durations. In a third experiment, immediate reinforcers were delivered contingent upon lever depression and release under a variety of duration requirements. Median lever‐press durations tracked the contingencies rapidly. Across all three experiments, rats emitted numerous response durations that were too short to satisfy the reinforcer requirements, and bimodal distributions similar to those produced by differential reinforcement of low rate schedules were evident for most rats. In many aspects, response duration responds to reinforcement parameters in a fashion similar to rate of discrete responding, but an examination of this continuous dimension of behavior may provide additional information about environment–behavior relationships.     

Associative competition in operant conditioning: blocking the response-reinforcer association

Naive rats were trained to leverpress with a 30-sec delay-of-reinforcement contingency from the start of training. In Experiment 1, the delay interval for different groups of subjects included a signal in the first 5 sec, a signal in the last 5 sec, or no signal at any time. Rats with the signal at the start of the delay interval learned most rapidly. Rats with the signal at the end of the delay failed to learn. In Experiment 2, a choice procedure was used, in which each of two levers was associated with its own 30-sec delay of reinforcement. The delay for one lever included a 5-sec signal at the end of the delay. The delay for the second lever had no signal in its 30-sec delay. Preference was in favor of the lever without the signal in the delay interval. The results demonstrate that the acquisition of new response can be blocked in a manner analogous to the blocking of Pavlovian conditioning.     

Determinants of reinforcer accumulation during an operant task.

Responses by rats on an earn lever made available food pellets that were delivered to a food cup by responses on a second, collect, lever. The rats could either collect and immediately consume or accumulate (defined as the percentage of multiple earn responses and as the number of pellets earned before a collect response) earned pellets. In Experiment 1, accumulation varied as a function of variations in the earn or collect response requirements and whether the earn and collect levers were proximal (31 cm) or distal (248 cm) to one another. Some accumulation occurred under all but one of the conditions, but generally was higher when the earn and collect levers were distal to one another, particularly when the earn response requirement was fixed-ratio (FR) 1. In Experiment 2, the contributions of responses and time to accumulation were assessed by comparing an FR 20 earn response requirement to a condition in which only a single earn response was required at the end of a time interval nominally yoked to the FR interval. When 248 cm separated the earn and collect levers, accumulation was always greater in the FR condition, and it was not systematically related to reinforcement rate. In Experiment 3, increasing the earn response requirement with a progressive-ratio schedule that reset only with a collect response increased the likelihood of accumulation when the collect and earn levers were 248 cm apart, even though such accumulation increased the next earn response requirement. Reinforcer accumulation is an understudied dimension of operant behavior that relates to the analysis of such phenomena as hoarding and self-control, in that they too involve accumulating versus immediately collecting or consuming reinforcers.     

Overshadowing of a stimulus-reinforcer association by an instrumental response

In two experiments, rats were first exposed to pairings of a clicker and food; they were subsequently, in order to measure the effectiveness of the clicker as a conditioned reinforcer, given the opportunity to press a lever which turned the clicker on. For one group of animals the food originally delivered in the presence of the clicker had been contingent on their performance of an instrumental response (running in a running wheel); for a second the contingency between clicker and food had been purely classical. Although the actual correlation between clicker and food was identical for the two groups, the clicker was a less effective conditioned reinforcer for the first group than for the second. In a third experiment, all animals were initially required to run to obtain food in the presence of the clicker, but one group received additional trials on which food was delivered contingent on running in the absence of the clicker. This group showed less tendency to lever press for the clicker than a second group that had received free food on trials when the clicker was not presented. The results of all three experiments suggest that conditioning to the clicker could be overshadowed if the occurrence of food was more reliably predicted by the execution of an instrumental running response; they thus support the view that instrumental conditioning depends on the establishment of an association between response and reinforcer similar to the association between stimulus and reinforcer underlying classical conditioning.     

Duration-reduction of avoidance sessions as negative reinforcement

Five rats were exposed to a shock-postponement procedure in which responses on each of two levers initially had equivalent effects. After an initial training sequence that ensured at least some responding on each lever, an additional consequence was made conjointly operative on the previously less-preferred lever for each animal. Each response on this lever continued to postpone shock, but also reduced the session duration by one minute. The conjoint contingencies were operative until, through session-shortening responses and the passage of time, the session was scheduled to end in two minutes; during the final two minutes the session-shortening contingency was disabled while the shock-postponement contingency continued to be operative on both levers. When responding shifted to a predominance on the session-shortening lever, the conjoint contingency was shifted to the other lever; for four of the five rats this reversal was followed by two additional reversals. Two of the rats' responding showed clear, strong, and unambiguous sensitivity to the session-shortening contingency. The responding of two others was also systematically controlled by that contingency, but the effects were less clearcut. The fifth animal showed an initial shift when session-shortening was introduced, but its subsequent behavior proved insensitive to reversals of procedure. The results clearly indicate a sensitivity of behavior to events on a time scale quite distinct from that of immediate consequences. They also support an interpretation of avoidance sessions, considered in their entirety, as events whose contingent relationship to behavior can affect that behavior—even in the absence of stimuli that delineate those relationships. Finally, these results support an interpretation of aversively based conditioning within a broader context, analogous to the “open versus closed economy” interpretation of appetitively controlled behavior.     

Timeout from concurrent schedules.

Response-contingent timeouts of equal duration and frequency were added to both alternatives of unequal concurrent schedules of reinforcement. For each of 4 pigeons in Experiment 1, relative response rates generally became less extreme as the frequency of timeout increased. In Experiment 2, relative response rates consistently approached indifference as the duration of timeout was increased. Variation in time allocation was less consistent in both experiments. Absolute response rates did not vary with the timeout contingency in either experiment. In a third experiment, neither measure of choice varied systematically when the duration of a postreinforcement blackout was varied. In contrast to the present results, preference has been shown to vary directly with the parameters of shock delivery in related procedures. The pattern of results in the first two experiments follows that obtained with other manipulations of the overall rate of reinforcement in concurrent schedules. The results of the third experiment suggest that an intertrial interval following reinforcement is not a critical feature of the overall rate of reinforcement.     

Contextual conditioning and reinstatement of extinguished instrumental responding

In three experiments we studied the relationship between contextual conditioning and the reinstatement of extinguished lever pressing that occurs when noncontingent food is introduced following extinction. In all three experiments the non-contingent food was presented off-baseline (with the response levers not present). On subsequent tests, with the response levers present, animals that had been exposed to food showed more reinstatement of lever pressing than control animals. This finding rules out alternative mechanisms for the reinstated responding that rely on the interaction of non-contingent food and responding, such as superstitious reinforcement or the discriminative after-effects of food. In addition, in each experiment we demonstrated that manipulations known to affect contextual conditioning (signalling the food in Experiment 1, context extinction in Experiment 2, and switching contexts in Experiment 3) reduced the reinstatement. These results are consistent with the claim that contextual conditioning is important in controlling instrumental conditioning and closely parallel findings concerning the reinstatement of Pavlovian responsing following extinction.     

Economic substitutability of electrical brain stimulation, food, and water.

Concurrent variable-ratio schedules of electrical brain stimulation, food, and water were paired in various combinations as reinforcement of rats' lever presses. Relative prices of the concurrent reinforcers were varied by changing the ratio of the response requirements on the two levers. Economic substitutability, measured by the sensitivity of response ratio to changes in relative price, was highest with brain stimulation reinforcement of presses on both levers and lowest with food reinforcement of presses on one lever and water reinforcement of presses on the other. Substitutability with brain stimulation reinforcement of presses on one lever and either food or water reinforcement for presses on the other was about as high as with brain stimulation for presses on both levers. Electrical brain stimulation for rats may thus serve as an economic substitute for two reinforcers, neither of which is substitutable for the other.     

Alcohol seeking by rats: Action or habit?

In two experiments, we examined the relative susceptibility to outcome devaluation of lever pressing by rats for either a 10% ethanol solution or food pellets. The rats were trained to press different levers for these two reinforcers using a sucrose-substitution procedure. An aversion was then conditioned from either the ethanol solution or the food pellets by pairing consumption with illness induced by lithium chloride. When instrumental performance was subsequently tested in extinction, the rats pressed less on the pellet lever if the pellets, rather than the ethanol, had been devalued by aversion conditioning. By contrast, performance on the ethanol lever was unaffected by whether the ethanol or pellets were devalued. Moreover, noncontingent presentations of the devalued reinforcer had no impact on test performance. The differential resistance to outcome devaluation suggests that, in contrast to food seeking, alcohol seeking is a stimulus-response habit rather than a goal-directed action mediated by a representation of the action-outcome contingency.     

Reinforcement of mediating behavior on a spaced-responding schedule

This paper describes a procedure for gaining experimental control over mediating behavior on a spaced-responding schedule of food reinforcement. Three rats, food-deprived, were trained on a DRL 16 sec schedule of food reinforcement. Then, a concurrent schedule of food reinforcement was introduced on a second (mediating) lever, such that the first response to occur on the mediating lever, after the DRL interval had timed out, was reinforced with food, as was the next response to occur on the DRL lever. Reinforcement via the mediating lever became a discriminative stimulus for a food-reinforcement opportunity on the DRL lever. Next, food reinforcement for the mediating behavior was replaced by a conditioned reinforcer consisting of onset of a buzzer signaling timing-out of the DRL interval. Under these conditions, chaining of behavior on the two levers was strong, and timing on the DRL lever was more accurate than under ordinary DRL conditions. As the DRL requirement was lengthened from 16 sec to 24 sec to 60 sec, mediating behavior weakened slightly. When the inter-response requirement for food reinforcement on the DRL lever was made shorter than the inter-response requirement for conditioned reinforcement on the mediating lever, the mediating behavior extinguished. Performance in the experiment was analyzed into a four-component chain, and the factors contributing to the maintenance, and later extinction, of mediating behavior are discussed.