Matching, maximizing, and the behavioral unit: concurrent reinforcement of response sequences.

Pigeons pecked two keys in a probability matching situation in which four two-peck sequences were intermittently reinforced: left-left, left-right, right-left and right-right. In Phase 1, relative reinforcement rate was varied with respect to the first response of a sequence: reinforcers were differentially assigned for left-left and left-right sequences as opposed to right-left and right-right sequences. The second response of reinforced sequences occurred equally on the left and right keys across conditions. In Phase II, relative reinforcement rate was varied for sequences that involve an alternation as opposed to those that did not. The relative outputs of the different sequences matched the relative reinforcement rates for the different sequences in both phases. Relative response rates for key pecks did not always match relative reinforcement rates. The intertrial interval separating responses was varied in both phases; increases in the intertrial interval affected the relative frequency of different sequences. The results demonstrate that response sequences acted as functional units influencing choice and thus support a structural account of choice. At the same time, the matching of relative sequence proportion and relative reinforcement rate supports a matching account.     

Choice with a fixed requirement for food, and the generality of the matching relation

Pigeons were trained on choice procedures in which responses on each of two keys were reinforced probabilistically, but only after a schedule requirement had been met. Under one arrangement, a fixed-interval choice procedure was used in which responses were not reinforced until the interval was over; then a response on one key would be reinforced, with the effective key changing irregularly from interval to interval. Under a second, fixed-ratio choice procedure, responses on either key counted towards completion of the ratio and then, once the ratio had been completed, a response on the probabilistically selected key would produce food. In one experiment, the schedule requirements were varied for both fixed-interval and fixed-ratio schedules. In the second experiment, relative reinforcement rate was varied. And in a third experiment, the duration of an intertrial interval separating choices was varied. The results for 11 pigeons across all three experiments indicate that there were often large deviations between relative response rates and relative reinforcement rates. Overall performance measures were characterized by a great deal of variability across conditions. More detailed measures of choice across the schedule requirement were also quite variable across conditions. In spite of this variability, performance was consistent across conditions in its efficiency of producing food. The absence of matching of behavior allocation to reinforcement rate indicates an important difference between the present procedures and other choice procedures; that difference raises questions about the specific conditions that lead to matching as an outcome.     

Conditioned reinforcement and discrimination performance

Pigeons were trained in a three-key chamber to peck one side key in the presence of a vertical line on the center key and to peck the other side key in the presence of a horizontal line. Correct choice responses were reinforced with food according to fixed- and variable-ratio, fixed-interval, and differential-reinforcement-of-long-latency schedules of reinforcement. For each schedule, the birds performed under each of two conditions: (1) each correct choice response produced a brief presentation of stimuli intermittently paired with food, then the next trial; (2) each correct choice response produced an intertrial interval only. For all schedules except one long latency schedule, response rates were higher under the condition of brief stimulus presentation than under the comparable control condition. Presentation of brief magazine stimuli increased choice accuracy. The amount of change in accuracy was correlated with the rate of food presentation. Performance under the schedules with highest food reinforcement rates showed no enhancement; performance under the schedules with the lowest reinforcement rates showed the greatest enhancement.     

Responding of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of signaled-delayed reinforcement: effects of delay-signal duration.

Two experiments with pigeons examined the relation of the duration of a signal for delay ("delay signal") to rates of key pecking. The first employed a multiple schedule comprised of two components with equal variable-interval 60-s schedules of 27-s delayed food reinforcement. In one component, a short (0.5-s) delay signal, presented immediately following the key peck that began the delay, was increased in duration across phases; in the second component the delay signal initially was equal to the length of the programmed delay (27 s) and was decreased across phases. Response rates prior to delays were an increasing function of delay-signal duration. As the delay signal was decreased in duration, response rates were generally higher than those obtained under identical delay-signal durations as the signal was increased in duration. In Experiment 2 a single variable-interval 60-s schedule of 27-s delayed reinforcement was used. Delay-signal durations were again increased gradually across phases. As in Experiment 1, response rates increased as the delay-signal duration was increased. Following the phase during which the signal lasted the entire delay, shorter delay-signal-duration conditions were introduced abruptly, rather than gradually as in Experiment 1, to determine whether the gradual shortening of the delay signal accounted for the differences observed in response rates under identical delay-signal conditions in Experiment 1. Response rates obtained during the second exposures to the conditions with shorter signals were higher than those observed under identical conditions as the signal duration was increased, as in Experiment 1. In both experiments, rates and patterns of responding during delays varied greatly across subjects and were not systematically related to delay-signal durations. The effects of the delay signal may be related to the signal's role as a discriminative stimulus for adventitiously reinforced intradelay behavior, or the delay signal may have served as a conditioned reinforcer by virtue of the temporal relation between it and presentation of food.     

Local patterns of responding maintained by concurrent and multiple schedules

Local patterns of responding were studied when pigeons pecked for food in concurrent variable-interval schedules (Experiment I) and in multiple variable-interval schedules (Experiment II). In Experiment I, similarities in the distribution of interresponse times on the two keys provided further evidence that responding on concurrent schedules is determined more by allocation of time than by changes in local pattern of responding. Relative responding in local intervals since a preceding reinforcement showed consistent deviations from matching between relative responding and relative reinforcement in various postreinforcement intervals. Response rates in local intervals since a preceding changeover showed that rate of responding is not the same on both keys in all postchangeover intervals. The relative amount of time consumed by interchangeover times of a given duration approximately matched relative frequency of reinforced interchangeover times of that duration. However, computer simulation showed that this matching was probably a necessary artifact of concurrent schedules. In Experiment II, when component durations were 180 sec, the relationship between distribution of interresponse times and rate of reinforcement in the component showed that responding was determined by local pattern of responding in the components. Since responding on concurrent schedules appears to be determined by time allocation, this result would establish a behavioral difference between multiple and concurrent schedules. However, when component durations were 5 sec, local pattern of responding in a component (defined by interresponse times) was less important in determining responding than was amount of time spent responding in a component (defined by latencies). In fact, with 5-sec component durations, the relative amount of time spent responding in a component approximately matched relative frequency of reinforcement in the component. Thus, as component durations in multiple schedules decrease, multiple schedules become more like concurrent schedules, in the sense that responding is affected by allocation of time rather than by local pattern of responding.     

Performance in multiple fixed-interval schedules

The performances of five pigeons were studied under a variety of multiple fixed-interval schedules in which both component duration and reinforcement rate were varied. The three series of experimental conditions were: (a) when the ratio of component durations equalled the reciprocal of the ratio of component reinforcement rates; (b) when the component durations were equal; and (c) when the ratio of component durations equalled the ratio of component reinforcement rates. Relative response rates were related to relative reinforcement rates in the same manner as in multiple variable-interval schedules, but no effect of component duration was found.     

Short-component multiple schedules: effects of relative reinforcement duration

Pigeons were exposed to multiple variable-interval 2-min variable-interval 2-min schedules of food presentation in which relative duration of food presentation was manipulated. When components alternated every 5 sec and were scheduled on separate response keys, relative response rates closely matched relative reinforcement duration in three of four pigeons. On the other hand, relative response rates were insensitive to relative reinforcement duration when components scheduled on a single response key alternated every 5 sec, and when components scheduled on separate response keys alternated every 2 min. Thus, both rapid alternation and spatial separation of components were necessary to produce approximate matching of relative responding to relative reinforcement duration. This finding contrasts with previous findings that only rapid component alternation is necessary for matching when relative rate of reinforcement is manipulated.     

THE DISCRIMINATION OF STIMULUS DURATION BY PIGEONS1

Pigeons were trained to discriminate the duration of a stimulus. One response in a psychophysical choice situation was reinforced, given the immediately prior presentation of a stimulus duration in one class of durations called short durations, and the other response was reinforced given the immediately prior presentation of a stimulus duration in a second class called long durations. Durations of equal logarithmic difference from the cutoff, whether in the short or long class, yielded equal accuracy. Accuracy was a function not only of the properties of the stimuli to be discriminated, but also of the experimental contingencies used. Accuracy was greater in variable-ratio than in fixed-ratio schedules of reinforcement of the discriminative responses, and was lower at the beginning than later in individual fixed ratios. Proportion of short or long responses (response bias) was affected by sequential dependencies among long and short durations and was effectively controlled through the use of asymmetric reinforcement and fixed-ratio contingencies.     

Responding on concurrent-chains schedules in open and closed economies.

Pigeons' key pecks were reinforced according to concurrent-chains schedules of reinforcement. The programmed average time from the onset of the initial links to a terminal link entry was held constant across conditions while the value of variable-interval schedules in the terminal links was varied. Performance was assessed under two economic conditions: (a) an open economy in which session duration was limited to 1 hr and subjects were maintained at 80% of their free-feeding body weights with postsession food when necessary; and (b) a closed economy in which sessions were 23.5 hr long and no deprivation regimen was in effect. In all cases, the relative rate of responding in the initial links matched the reduction in overall delay to primary reinforcement correlated with entry into one terminal link relative to the reduction in delay correlated with entry into the other terminal link. Although the sum of responses made in the initial links and terminal links was found to increase, then decrease, as the rate of food presentation decreased in the closed economy, there was no consistent effect of overall rate of food presentation on total responding in the open economy. The choice data suggest that relative delay reduction predicts choice accurately, regardless of economic context.     

Concurrent schedules: Effects of reinforcement rate and changeover delay on time allocation in a three-alternative procedure

Pigeons were exposed to a continuous choice procedure where three alternatives alternated in a fixed, recycling order (ABCABC, etc.). Responses were reinforced according to independent variable-interval schedules. For three birds, the reinforcement rate for responses on alternative C was varied. For three other birds, the duration of the changeover delay after the changeover to C was varied. For both groups, the reinforcement rates and changeover delay durations associated with A and B were constant throughout the experiment. The time proportion at A relative to B increased as a function of the reinforcement rate for responses on C and decreased as a function of the duration of the changeover delay during C. The results show that the proportion of time spent at a variable-interval alternative of a continuous choice procedure is not completely determined by the reinforcement rates provided by the alternatives. The results support the assumption that time allocation is governed by delayed reinforcement of changeover behaviour.     

Reinforcement contingencies and signal detection.

Pigeons were trained to discriminate temporal stimuli in a discrete-trial signal-detection procedure. Pecks to one side key were reinforced intermittently after exposure to one duration, and pecks to the other side key were reinforced intermittently after exposure to a different duration. In Experiment I, the allocation of reinforcers was varied systematically for correct responses and for errors, using a procedure that controlled the obtained numbers of reinforcers. When reinforcers were allocated symmetrically, the level of discrimination decreased as the proportion of reinforcers for errors increased. When reinforcers were allocated asymmetrically, the decrease in discrimination was less systematic. Bias toward one or the other side key roughly matched the ratio of reinforcers obtained by pecks at those keys, independent of the level of discrimination. In Experiment II, the overall rate of reinforcement for correct responses was varied both within and between experimental conditions. The level of discrimination was positively related to the overall rate of reinforcement. The discrimination data of both experiments were interpreted in relation to the contingencies of reinforcement and nonreinforcement, characterized by the average difference in reinforcement probability for correct responses and errors.     

Behavioral contrast as a function of the duration of an immediately preceding period of extinction

For four pigeons key-peck responding was reinforced on a variable-interval reinforcement schedule in the presence of a vertical white line. When response rates had stabilized a horizontal white line was introduced, in the presence of which reinforcement was not available (extinction). The horizontal line was presented once per session, immediately before the vertical line was presented. The duration of the horizontal line varied randomly from session to session, being either 0 sec (i.e., no presentation), 10 sec, 30 sec, 2 min, 10 min, 40 min, or 120 min. When the horizontal line was present for more than 0 sec, behavioral contrast was obtained in the presence of the following vertical line. Contrast increased with increasing durations of the horizontal line, asymptoting when the horizontal line was present for 40 min.     

Independence of stimulus discriminability from absolute rate of reinforcement in a signal-detection procedure.

Three experiments are reported in which two pigeons were trained to detect differences in stimulus duration under varying levels of absolute rate of reinforcement. Two red stimuli, differing in duration, were arranged probabilistically on the center key of a three-key chamber. On completion of the center-key duration, the center keylight was extinguished and the two side keys were illuminated white. Correct responses were left-key pecks following the shorter duration and right-key pecks following the longer duration. In Experiment 1, relative rate of reinforcement for correct responses was held constant and absolute rate of reinforcement was varied in seven conditions from continuous reinforcement to a variable-interval 90-second schedule. In Experiment 2, relative rate of reinforcement was manipulated across three different absolute rates of reinforcement (continuous reinforcement, variable-interval 15-second, and variable-interval 45-second). Stimulus discriminability was unaffected by changes in absolute or relative rates of reinforcement. Experiment 3 showed that discriminability was also unaffected by arranging the same consequences (three-second blackout) for unreinforced correct responses and errors.     

Control of responding by stimulus duration

Pigeons were trained on a procedure in which the key was white for 30 sec, alternating with periods of darkness, or timeout. In a nondifferential training procedure, timeout duration was held constant at either 9 or 21 sec for different animals, and pecks on the white key were reinforced on a variable-interval 36-sec schedule. After 30 sessions an extinction generalization test was conducted where the duration of the timeout was varied from 3 to 27 sec. This test showed no differences in responding following timeouts of different durations. In a differential training procedure, timeout durations of either 9 or 21 sec were randomly scheduled for each animal. The variable-internal schedule was in effect following the same timeout duration as in the prior nondifferential procedure. No pecks were reinforced after the other timeout duration. In 40 sessions, differences in response rates following the two durations gradually developed. A maintained generalization procedure was then imposed in which timeout durations were varied from 3 to 27 sec, with the variable-interval schedule in effect following only the same duration as in the previous procedures. The first maintained generalization session showed that the prior differential training had established control of the animals' behavior by the timeout duration. In continued training on the maintained generalization procedure, control by the timeout duration decreased.     

Preference for intermittent reinforcement

Two experiments were conducted demonstrating that under certain conditions pigeons may peck at a higher rate on a key that produces intermittent reinforcement following a delay than on one that always produces reinforcement following the same delay duration. In both experiments, concurrent chain schedules were employed. In Experiment I, a single peck on one key led to a white light and a delay of 15 sec, which always terminated with food. A peck on the other key led to its illumination by one of two colored lights and a delay period of 15 sec. The delay was followed by either food presentation or timeout, either one lasting 3 sec. In a control group, the lights on this key were not correlated with food or timeout. Under the correlated stimuli, birds more often pecked the key leading to intermittent reinforcement, whereas with uncorrelated stimuli they pecked the key leading to the white light and 100% reinforcement. In Experiment II, concurrent variable-interval schedules were employed in the first link. The results showed generally that the relative rate was higher on the key leading to intermittent reinforcement when the stimuli were correlated with reinforcement and timeout than on the key leading to 100% reinforcement. There was some indication that this performance was affected by (1) the duration of the delay, (2) the percentage of reinforcement on the key yielding the higher percentage of reinforcement (the key with the white light), and (3) prior experimental conditions.     

Timeout postponement without increased reinforcement frequency

Three experiments were conducted to examine pigeons' postponement of signaled extinction periods (timeouts) from a schedule of food reinforcement when such responding neither decreased overall timeout frequency nor increased the overall frequency of food reinforcement. A discrete-trial procedure was used in which a response during the first 5 s of a trial postponed an otherwise immediate 60-s timeout to a later part of that same trial but had no effect on whether the timeout occurred. During time-in periods, responses on a second key produced food according to a random-interval 20-s schedule. In Experiment 1, the response-timeout interval was 45 s under postponement conditions and 0 s under extinction conditions (responses were ineffective in postponing timeouts). The percentage of trials with a response was consistently high when the timeout-postponement contingency was in effect and decreased to low levels when it was discontinued under extinction conditions. In Experiment 2, the response-timeout interval was also 45 s but postponement responses increased the duration of the timeout, which varied from 60 s to 105 s across conditions. Postponement responding was maintained, generally at high levels, at all timeout durations, despite sometimes large decreases in the overall frequency of food reinforcement. In Experiment 3, timeout duration was held constant at 60 s while the response-timeout interval was varied systematically across conditions from 0 s to 45 s. Postponement responding was maintained under all conditions in which the response-timeout interval exceeded 0 s (the timeout interval in the absence of a response). In some conditions of Experiment 3, which were designed to control for the immediacy of food reinforcement and food-correlated (time-in) stimuli, responding postponed timeout but the timeout was delayed whether a response occurred or not. Responding was maintained for 2 of 3 subjects, suggesting that behavior was negatively reinforced by timeout postponement rather than positively reinforced by the more immediate presentation of food or food-correlated (time-in) stimuli.     

Temporal discrimination and a free-operant psychophysical procedure.

Pigeons were presented a series of keylight time periods (separated by blackouts) during which two response keys were lit, one by blue light and the other either by orange or green. Blue-key responses changed the color on the other key. Orange-key responses sometimes produced food during the first half of a time period; green-key responses sometimes produced food during the second half. In three experiments, the probability of a green-key response increased as a function of elapsed time. Experiment 1 compared performance when the duration of the keylight periods was varied across a wide range. Discrimination of performance was similar across the range of durations. Experiment 2 varied both relative reinforcement rate and the local reinforcement rate for orange-key and green-key responses. These manipulations produced changes in response bias but not discrimination sensitivity. Experiment 3 varied the local temporal placement of reinforcers within time periods and demonstrated that choice behavior was affected by differential reinforcement at different points during the time periods. The results were consistent with previous research on duration discrimination that used psychophysical trials procedures.     

Stimulus discriminability in free-operant and discrete-trial detection procedures.

Six pigeons were trained to discriminate different light intensities in four experimental procedures. Experiment 1 compared stimulus discriminability in a yes-no signal-detection task with discriminability measures obtained from two free-operant procedures. Discriminability estimates were significantly lower in the detection procedure. Experiment 2 showed this lowered discriminability to be a function of the delay between stimulus presentation and the availability of the choice-response keys in the standard detection task. In addition, reinforcement sensitivity was lowest when correct choice responses were intermittently, rather than continuously, reinforced.     

Choice behavior and the accessibility of the reinforcer

In Experiment 1, matching of relative response rates to relative rates of reinforcement was obtained in concurrent variable-interval schedules when the absolute values of the two concurrent variable-interval schedules varied from 6 sec and 12 sec to 600 sec and 1200 sec. Increases in the duration of the changeover delay, however, produced decreases in the relative response rates and, consequently, some deviation from matching. In Experiment 2, matching of relative response rates to the relative duration of the reinforcer failed to occur when the equal variable-interval schedules arranging access to the two different reinforcer durations (1.5 and 6 sec) were varied in size from concurrent variable-interval 10-sec schedules to concurrent variable-interval 600-sec schedules.     

Discrimination of temporal relations by pigeons

In four experiments, pigeons were tested on a duration comparison task involving the successive presentation of two visual stimuli that varied in duration from trial to trial. Following presentation of the durations, two choice keys were lit, and reinforcement for choices was based on the temporal relation between duration of the pair. In Experiment 1, the range of durations was varied over conditions. Responding changed as an orderly function of the ratio of the two durations. There was a decrease in discrimination accuracy as average duration increased over condition but no difference in accuracy between shorter and longer problems within a duration range. There was no systematic response bias over conditions for all problems within a range, but there was a bias to report the second duration longer than the first for "long" problems within a range. In Experiment 2, the pigeons were transferred from a task involving spatially differentiated choices to one involving hue-differentiated choices. Performance was similar to that of the spatial procedure of Experiment 1. Additional analyses revealed that although information provided by a single duration of the pair was sometimes predictive of the temporal relation between pair members, responding was also based on the relation and comparison of both durations. In Experiment 3, the pigeons were exposed to a single duration range that included many durations from the four ranges of Experiment 1. Discrimination accuracy was comparable in the fourth and longest category. Manipulation of absolute reinforcement rate in Experiment 4 resulted in no chang in discrimination accuracy, suggesting that the decline in accuracy over conditions of Experiment 1 could not be attributed to decreases in reinforcement rate that accompanied lengthier durations. The results are discussed in terms of theories of animal timing, with Staddon's (1983, 1984) temporal perspective model providing the most systematic account of all aspects of performance.