Behavioral variability and frequency-dependent selection.

In Experiment 1, two conditions were compared: (a) a variability schedule in which food reinforcement was delivered for the fourth peck in a sequence that differed from the preceding N four-peck sequences, with the value of N continuously adjusted to maintain reinforcement probability approximately constant; and (b) a control condition in which the variability constraint was dropped but reinforcement probability remained constant. Pigeons responded approximately randomly under the variability schedule but showed strong stereotyped behavior under the control condition. Experiments 2 and 3 tested the idea that variability is the outcome of a type of frequency-dependent selection, namely differential reinforcement of infrequent behavior patterns. The results showed that pigeons alternate when frequency-dependent selection is applied to single pecks because alternation is an easy-to-learn stable pattern that satisfies the frequency-dependent condition. Nevertheless, 2 of 4 pigeons showed random behavior when frequency-dependent selection was applied to two pecks, even though double alternation is a permissible and stable stereotype under these conditions. It appears that random behavior results when pigeons are unable to acquire the stable stereotyped behavior under a given frequency-dependent schedule.     

Effect of signaled reinforcement on response variability

Three experiments examined the effect of signaling reinforcement on rats' lever pressing on contingencies that reinforced variable responding to extend the exploration of signaled reinforcement to a schedule that has previously not been examined in this respect. In Experiment 1, rats responding on a lag-8 variability schedule with signaled reinforcement displayed greater levels of variability (U values) than rats on the same schedule lacking a reinforcement signal. In Experiment 2, rats responding on a differential reinforcement of least frequent responses schedule also displayed greater operant variability with a signal for reinforcement compared with rats without a reinforcement signal. In Experiment 3, a reinforcement signal decreased the variability of a response sequence when there was no variability requirement. These results offer empirical corroboration that operant variability responds to manipulations in the same manner as do other forms of operant response and that a reinforcement signal facilitates the emission of the required operant.     

How to teach a pigeon to maximize overall reinforcement rate

In two experiments deviations from matching earned higher overall reinforcement rates than did matching. In Experiment 1 response proportions were calculated over a 360-response moving average, updated with each response. Response proportions that differed from the nominal reinforcement proportions, by a criterion that was gradually increased, were eligible for reinforcement. Response proportions that did not differ from matching were not eligible for reinforcement. When the deviation requirement was relatively small, the contingency proved to be effective. However, there was a limit as to how far response proportions could be pushed from matching. Consequently, when the deviation requirement was large, overall reinforcement rate decreased and pecking was eventually extinguished. In Experiment 2 a discriminative stimulus was added to the procedure. The houselight was correlated with the relationship between response proportions and the nominal (programmed) reinforcement proportions. When the difference between response and reinforcement proportions met the deviation requirement, the light was white and responses were eligible for reinforcement. When the difference between response and reinforcement proportions failed to exceed the deviation requirement, the light was blue and responses were not eligible for reinforcement. With the addition of the light, it proved to be possible to shape deviations from matching without any apparent limit. Thus, in Experiment 2 overall reinforcement rate predicted choice proportions and relative reinforcement rate did not. In contrast, in previous experiments on the relationship between matching and overall reinforcement maximization, relative reinforcement rate was usually the better predictor of responding. The results show that whether overall or relative reinforcement rate better predicts choice proportions may in part be determined by stimulus conditions.     

Effects of concurrent response-independent reinforcement on fixed-interval schedule performance

In three experiments, behavior maintained by fixed-interval schedules changed when response-independent reinforcement was delivered concurrently according to fixed- or variable-time schedules. In Experiment I, a pattern of positively accelerated responding during fixed interval was changed to a linear pattern when response-independent reinforcement occurred under a variable-time schedule. Overall response rates (total responses/total time) decreased as the frequency of response-independent reinforcement increased. Experiment II showed that the response-rate changes in the first experiment were controlled by the response-reinforcer relation, but the changes in patterns of responding were similar whether concurrently available reinforcement at varying times was response-dependent or response-independent. In the final experiment, the addition of response-independent reinforcement at fixed times to a fixed-interval schedule resulted in changes in both local and overall response rates and in the occurrence of positively accelerated responding between reinforcements. These results suggest that the temporal distribution of reinforcers determines response patterns and that both the response-reinforcement dependency and the schedule of reinforcement determine overall response rates during concurrently scheduled response-dependent and response-independent reinforcement.     

The Δ–∑ hypothesis: How contrast and reinforcement rate combine to generate suboptimal choice

When given a choice between two alternatives, each offering food after the same delay with different but signaled probabilities, pigeons often prefer the low probability alternative. This preference is surprising because pigeons fail to maximize the rate of food intake; they exhibit a suboptimal preference. We advance a new explanation, the Δ–∑ hypothesis, in which the difference in probability of reinforcement within terminal links (Δ) and the overall reinforcement probability rate of each alternative (∑) are the key variables responsible for such suboptimal preference. We tested the Δ–∑ hypothesis in two experiments. In Experiment 1, we manipulated the Δs while maintaining constant all other parameters of the task, in particular the ∑s. We predicted a preference for the alternative with the larger Δ. In Experiment 2, we examined the effect of the overall reinforcement probabilities, the ∑s, while maintaining constant all other parameters of the task, in particular the Δs. We predicted a preference for the larger ∑. The results of both experiments support the Δ–∑ hypothesis.     

Control over response number by a targeted percentile schedule: reinforcement loss and the acute effects of d-amphetamine.

Two fixed-consecutive-number-like procedures were used to examine effects of acute d-amphetamine administration on control over response number. In both procedures, rats were required to press the left lever at least once and then press the right lever to complete a trial. The consecutive left-lever presses on each trial comprised a "run." Under the targeted percentile schedule, reinforcement was provided if the current run length was closer to the target length (16) than half of the most recent 24 runs. This differentially reinforced run length while holding reinforcement probability constant at .5. A second group acquired the differentiation under the targeted percentile schedule, but were then shifted to a procedure that yoked reinforcement probability by subject and run length to that obtained under the targeted percentile schedule. The two procedures generated practically identical control run lengths, response rates, reinforcement probabilities, and reinforcement rates. Administration of d-amphetamine disrupted percentile responding to a greater degree than yoked control responding. This disruption decreased reinforcement frequency less in the former than the latter procedure. The similar baseline responding under these two procedures suggests that this difference in sensitivity was due to behavioral adjustments to drug prompted by reduction of reinforcement density in the yoked control but not the percentile schedule. These adjustments attenuate the drug's effects under the former, but not the latter, procedure.     

Response-reinforcer contingency and spatially defined operants: testing an invariance property of phi

A chamber containing 72 response keys defining the circumference of a circle 1 m in diameter was used to examine the relation between differentiation of response location and a measure of response-reinforcer contingency known as the phi coefficient. A different target key was specified in each successive phase, and response location was differentiated with respect to the target. Criterional and noncriterional responses (i.e., responses "near" and "far" from the target) were defined using targeted percentile schedules to control the overall probability of each response class. By manipulating criterional (and, hence, noncriterional) response probability and the reinforcement probabilities conditional on each, a mathematical invariance property peculiar to phi in contingency analysis was examined. Specifically, diagonally interchanging cell frequencies in a 2 x 2 table relating criterional/noncriterional responses to reinforcement/nonreinforcement leaves phi unchanged. Hence, the degree of response differentiation predicted by phi remains unchanged under the four permutations implied by the various diagonal interchanges. This predicted invariance was examined under values of phi equal to .33, .58, and .82. Increasing phi generally increased the stereotypy of response location. Three of the permutations generated almost interchangeable performance at different phi values. The remaining permutation, however, generated functions relating response concentration to phi with slopes shallower than those obtained under the other permutations. This resulted from relatively higher levels of differentiation, compared to the other permutations, at low phi values. These data strongly suggest boundary conditions on the ability of phi to reflect completely the local processes that are indexed by phi at a molar level.     

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.     

Differential reinforcement of lever-press durations: Effects of deprivation level and reward magnitude

Three experiments investigated the performance of rats on a task involving differential reinforcement of lever-press durations. Experiment 1, which employed a discrete-trials procedure, manipulated deprivation level between subjects and reward magnitude within subjects. The minimum lever-press duration which would result in reward was varied from .4 to 6.4 sec. It was found that low deprivation resulted in longer mean durations and less response variability at the higher criterial values than did high deprivation. The magnitude of reward was not found to affect performance. Experiment 2 manipulated reward magnitude between subjects while holding deprivation level constant, and used the same general procedures as in Experiment 1. Small reward resulted in longer mean lever-press durations and less variability in responding than did large reward at the higher criterial values. The intertrial intervals were omitted in Experiment 3 in which deprivation level was varied between subjects and reinforcement was delivered only for response durations extending between 6.0 and 7.6 sec. Low deprivation resulted in longer mean lever-press durations and less response variability than did high deprivation, but the probability of a rewarded press duration did not differ between groups. The results overall are consistent with the hypothesis that low deprivation and small reward magnitude lead to weaker goal-approach responses and, hence, to less competition with lever holding. The deprivation and reward magnitude manipulations did not appear to influence lever holding performance by affecting the ability of animals to form temporal discriminations.     

Variation, repetition, and choice

Experiment 1 investigated the controlling properties of variability contingencies on choice between repeated and variable responding. Pigeons were exposed to concurrent-chains schedules with two alternatives. In the REPEAT alternative, reinforcers in the terminal link depended on a single sequence of four responses. In the VARY alternative, a response sequence in the terminal link was reinforced only if it differed from the n previous sequences (lag criterion). The REPEAT contingency generated low, constant levels of sequence variation whereas the VARY contingency produced levels of sequence variation that increased with the lag criterion. Preference for the REPEAT alternative tended to increase directly with the degree of variation required for reinforcement. Experiment 2 examined the potential confounding effects in Experiment 1 of immediacy of reinforcement by yoking the interreinforcer intervals in the REPEAT alternative to those in the VARY alternative. Again, preference for REPEAT was a function of the lag criterion. Choice between varying and repeating behavior is discussed with respect to obtained behavioral variability, probability of reinforcement, delay of reinforcement, and switching within a sequence.     

The role of contingencies and "principles of behavioral variation" in pigeons' pecking

Staddon and Simmelhag's proposal that behavior is produced by “principles of behavioral variation” instead of contingencies of reinforcement was tested in two experiments. In the first experiment pigeons were exposed to either a fixed-interval schedule of response-contingent reinforcement, an autoshaping schedule of stimulus-contingent reinforcement, or a fixed-time schedule of noncontingent reinforcement. Pigeons exposed to contingent reinforcement came to peck more rapidly than those exposed to noncontingent reinforcement. Staddon and Simmelhag's “principles of behavioral variation” included the proposal that patterns (interim and terminal) were a function of momentary probability of reinforcement. In the second experiment pigeons were exposed to either a fixed-time or a random-time schedule of noncontingent reinforcement. Pecking showed a constant frequency of occurrence over postfood time on the random-time schedule. Most behavior showed patterns on the fixed-time schedule that differed in overall shape (i.e., interim versus terminal) from those shown on the random-time schedule. It was concluded that both the momentary probability of reinforcement and postfood time can affect patterning.     

SOME EFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULES IN TEACHING PICTURE NAMES TO RETARDED CHILDREN1

The effects of several different schedules of primary reinforcement were compared in a picture-naming task with retarded children. In Experiment I, number of correct responses and learning rate were higher under fixed-ratio schedules than under continuous reinforcement. In Experiment II, number of correct responses and learning rate tended to be greater under intermediate than under low or high fixed-ratio schedules. In Experiment III, number of correct responses was higher under interlocking schedules, in which the response requirement increased with time following the previous reinforcement, than under comparable fixed-ratio schedules. Learning rates were generally low and, perhaps because of this, not very different under the two types of schedules in this experiment. Accuracy (i.e., proportion of trials on which correct responses occurred) was typically high and insensitive to variations in schedule and schedule parameter throughout each experiment.     

Cooperative responding in rats maintained by fixed‐ and variable‐ratio schedules

The present study investigated the effects of fixed‐ratio (FR) and variable‐ratio (VR) reinforcement schedules on patterns of cooperative responding in pairs of rats. Experiment 1 arranged FR 1, FR 10, and VR 10 schedules to establish cooperative responding (water delivery depended on the joint responding of two rats). Cooperative response rates and proportions were higher under intermittent schedules than under continuous reinforcement. The FR 10 schedule generated a break‐and‐run pattern, whereas the VR 10 schedule generated a relatively high and constant rate pattern. Experiment 2 evaluated the effects of parametric manipulations of FR and VR schedules on cooperative responding. Rates and proportions of cooperative responding generally increased between ratio sizes of 1 and 5 but showed no consistent trend as the ratio increased from 5 to 10. Experiment 3 contrasted cooperative responding between an FR6 schedule and a yoked control schedule. Coordinated behavior occurred at a higher rate under the former schedule. The present study showed that external consequences and the schedules under which the delivery of these consequences are based, select patterns of coordinated behavior.     

Choice between reliable and unreliable outcomes: mixed percentage-reinforcement in concurrent chains.

Pigeons' choices between alternatives that provided different percentages of reinforcement in mixed schedules were studied using the concurrent-chains procedure. In Experiment 1, the alternatives were terminal-link schedules that were equal in delay and magnitude of reinforcement, but that provided different percentages of reinforcement, with one schedule providing, reinforcement twice as reliably as the other. All pigeons preferred the more reliable schedule, and their level of preference was not systematically affected by variation in the absolute percentage values, or in the magnitude of reinforcement. In Experiment 2, preference for a schedule providing 100% reinforcement over one providing 33% reinforcement increased systematically with increases in the duration of the terminal links. In contrast, preference decreased systematically with increases in the duration of the initial links. Experiment 3 examined choice with equal percentages of reinforcement but unequal delays to reinforcement. Preference for the shorter delay to reinforcement was not systematically affected by variation in the absolute percentage of reinforcement. The overall pattern of results supported predictions based on an extension of the delay-reduction hypothesis to choice procedures involving mixed schedules of percentage reinforcement.     

Observing behavior: effects of rate and magnitude of primary reinforcement

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

Response acquisition under targeted percentile schedules: a continuing quandary for molar models of operant behavior.

The number of responses rats made in a "run" of consecutive left-lever presses, prior to a trial-ending right-lever press, was differentiated using a targeted percentile procedure. Under the nondifferential baseline, reinforcement was provided with a probability of .33 at the end of a trial, irrespective of the run on that trial. Most of the 30 subjects made short runs under these conditions, with the mean for the group around three. A targeted percentile schedule was next used to differentiate run length around the target value of 12. The current run was reinforced if it was nearer the target than 67% of those runs in the last 24 trials that were on the same side of the target as the current run. Programming reinforcement in this way held overall reinforcement probability per trial constant at .33 while providing reinforcement differentially with respect to runs more closely approximating the target of 12. The mean run for the group under this procedure increased to approximately 10. Runs approaching the target length were acquired even though differentiated responding produced the same probability of reinforcement per trial, decreased the probability of reinforcement per response, did not increase overall reinforcement rate, and generally substantially reduced it (i.e., in only a few instances did response rate increase sufficiently to compensate for the increase in the number of responses per trial). Models of behavior predicated solely on molar reinforcement contingencies all predict that runs should remain short throughout this experiment, because such runs promote both the most frequent reinforcement and the greatest reinforcement per press. To the contrary, 29 of 30 subjects emitted runs in the vicinity of the target, driving down reinforcement rate while greatly increasing the number of presses per pellet. These results illustrate the powerful effects of local reinforcement contingencies in changing behavior, and in doing so underscore a need for more dynamic quantitative formulations of operant behavior to supplement or supplant the currently prevalent static ones.     

Varying reinforcement magnitude on interval schedules

In Experiment 1, rats were trained on either a random-interval or a variable-interval 60-sec schedule of reinforcement, and reinforcement magnitude was varied across conditions between one and four pellets. Although the two schedules maintained different patterns of behaviour, patterns and rates of responding were not systematically affected by the variation in reinforcement magnitude. In Experiment 2, a regulated probability interval schedule that generated similar rates of reinforcement to those of the schedules of Experiment 1 was used, with the pattern of behaviour generated resembling that typical of a random-interval schedule. Changing reinforcement magnitude again produced few systematic changes in behaviour. In Experiment 3, a variable-ratio schedule was used within a procedure that otherwise resembled that of Experiments 1 and 2. Increasing the reinforcement magnitude now decreased the rates of responding, and examination of the patterns of responding showed that this came about because rates of responding were higher early in the interreinforcer interval in the one-pellet condition. These experiments demonstrate the insensitivity of behaviour under interval schedules to changes in reinforcement magnitude and suggest the operation of mechanisms different from those engaged by ratio schedules and discretetrial learning procedures.     

Response requirements as constraints on output

Two experiments studied how added response requirements affected fixed-interval schedule performance. Experiment 1 involved tandem fixed-interval fixed-ratio schedules, and Experiment 2 studied conjunctive fixed-interval fixed-ratio schedules. In both, pigeons' output, defined as overall response rate or as responses during the interval, first increased and then decreased as the ratio was raised. With small ratio requirements, the frequency of reinforcement in time either did not change or decreased slightly. With progressively larger ratios, reinforcement frequency decreased consistently. Alternative explanations were discussed. The first, a reinforcement theory account, was that response strength is an increasing monotonic function of both the response requirement and reinforcement frequency, and the bitonic output function represents interacting effects. Increases in the response requirement accompanied by small changes in reinforcement frequency enhance output, but further increases result in large enough decrements in reinforcement frequency so that output is lowered. The second explanation does not view reinforcement as a basic process but, instead, derives from concepts of economics and conservation. Organisms allocate their behavior among alternatives so as to maximize value, where value is a function of the responses that can occur in a given situation under the set of restrictions imposed by particular schedules. One form of this theory explicitly predicts that output is a bitonic function of ratio requirements in simple ratio schedules. However, it was not clear that this model could explain the present effects involving joint ratio and interval schedule restrictions.     

THE EFFECT OF CHANGES IN CRITERION VALUE ON DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF LOW RATE SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE

The differential reinforcement of low rate (DRL) schedule is commonly used to assess impulsivity, hyperactivity, and the cognitive effects of pharmacological treatments on performance. A DRL schedule requires subjects to wait a certain minimum amount of time between successive responses to receive reinforcement. The DRL criterion value, which specifies the minimum wait time between responses, is often shifted towards increasingly longer values over the course of training. However, the process invoked by shifting DRL values is poorly understood. Experiment 1 compared performance on a DRL 30‐s schedule versus a DRL 15‐s schedule that was later shifted to a DRL 30‐s schedule. Dependent measures assessing interresponse time (IRT) production and reward‐earning efficiency showed significant detrimental effects following a DRL schedule transition in comparison with the performance on a maintained DRL 30‐s schedule. Experiments 2a and 2b assessed the effects of small incremental changes vs. a sudden large shift in the DRL criterion on performance. The incremental changes produced little to no disruption in performance compared to a sudden large shift. The results indicate that the common practice of incrementing the DRL criterion over sessions may be an inefficient means of training stable DRL performance.     

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.