Successive independence of multiple-schedule component performances

In three experiments, pigeons' responses were reinforced on two keys in each component of a series of multiple-schedule conditions. In each series, concurrent variable-interval schedules were constant in one component and were varied over conditions in the other component. In the first experiment both components arranged the same, constant total number of reinforcers, in the second the two components arranged constant but different totals, and in the third experiment the total was varied in one component and remained constant in the other. Relative reinforcer rate during the varied component was manipulated over conditions in all three experiments. In all these experiments, response and time allocation in the constant component were invariant when reinforcer ratios varied in the other component, demonstrating independence of behavior allocation in a multiple-schedule component from the relative reinforcer rate for the same alternatives in another component. In the two experiments which maintained constant reinforcer totals in components, sensitivity to reinforcement in the multiple schedules was the same as that in the concurrent schedules arranged during the varied component, with multiple-schedule bias in the experiment in which the totals were unequal.     

Concurrent schedules: Interaction of reinforcer frequency and reinforcer duration

Six pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules with unequal reinforcer durations for the two responses. The schedules arranged on the two keys were kept equal while they were varied in absolute size. As the overall reinforcer rate was increased, both response-allocation and time-allocation measures of choice showed a trend toward indifference, and measures of sensitivity to reinforcer-duration ratios significantly decreased. Recent reports have shown that the generalized matching law cannot describe the changes in behavior allocation under constant delay-, duration-, or rate-ratios when changes are made in the absolute levels of each of these variables. The present results complement these findings by demonstrating that the concatenated generalized matching law cannot describe the interactions of two reinforcer variables on behavior allocation.     

Sensitivity to relative reinforcer rate in concurrent schedules: independence from relative and absolute reinforcer duration

Twelve pigeons responded on two keys under concurrent variable-interval (VI) schedules. Over several series of conditions, relative and absolute magnitudes of reinforcement were varied. Within each series, relative rate of reinforcement was varied and sensitivity of behavior ratios to reinforcer-rate ratios was assessed. When responding at both alternatives was maintained by equal-sized small reinforcers, sensitivity to variation in reinforcer-rate ratios was the same as when large reinforcers were used. This result was observed when the overall rate of reinforcement was constant over conditions, and also in another series of concurrent schedules in which one schedule was kept constant at VI ached 120 s. Similarly, reinforcer magnitude did not affect the rate at which response allocation approached asymptote within a condition. When reinforcer magnitudes differred between the two responses and reinforcer-rate ratios were varied, sensitivity of behavior allocation was unaffected although response bias favored the schedule that arranged the larger reinforcers. Analysis of absolute response rates ratio sensitivity to reinforcement occurrred on the two keys showed that this invariance of response despite changes in reinforcement interaction that were observed in absolute response rates on the constant VI 120-s schedule. Response rate on the constant VI 120-s schedule was inversely related to reinforcer rate on the varied key and the strength of this relation depended on the relative magnitude of reinforcers arranged on varied key. Independence of sensitivity to reinforcer-rate ratios from relative and absolute reinforcer magnitude is consistent with the relativity and independence assumtions of the matching law.     

Resistance To Change As A Function Of Stimulus-reinforcer And Location-reinforcer Contingencies

Pigeons responded on two keys in each component of a multiple concurrent schedule. In one series of conditions the distribution of reinforcers between keys within one component was varied so as to produce changes in ratios of reinforcer totals for key locations when summed across components. In a second series, reinforcer allocation between components was varied so as to produce changes in ratios of reinforcer totals for components, summed across key locations. In each condition, resistance to change was assessed by presenting response-independent reinforcers during intercomponent blackouts and (for the first series) by extinction of responding on both keys in both components. Resistance to change for response totals within a component was always greater for the component with the larger total reinforcer rate. However, resistance to change for response totals at a key location was not a positive function of total reinforcement for pecking that key; indeed, relative resistance to extinction for the two locations showed a weak negative relation to ratios of reinforcer totals for key location. These results confirm the determination of resistance to change by stimulus—reinforcer contingencies.     

Performance in continuously available multiple schedules

Three pigeons were given continuous access in their home cages to food reinforcement on two-component multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedules. The reinforcer rates in the two components were varied over seven experimental conditions, and a partial replication over five conditions was arranged one year later. When component reinforcer rates were unequal, ratios of component response rates were more extreme than ratios of obtained component reinforcer rates, a result which in a generalized-matching analysis is termed overmatching. This finding contrasts sharply with results obtained when multiple schedules are arranged in shorter sessions, in which performance is characterized by undermatching when subjects are deprived of food, and by matching, or equality between component response- and reinforcer-rate ratios, when deprivation is minimal. More molecular data obtained in two subsequent conditions suggested that this finding did not reflect local fluctuations or asymmetries in deprivation. Theories of multiple-schedule performance that predict that matching cannot be exceeded are disconfirmed by the present results.     

Response strength in extreme multiple schedules

Four pigeons were trained in a series of two-component multiple schedules. Reinforcers were scheduled with random-interval schedules. The ratio of arranged reinforcer rates in the two components was varied over 4 log units, a much wider range than previously studied. When performance appeared stable, prefeeding tests were conducted to assess resistance to change. Contrary to the generalized matching law, logarithms of response ratios in the two components were not a linear function of log reinforcer ratios, implying a failure of parameter invariance. Over a 2 log unit range, the function appeared linear and indicated undermatching, but in conditions with more extreme reinforcer ratios, approximate matching was observed. A model suggested by McLean (1991), originally for local contrast, predicts these changes in sensitivity to reinforcer ratios somewhat better than models by Herrnstein (1970) and by Williams and Wixted (1986). Prefeeding tests of resistance to change were conducted at each reinforcer ratio, and relative resistance to change was also a nonlinear function of log reinforcer ratios, again contrary to conclusions from previous work. Instead, the function suggests that resistance to change in a component may be determined partly by the rate of reinforcement and partly by the ratio of reinforcers to responses.     

Successive independence and behavioral contrast in a closed economy.

Two pigeons had access to multiple concurrent schedules of reinforcement for 24 hours per day in their home cages. The variable-interval schedules comprising the multiple concurrent schedules were varied across 16 conditions. In three sets of conditions, one schedule was varied while its concurrent alternative and the concurrent schedules in the other component were held constant. Behavioral contrast was observed; that is, as the rate of reinforcement arranged by the varied schedule decreased, response rates on the constant schedules typically increased. These conditions formed part of two larger sets of conditions in which the concurrent schedules in one multiple-schedule component remained constant while the concurrent schedules in the other component were varied. Successive independence was found, in that behavior allocation during the constant component did not vary as a function of the reinforcer ratios in the varied component. Successive independence between components in multiple concurrent schedules is a robust result that occurs in closed economies and under conditions that promote behavioral contrast.     

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.     

Contrast and reallocation of extraneous reinforcers as a function of component duration and baseline rate of reinforcement

Four pigeons responded on multiple schedules arranged on a “main” key in a two-key experimental chamber. A constant schedule component was alternated with another component that was varied over conditions. On an extra response key, conjoint schedules of reinforcement that operated in both components were arranged concurrently with the multiple schedule on the main key. On the main key, changes in reinforcement rate in the varied component were inversely related to changes in response rates in the constant component (behavioral contrast). On the extra key, some reinforcers were reallocated between components, depending on the schedules in effect on the main key in the varied component. In the varied component, the obtained rates of reinforcement on the extra key were inversely related to main-key reinforcement rate. In the constant component, extra-key reinforcer rates were positively related to main-key reinforcer rates obtained in the varied component, and were not a function of response rates on the extra key. In two comparisons, the rate at which components alternated and the value of the main-key schedule in the constant component were varied. Consistent with earlier work, long components reduced the extent of contrast. Reductions in contrast as a function of component duration were accompanied by similar reductions in the extent of reinforcer reallocation on the extra key. In the second comparison, lowering the rate of reinforcement in the constant component increased the rate at which extra-key reinforcers were obtained, reduced the extent of reinforcer reallocation, and reduced contrast. Overall, the results are consistent with the suggestion that some contrast effects are due to the changes in extraneous reinforcement during the constant component, and that manipulations of component duration, and manipulations of the rate of reinforcement in the constant component, affect contrast because they influence the extent of extraneous reinforcer real-location.     

Temporal constraint on choice: Sensitivity and bias in multiple schedules

In multiple schedules of reinforcement, ratios of responses in successive components are relatively insensitive to ratios of obtained reinforcers. An analysis is proposed that attributes changes in absolute response rates to concurrent interactions between programmed reinforcement and extraneous reinforcement in other components. The analysis predicts that ratios of responses in successive components vary with reinforcer ratios, qualified by a term describing the reinforcement context, that is, programmed and extraneous reinforcers. Two main predictions from the analysis were confirmed in an experiment in which pigeons' responses were reinforced in the components of a multiple schedule and analog extraneous reinforcement was scheduled for an alternative response in each component. Sensitivity of response and time ratios to reinforcer ratios in the multiple schedules varied as a function of the rate of extraneous reinforcers. Bias towards responding in one component of the multiple schedule varied as an inverse function of the ratios of extraneous reinforcer rate in the two components. The data from this and previous studies of multiple-concurrent performance were accurately predicted by our analysis and supported our contention that the allocation of behavior in multiple-schedule components depends on the relative values of concurrently-available reinforcers within each component.     

Contrast and undermatching with regular or irregular alternation of components

Behavioral contrast and response-ratio sensitivity to reinforcement were compared in multiple schedules in which components alternated strictly or according to a pseudorandom sequence. Average component durations in the two regimes were always 60 s, and order of presentation of component alternation regimes was counterbalanced across subjects. In Part 1, the reinforcer rate in one component was reduced from 60 per hour to zero, while that in the other component was unchanged. Positive behavioral contrast occurred in the constant component in that response rates increased, but neither the reliability nor the magnitude of contrast was affected by the manner in which components alternated. Part 2 was similar, except that a number of different reinforcer rates were used in the varied component. Neither contrast nor sensitivity of response ratios to changes in reinforcer ratios depended on the regime of component alternation. Thus, the predictability in time of future reinforcement conditions, which is a feature of regular multiple scheduling, does not appear to be a determinant of multiple-schedule performance.     

Contrast and reallocation of extraneous reinforcers between multiple-schedule components

Four pigeons responded in components of multiple schedules in which two responses were available and reinforced with food. Pecks on the left key (“main” key) were reinforced at a constant rate in one component and at a rate that varied over conditions in the other component. When reinforcer rate was varied, behavioral contrast occurred in the constant component. On the right key (“extra” key), five variable-interval schedules and one variable-ratio schedule, presented conjointly, arranged reinforcers for responses in all conditions. These conjoint schedules were common to both multiple-schedule components—rather than unique to particular components—and reinforcers from these schedules could therefore be arranged in one component and obtained during the other component. In this way, the additional reinforcers were analogous to the “extraneous” reinforcers thought to maintain behavior other than pecking in conventional multiple schedules. Response rate on the extra key did not change systematically over conditions in the constant component, and in the varied component extra responding was inversely related to main-key reinforcement. All subjects obtained more extra-key reinforcers in whichever component arranged fewer main-key reinforcers. Consistent with the theory that reallocation of extraneous reinforcers may cause behavioral contrast, absolute reinforcer rate for the extra key in the constant component was low in conditions that produced positive contrast on the main key and high in those that produced negative contrast. Also consistent with this theory, behavioral contrast was reduced in two conditions that canceled extra-key reinforcers that had been arranged but not obtained at the end of components. Thus, a constraint on reallocation markedly reduced the extent of contrast.     

Choice between response units: The rate constancy model

In a conjoint schedule, reinforcement is available simultaneously on two or more schedules for the same response. The present experiments provided food for key pecking on both a random-interval and a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule. Experiment 1 involved ordinary DRL schedules; Experiment 2 added an external stimulus to indicate when the required interresponse time had elapsed. In both experiments, the potential reinforcer frequency from each component was varied by means of a second-order fixed-ratio schedule, and the DRL time parameter was changed as well. Response rates were described by a model stating that time allocation to each component matches the relative frequency of reinforcement for that component. When spending time in a given component, the subject is assumed to respond at the rate characteristic of baseline performance. This model appeared preferable to the absolute-rate version of the matching law. The model was shown to be applicable to multiple-response concurrent schedules as well as to conjoint schedules, and it described some of the necessary conditions for response matching, undermatching, and bias. In addition, the pigeons did not optimize reinforcer frequency.     

Concurrent schedules: reinforcer magnitude effects

Five pigeons were trained on pairs of concurrent variable-interval schedules in a switching-key procedure. The arranged overall rate of reinforcement was constant in all conditions, and the reinforcer-magnitude ratios obtained from the two alternatives were varied over five levels. Each condition remained in effect for 65 sessions and the last 50 sessions of data from each condition were analyzed. At a molar level of analysis, preference was described well by a version of the generalized matching law, consistent with previous reports. More local analyses showed that recently obtained reinforcers had small measurable effects on current preference, with the most recently obtained reinforcer having a substantially larger effect. Larger reinforcers resulted in larger and longer preference pulses, and a small preference was maintained for the larger-magnitude alternative even after long inter-reinforcer intervals. These results are consistent with the notion that the variables controlling choice have both short- and long-term effects. Moreover, they suggest that control by reinforcer magnitude is exerted in a manner similar to control by reinforcer frequency. Lower sensitivities when reinforcer magnitude is varied are likely to be due to equal frequencies of different sized preference pulses, whereas higher sensitivities when reinforcer rates are varied might result from changes in the frequencies of different sized preference pulses.     

Component probability and component reinforcer rate as biasers of free-operant detection

Six pigeons were trained on multiple schedules whose components were concurrent variable-interval extinction and concurrent extinction variable-interval schedules. In Experiments 1a and 1b the stimuli signaling the components were two different light intensities, and in Experiments 2a and 2b they were two identical intensities. The components of the multiple schedule changed probabilistically after each reinforcer. In Experiments 1a and 2a, the probability of presenting the components was varied over five conditions and a replication. In Experiments 1b and 2b, the component probability was .5 and the component reinforcer rates were varied systematically over five conditions and a replication. The data, analyzed according to the Davison-Tustin behavioral detection model, confirmed that the discriminability of the stimuli signaling the components was high when the stimuli were different, and low when the stimuli were the same. Discriminability, measured by log d, was unaffected by component probability variation and by component reinforcer-rate variation. When discriminability was high, bias, or the response allocation between the two keys, was more strongly affected by variation of reinforcer rate within components than by variation of component probability, but the reverse was found when discriminability was low. The results suggest that free-operant detection performance is controlled by the rates of reinforcers in periods of time in which stimuli signal differential contingencies. These periods comprise the components when the component stimuli are discriminable, and comprise the total session when the components are indiscriminable. An extension of the Davison-Tustin behavioral detection model that incorporates these results is presented.     

Concurrent-schedule performance: Effects of relative and overall reinforcer rate

Six pigeons were trained to respond on two keys, each of which provided reinforcers on an arithmetic variable-interval schedule. These concurrent schedules ran nonindependently with a 2-s changeover delay. Six sets of conditions were conducted. Within each set of conditions the ratio of reinforcers available on the two alternatives was varied, but the arranged overall reinforcer rate remained constant. Each set of conditions used a different overall reinforcer rate, ranging from 0.22 reinforcers per minute to 10 reinforcers per minute. The generalized matching law fit the data from each set of conditions, but sensitivity to reinforcer frequency (a) decreased as the overall reinforcer rate decreased for both time allocation and response allocation based analyses of the data. Overall response rates did not vary with changes in relative reinforcer rate, but decreased with decreases in overall reinforcer rate. Changeover rates varied as a function of both relative and overall reinforcer rates. However, as explanations based on changeover rate seem unable to deal with the changes in generalized matching sensitivity, discrimination accounts of choice may offer a more promising interpretation.     

On the effects of food deprivation and component reinforcer rates on multiple-schedule performance

Six pigeons were used to investigate the effects of varying body weight and component reinforcer rates in two-component multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedules. In Parts 1 and 3 of the experiment, unequal component reinforcer rates were arranged, and body weights were respectively increased and decreased. At 80% ad lib weight, response-rate ratios were closer to unity than reinforcer-rate ratios, but at 100% or more of ad lib weight, response-rate ratios generally equaled reinforcer-rate ratios. In Part 2, component reinforcer-rate ratios were varied over five conditions with the subjects maintained at 100% or more of their ad lib weights, and response-rate ratios matched reinforcer-rate ratios. The data thus support the empirical finding that response allocation in multiple schedules is a function of deprivation. Although this qualitative result is predicted by three models of multiple-schedule performance, only a model that assumes no direct component interaction adequately describes the data.     

On the effects of component durations and component reinforcement rates in multiple schedules

Four experiments, each using the same six pigeons, investigated the effects of varying component durations and component reinforcement rates in multiple variable-interval schedules. Experiment 1 used unequal component durations in which one component was five times the duration of the other, and the shorter component was varied over conditions from 120 seconds to 5 seconds. The schedules were varied over five values for each pair of component durations. Sensitivity to reinforcement rate changes was the same at all component durations. In Experiment 2, both component durations were 5 seconds, and the schedules were again varied using both one and two response keys. Sensitivity to reinforcement was not different from the values found in Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, various manipulations, including body-weight changes, reinforcer duration changes, blackouts, hopper lights correlated with keylights, and overall reinforcement rate changes were carried out. No reliable increase in reinforcement sensitivity resulted from any manipulation. Finally, in Experiment 4, reinforcement rates in the two components were kept constant and unequal, and the component durations were varied. Shorter components produced significantly increased response rates normally in the higher reinforcement rate component, but schedule reversals at short component durations eliminated the response rate increases. The effects of component duration on multiple schedule performance cannot be interpreted as changing sensitivity to reinforcement nor to changing bias.     

Effects of response-allocation constraints on multiple-schedule performance

Four pigeons were trained on multiple variable-interval schedules in which components alternated after a fixed number of responses had been emitted. In Part 1, each component change occurred after 20 responses; in Part 2, the number was 40; and in Part 3, the number of responses before change was 10. Component reinforcer rates were varied over five experimental conditions in each of Parts 1 to 3. Component response rates decreased as the specified number of responses per component was increased. However, the relation between component response-rate ratios and component reinforcer-rate ratios was independent of the specified number of responses per component, and was similar to that found when components alternate after fixed time periods. In the fourth part of the experiment, the results from Parts 1 to 3 were systematically replicated by keeping the component reinforcer rates constant, but different, while the number of responses that produced component alternation was varied from 5 to 60 responses. The results showed that multiple-schedule performance under component-response-number constraint is similar to that under conventional component-duration constraint. They further suggest that multiple-schedule response rates are controlled by component reinforcer rates and not by principles of maximizing overall reinforcer rates or meliorating component reinforcer rates.