Preference in concurrent variable-interval fixed-ratio schedules

Five pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval fixed-ratio schedules in three experiments. Experiment 1 used two variable-interval schedules and one fixed-ratio schedule, and the ratio requirement was varied. Using the generalized matching law, sensitivity to reinforcement was close to 1.0, but performance was biased toward the variable-interval schedule with the lower reinforcement rate. In Experiment 2, which used one variable-interval and one fixed-ratio schedule, the interval schedule was varied. All birds showed sensitivities to reinforcement of less than 1.0 and of less than the values obtained in Experiment 1. The performance was also biased toward the fixed-ratio schedule. Because the generalized matching law could not account for the differences in the data from Experiments 1 and 2, an extension of this law was suggested and successfully tested in Experiment 3. The proposed dual-sensitivity model was also shown to clarify some previously reported results.     

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.     

Response rate and changeover performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules

Six pigeons were exposed to variable-interval schedules arranged on one, two, three, and four response keys. The reinforcement rate was also varied across conditions. Numbers of responses, the time spent responding, the number of reinforcements, and the number of changeovers between keys were recorded. Response rates on each key were an increasing function of reinforcement rate on that key and a decreasing function of the reinforcement rate on other keys. Response and time-allocation ratios under-matched ratios of obtained reinforcements. Three sets of equations were developed to express changeover rate as a function of response rate, time allocation, and reinforcement rate respectively. These functions were then applied to a broad range of experiments in the literature in order to test their generality. Further expressions were developed to account for changeover rates reported in experiments where changeover delays were varied.     

Performance on variable-interval schedules arranged singly and concurrently

Extensive parametric data were obtained from pigeons responding on variable-interval schedules arranged on three, two, and one response keys. Number of responses on the keys, the time spent responding on the keys, and the number of reinforcements obtained on the keys were measured. Response rates on each key were an increasing function of the reinforcement rate on that key, and an inverse function of the reinforcement rate on the other keys. In terms of preference, both response and time-allocation ratios undermatched ratios of obtained reinforcements, and the degree of undermatching was consistent both within, and between, two- and three-schedule data. When absolute response-rate data were analyzed according to Herrnstein's (1970) quantitative account, obtained values of assumed constants were not consistent either within or between conditions. However, a power-function modification of Herrnstein's account fitted the data well and provided similar exponent values to those obtained for the undermatching of preference ratios.     

More on concurrent interval-ratio schedules: a replication and review.

It has been suggested that the failure to maximize reinforcement on concurrent variable-interval, variable-ratio schedules may be misleading. Inasmuch as response costs are not directly measured, it is possible that subjects are optimally balancing the benefits of reinforcement against the costs of responding. To evaluate this hypothesis, pigeons were tested in a procedure in which interval and ratio schedules had equal response costs. On a concurrent variable time (VT), variable ratio-time (VRT) schedule, the VT schedule runs throughout the session and the VRT schedule is controlled by responses to a changeover key that switches from one schedule to the other. Reinforcement is presented independent of response. This schedule retains the essential features of concurrent VI VR, but eliminates differential response costs for the two alternatives. It therefore also eliminates at least one significant ambiguity about the reinforcement maximizing performance. Pigeons did not maximize rate of reinforcement on this procedure. Instead, their times spent on the alternative schedules matched the relative rates of reinforcement, even when schedule parameters were such that matching earned the lowest possible overall rate of reinforcement. It was further shown that the observed matching was not a procedural artifact arising from the constraints built into the schedule.     

The effects of different component response requirements in multiple and concurrent schedules

Six pigeons were trained on multiple and concurrent schedules. The reinforcement rates were varied systematically (a) when lever pressing was required in one component and key pecking in the successive component; (b) when lever pressing was required in both multiple components; (c) when key pecking was required in both multiple components; and (d) when key pecking was required on one schedule and lever pressing was required on the concurrently-available schedule. Only the absolute level of responding was changed by different response requirements. Analyzed by the generalized matching law, performance under different response requirements resulted in a bias toward key pecking, and the measured response bias was the same in multiple and concurrent schedule arrangements. The bias in time measures obtained from concurrent schedule performance was reliably smaller than the obtained response biases. The sensitivity to reinforcement-rate changes was ordered: concurrent key-lever; multiple key-key; multiple lever-key; and, the least sensitive, multiple lever-lever. The results confirm that requirements of different topographical responses can be handled by the generalized matching law mainly in the bias parameter, but problems for this type of analysis may be caused by the changing sensitivity to reinforcement in multiple schedule performance as response requirements are changed.     

Choice dynamics in concurrent ratio schedules of reinforcement

The generalized matching law predicts performance on concurrent schedules when variable-interval schedules are programmed but is trivially applicable when independent ratio schedules are used. Responding usually is exclusive to the schedule with the lowest response requirement. Determining a method to program concurrent ratio schedules such that matching analyses can be usefully employed would extend the generality of matching research and lead to new avenues of research. In the present experiments, ratio schedules were programmed dependently such that responses to either of the two options progressed the requirement on both schedules. Responding is not exclusive because the probability of reinforcement increases on both schedules as responses are allocated to either schedule. In Experiment 1, performance on concurrent variable-ratio schedules was assessed, and reinforcer ratios were varied across conditions to investigate changes in sensitivity. Additionally, the length of a changeover delay was manipulated. In Experiment 2, performance was compared under concurrently available, dependently programmed variable-ratio and fixed-ratio schedules. Performance was well described by the generalized matching law. Increases in the changeover delay decreased sensitivity, whereas sensitivity was higher when variable-ratio schedules were employed, compared with fixed-ratio schedules. Concurrent ratio schedules can be a viable approach to studying functional differences between ratio and interval schedules.     

Concurrent schedules: Effects of time- and response-allocation constraints

Five pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules arranged on two keys. In Part 1 of the experiment, the subjects responded under no constraints, and the ratios of reinforcers obtainable were varied over five levels. In Part 2, the conditions of the experiment were changed such that the time spent responding on the left key before a subsequent changeover to the right key determined the minimum time that must be spent responding on the right key before a changeover to the left key could occur. When the left key provided a higher reinforcer rate than the right key, this procedure ensured that the time allocated to the two keys was approximately equal. The data showed that such a time-allocation constraint only marginally constrained response allocation. In Part 3, the numbers of responses emitted on the left key before a changeover to the right key determined the minimum number of responses that had to be emitted on the right key before a changeover to the left key could occur. This response constraint completely constrained time allocation. These data are consistent with the view that response allocation is a fundamental process (and time allocation a derivative process), or that response and time allocation are independently controlled, in concurrent-schedule performance.     

Momentary maximizing in concurrent schedules with a minimum interchangeover interval

Eight pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules with a minimum interchangeover time programmed as a consequence of changeovers. In Experiment 1 the reinforcement schedules remained constant while the minimum interchangeover time varied from 0 to 200 s. Relative response rates and relative time deviated from relative reinforcement rates toward indifference with long minimum interchangeover times. In Experiment 2 different reinforcement ratios were scheduled in successive experimental conditions with the minimum interchangeover time constant at 0, 2, 10, or 120 s. The exponent of the generalized matching equation was close to 1.0 when the minimum interchangeover time was 0 s (the typical procedure for concurrent schedules without a changeover delay) and decreased as that duration was increased. The data support the momentary maximizing theory and contradict molar maximizing theories and the melioration theory.     

On the measurement of time allocation on multiple variable-interval schedules

Six pigeons were trained on a modified multiple-schedule procedure. In a three-key chamber, the center key was lighted red or green, depending upon which component schedule was in effect. A response on this key transferred this color to each of two side keys, and responses on one of those keys produced reinforcers according to the component schedule. After 2 s, the side-key lights were extinguished, the center key was reilluminated, and a further center-key response was required to give access, as before, to the component schedules. Components alternated every 3 min. This limited-access procedure allowed both times spent switched into the side keys and time spent not switched in to be measured in the two components. Component reinforcer rates were varied over eight experimental conditions. Both component response rate and component time allocation were increasing functions of relative component reinforcer rate, and these functions were not significantly different. This finding implies that local response rates (responses divided by time switched in) were unaffected by changing component reinforcer rates on multiple schedules. Because a similar result was recently obtained for concurrent schedules, models of multiple and concurrent-schedule performance may need to consider only the time allocation of behavior emitted at equal tempo in the component schedules.     

Undermatching: a reappraisal of performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

The extant data for pigeons' performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules were examined in detail. Least-squares lines relating relative pecks and time to the corresponding relative reinforcements were obtained for four studies. The between-study group slopes for time and pecks and five of seven within-study group slopes from individual studies were less than 1.00. This suggested the generality that pigeons respond less to the richer reinforcement schedule than predicted by matching. For pecks, a nonparametric test for distribution of points also supported this concept of undermatching (to the richer reinforcement schedule). In addition, using mean squared error as the criterion, a cubic curve fit the peck proportion data better than any line or other polynomial. This indicates that the relation between peck and reinforcement proportions may be nonlinear.     

Time allocation in concurrent schedules: the effect of signalled reinforcement

The responses of five pigeons were reinforced on concurrent variable-interval variable-interval reinforcement schedules in which changeover key responses changed the stimulus and reinforcement schedules associated with the food key. While the reinforcement availability in one component remained unchanged throughout the experiment, the reinforcement availability in the other component was, during several conditions, signalled by the onset of an additional discriminative stimulus. During unsignalled conditions, both the relative frequency of responding and the relative time spent in each component approximated the obtained relative reinforcement frequency in each component. The effect of signalling reinforcer availability in one component was to (1) reduce responding in the signalled component to near-zero levels, and (2) increase the relative time in the unsignalled component, without a corresponding increase in the obtained relative reinforcement frequency. The magnitude of the increase in relative time in the unsignalled component decreased as the overall frequency of reinforcement increased. This deviation in the matching relation between relative time and the obtained relative reinforcement frequency was eliminated if the overall reinforcement frequency was increased before the signal was introduced and then, without removing the signal, gradually reduced.     

Multiple and concurrent schedule performance: independence from concurrent and successive schedule contexts

Six pigeons were trained on multiple variable-interval schedules and performance was measured in the presence or absence of another variable-interval schedule (the common schedule) arranged concurrently with both components. Manipulations included varying the rate of reinforcement on the common schedule, leaving the common schedule unchanged while the components of the multiple schedule were varied, varying the multiple schedule components in the absence of the common schedule, and varying one component of the multiple schedule while the other component and the common schedule were unchanged. The normal rate-increasing and rate-decreasing effects of reinforcement rate increase were found, except that changing one multiple schedule component did not affect the response rate in the successively available common schedule component. Both concurrent and multiple schedule performance undermatched obtained reinforcement-rate ratios, but the degree of undermatching in multiple schedules was reliably greater. Allocation of responses between multiple schedule components was unaffected by the concurrent availability of reinforcement, and allocation of responses between concurrent schedules was unaffected by the successive availability of different reinforcement rates.     

Residence time and choice in concurrent foraging schedules

Five pigeons were trained on a concurrent-schedule analogue of the “some patches are empty” procedure. Two concurrently available alternatives were arranged on a single response key and were signaled by red and green keylights. A subject could travel between these alternatives by responding on a second yellow “switching” key. Following a changeover to a patch, there was a probability (p) that a single reinforcer would be available on that alternative for a response after a time determined by the value of λ, a probability of reinforcement per second. The overall scheduling of reinforcers on the two alternatives was arranged nonindependently, and the available alternative was switched after each reinforcer. In Part 1 of the experiment, the probabilities of reinforcement, ρ_red and ρ_green, were equal on the two alternatives, and the arranged arrival rates of reinforcers, λ_red and λ_green, were varied across conditions. In Part 2, the reinforcer arrival times were arranged to be equal, and the reinforcer probabilities were varied across conditions. In Part 3, both parameters were varied. The results replicated those seen in studies that have investigated time allocation in a single patch: Both response and time allocation to an alternative increased with decreasing values of λ and with increasing values of ρ, and residence times were consistently greater than those that would maximize obtained reinforcer rates. Furthermore, both response- and time-allocation ratios undermatched mean reinforcer-arrival time and reinforcer-frequency ratios.     

Matching with a trio of concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

A trio of concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement was arranged according to a changeover-key procedure, including a changeover delay of 1.5 sec. The three schedules provided a combined maximum reinforcement rate of 45 reinforcements per hour. With that restriction, the nine experimental conditions included several combinations of variable-interval schedules, sometimes including extinction. The pigeons matched relative response rate and relative time to relative reinforcement rate. Relative time appeared to match some-what better than relative response rate. Performance adjusted rapidly from one experimental condition to the next, whether the change involved two or all three schedules of the concurrent trio.     

A model for residence time in concurrent variable interval performance

A component-functions model of choice behavior is proposed for performance on interdependent concurrent variable-interval (VI) variable-interval schedules based on the product of two component functions, one that enhances behavior and one that reduces behavior. The model is the solution to the symmetrical pair of differential equations describing behavioral changes with respect to two categories of reinforcers: enhancing and reducing, or excitatory and inhibitory. The model describes residence time in interdependent concurrent VI VI schedules constructed from arithmetic and exponential distributions. The model describes the data reported by Alsop and Elliffe (1988) and Elliffe and Alsop (1996) with a variance accounted for of 87% compared to 64% accounted for by the Davison and Hunter (1976) model and 42% by Herrnstein's (1970) hyperbola. The model can explain matching, undermatching, and overmatching in the same subject under different procedures and has the potential to be extended to performance on concurrent schedules with more than two alternatives, multiple schedules, and single schedules. Thus, it can be considered as an alternative to Herrnstein's quantitative law of effect.     

Preference for fixed-interval schedules: effects of unequal initial links

Six homing pigeons were trained on concurrent chain schedules in which the terminal links were fixed-interval schedules of 5 sec or 15 sec. One initial-link schedule was always VI 27-sec; the other was varied over conditions from VI 27-sec to VI 181-sec. Preference measured in the initial links varied as a joint function of the initial- and terminal-link schedules. When the initial links were varied with constant, but unequal, terminal links, the slope of the function relating the logarithm of the initial-link response ratio to the logarithm of the terminal-link entry ratio differed from that obtained with equal terminal links. This result indicates that biases attributable to the terminal-link schedules were not constant. The rate of change of preference, or degree of undermatching, in the initial links depended on whether the shorter initial link led to the shorter or the longer terminal link. These results raise the question of whether bias and undermatching in concurrent schedule performance are independent measures.     

Concurrent schedules: undermatching and control by previous experimental conditions.

Five pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules. A series of conditions in which the ratio of reinforcement rates on two keys was progressively increased and then decreased was arranged twice. The birds were then exposed to an irregular sequence of conditions. Each condition in which reinforcement was available on both keys lasted six sessions. Performance in the first, third, and sixth sessions after a condition change was analyzed. Following a condition change, preference was biased toward the preference in the last condition, but this effect largely disappeared before the sixth session of training. The birds' preferences also appeared less sensitive to reinforcement rates in early sessions after a transition. Preference in a session was a function of both the reinforcements in that session and the reinforcements obtained in as many as four or five previous sessions. The effects of reinforcements in previous sessions could be summarized by the performance in the immediately preceding session, giving a relatively simple relation between present performance and a combination of present reinforcement and prior session performance. While such hysteresis could cause undermatching when only a small number of sessions are arranged in a condition, undermatching in a stable-state performance probably arises elsewhere.     

Drug discrimination under concurrent variable-ratio variable-ratio schedules

Pigeons were trained to discriminate 5 mg/kg pentobarbital from saline under concurrent variable-ratio (VR) VR schedules, in which responses on the pentobarbital-biased lever were reinforced under the VR schedule with the smaller response requirements when pentobarbital was given before the session, and responses on the saline-biased key were reinforced under the VR schedule with the larger response requirements. When saline was administered before the session, the reinforcement contingencies associated with the two response keys were reversed. When responding stabilized under concurrent VR 20 VR 30, concurrent VR 10 VR 40, or concurrent VR 5 VR 50 schedules, pigeons responded almost exclusively on the key on which fewer responses were required to produce the reinforcer. When other doses of pentobarbital and other drugs were substituted for the training dose, low doses of all drugs produced responding on the saline-biased key. Higher doses of pentobarbital and chlordiazepoxide produced responding only on the pentobarbital-biased key, whereas higher doses of ethanol and phencyclidine produced responding only on this key less often. d-Amphetamine produced responding primarily on the saline-biased key. When drugs generalized to pentobarbital, the shape of the generalization curve under concurrent VR VR schedules was more often graded than quantal in shape. Thus, drug discrimination can be established under concurrent VR VR schedules, but the shapes of drug-discrimination dose-response curves under concurrent VR VR schedules more closely resemble those seen under interval schedules than those seen under fixed-ratio schedules. Graded dose-response curves under concurrent VR VR schedules may relate to probability matching and difficulty in discriminating differences in reinforcement frequency.