Preference for signalled reinforcement

Key pecking was reinforced on a two-component multiple schedule. A variable-interval schedule controlled reinforcement in both components. During one component, access to reinforcement was preceded by a tone; in the other component, a standard unsignalled schedule was in effect. After performance stabilized, subjects were given a choice between the signalled and unsignalled schedules. They were placed in the chamber with the unsignalled schedule in effect on the right key. A single response on the left, or changeover, key produced the signalled schedule for 1 min. Both pigeons in Experiment I pecked the changeover key at a rate sufficient to remain under the signalled schedule for over 90% of the session. Removing and reintroducing the tone demonstrated that the changeover-key responses were due to the occurrence of the tone. In Experiment II, when pecking the changeover key produced the unsignalled schedule, pecking the changeover key declined. The results may be explained either in terms of Hendry's information hypothesis or as escape from an intermittent positive reinforcement schedule.     

Peak shift in concurrent schedules

Pigeons were exposed to two keys, a main key and a changeover key. Initially non-differential training was given in which pecking the main key was reinforced on a variable-interval 2-min schedule when the key displayed the first stimulus, a black line on a blue background, and was reinforced on an identical but independent variable-interval 2-min schedule when the key displayed a plain blue stimulus. Later, differential training was given in which pecking the main key was reinforced on a variable-interval 2-min schedule when the first stimulus was displayed; and was reinforced on a variable-interval 10-min schedule when a second stimulus, a black line of another orientation on a blue background, was displayed. During non-differential and differential training, each peck on the changeover key changed the stimulus on the main key. Generalization tests were given before and after the differential training. These consisted of presentations on the main key of seven orientations of the black line on the blue background, including the first and second stimuli, with no reinforcements being given. Changeover-key pecks changed the stimuli on the main key. Generalization gradients were obtained using three measures: time spent, responses, and response rate in the presence of each test stimulus. Typically, maximum values on these measures occurred to stimuli away from the first in a direction opposite the second stimulus, and minimum values occurred to stimuli away from the second in a direction opposite the first.     

Punishment of observing by the negative discriminative stimulus

To determine the effect of a negative discriminative stimulus on the response producing it, two pigeons were each studied in a three-key conditioning chamber. During alternating periods of unpredictable duration, pecking the center (food) key either was reinforced with grain on a variable-interval schedule or was never reinforced. On equal but independent variable-interval schedules, pecking either of the side (observing) keys changed the color of all keys for 30 sec from yellow to either green or red. When the schedule on the center key was variable-interval reinforcement, the color was green (positive discriminative stimulus); when no reinforcements were scheduled, the color was red (negative discriminative stimulus). Since pecking the side keys did not affect grain deliveries, changes in the rate of pecking could not be ascribed to changes in the frequency of primary reinforcement. In subsequent sessions, red was withheld as one of the possible consequences of pecking a given side key. When red was omitted, the rate on that key increased, and when red was restored, the rate decreased. It was concluded that red illumination of the keys, the negative discriminative stimulus, had a suppressive effect on the response that produced it.     

Concurrent performances: a baseline for the study of reinforcement magnitude

When a pigeon's pecking on a single key was reinforced by a variable-interval (VI) schedule of reinforcement, the rate of pecking was insensitive to changes in the duration of reinforcement from 3 to 6 sec. When, however, the pigeon's pecking on each of two keys was concurrently reinforced by two independent VI schedules, one for each key, the rate of pecking was directly proportional to the duration of reinforcement.     

A test of the negative discriminative stimulus as a reinforcer of observing

Five pigeons were used to test the hypothesis that the source of reinforcement for observing behavior is the information that it provides concerning the schedule of primary reinforcement. On a variable-interval schedule, pecking the left-hand key produced a 30-sec display of such information. During this 30-sec period, when pecking the right-hand key was reinforced on a random-interval schedule, both keys were green; when no reinforcement was scheduled (extinction) both keys were red. Later, this baseline procedure, in which both red and green were available, was replaced for blocks of sessions by procedures in which either (a) the red was eliminated and only the green could be produced; or (b) the green was eliminated and only the red could be produced. The results were that green maintained rates of pecking on the left key that were as high or higher than when both colors were available and that red maintained no responding. It was concluded that the reinforcing value of a stimulus depends on the positive or negative direction of its correlation with primary reinforcement, rather than upon the amount of information that it conveys.     

Reciprocal response interactions in concurrent variable-interval and discrete-trial fixed-ratio schedules

Abstract.— Pecking a red key by pigeons was reinforced with grain on a continuously accessible variable-interval schedule. Pecking a second key was reinforced on a discrete-trial fixed-ratio schedule; occasionally the second key was illuminated green and after a single run on the fixed-ratio schedule a reinforcer was presented and the green light was turned off. The experiment investigated the effects of acquisition, extinction, and re-acquisition of pecking the second key. All pigeons changed over immediately from pecking the red key to pecking the green key whenever the green light controlled a high rate of pecking this key. Pecking the red key was completely suppressed during pecking the green key. The experiment shows that a changeover from one response to a second response can come under discriminative control of a stimulus during which the second response is intermittently reinforced. All pigeons frequently emitted observing and orienting behaviors towards the dark key that was occasionally lit green.     

Economic and biological influences on a pigeon's key peck

Pigeons were studied in a two-component multiple schedule. In the first phase of the experiment, key pecks were reinforced on a variable-interval 2-min schedule in both components and free food was delivered additionally during one component. When components alternated every 8 sec, all pigeons pecked at a much higher rate during the component with free food than during the other component. At a component duration of 16 min, the reverse was true: all pigeons pecked at a higher rate during the component without free food. In the second phase, the additional food during one component was made contingent on pecking. Responding during the component without the extra food remained essentially unchanged, as expected, since rate of reinforcement remained identical to that in the previous phase. However, rate of responding during the component with the extra food (now contingent on pecking) was elevated, compared to the rate in the first phase, and did not show the marked decline as component duration was increased.     

Alternative reinforcement effects on fixed-interval performance

Pigeons' key pecks were reinforced with food on a fixed-interval schedule. Food also was available at variable time periods either independently of responding or for not key pecking (a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule). The latter condition arranged reinforcement following the first pause of t seconds after it became available according to a variable-time schedule. This schedule allowed separation of the effects of pause requirements ≤ five-seconds and reinforcement frequency. The time spent pausing increased as the duration of the pause required for reinforcement increased from 0 to 30 seconds and as the frequency of reinforcement for pausing increased from 0 to 2 reinforcers per minute. Key pecking was more evenly distributed within each fixed interval with shorter required pauses and with more frequent reinforcement for pausing. The results complement those obtained with other concurrent schedules in which the same operant response was reinforced in both components.     

Some notes on time out from reinforcement

Pigeons produced food on a fixed-ratio schedule by pecking at one key, and an S^Δ period by pecking at a second (switching) key. Switching behavior was examined as a function of (a) size of the fixed ratio, (b) whether the S^Δ was of fixed duration or could be determined by the bird, (c) the introduction of a novel food S^D, (d) extinction of food responding, and (e) the stimuli associated with the S^D and S^Δ conditions. No monotonic relationship was obtained between ratio size and switching behavior. Switching behavior was, however, influenced by many variables. The results suggest that an interpretation of switching behavior in terms of its being reinforced by the removal of aversive conditions, is open to considerable question.     

Some limitations on behavioral contrast and induction during successive discrimination

A pigeon's rate of pecking on a red key, reinforced at a constant frequency, may be changed by increasing or decreasing the frequency of reinforcement of pecking on a successively presented green key. The changes in the rate of pecking on red, called interactions, are of two types: contrast, in which the changes in the rates of pecking on the two colors are in opposite directions; and, induction, in which the changes in the rates are in the same direction. In previous data, a change in the frequency of reinforcement associated with the green key produced a corresponding change in the rate of pecking the green key and an opposite change (contrast) in the rate of pecking on the red key. The present data suggest that the magnitude of contrast is very small if pecking on the red key is reinforced at a high enough frequency (about 40 reinforcements per hr in the present experiment). Also, given that interactions occur, induction rather than contrast may result from small changes in a low frequency of reinforcement associated with green.     

Stimulus control of respondent and operant key pecking: A single key procedure

Pigeons' responses to a uniformly illuminated response key were either reinforced on a variable-interval one-minute schedule of reinforcement or extinguished for one-minute periods. When 1.5 second signals were presented at the beginning of each component, so as to differentially predict reinforcement, the pigeons pecked at the signals, at rates higher than rates during the remainder of the component. When the brief signals were not differentially predictive of reinforcement, pecking in their presence decreased to near zero levels. Similar results were obtained with signals based upon colors and upon line orientations. Changes in rates of (unreinforced) pecking occurred during the signal whether pigeons responded differentially during the remainder of the component or not. Experiment II demonstrated that the presence of the signal correlated with extinction was not necessary for pecking to develop at the signal which preceded the component in which responding was intermittently reinforced. The experiments demonstrated a clear dissociation of respondent control from operant control of a response. In addition, operant behavior was shown to be relatively insensitive to differing rates of reinforcement, as compared to the sensitivity of respondent behavior to differing rates of reinforcement produced by the very same operant behavior.     

Economic and biological influences on key pecking and treadle pressing in pigeons

Pigeons were studied on a two-component multiple schedule in which the required operant was, in different conditions, biologically relevant (i.e., key pecking) or nonbiologically relevant (i.e., treadle pressing). Responding was reinforced on a variable-interval (VI) 2-min schedule in both components. In separate phases, additional food was delivered on a variable-time (VT) 15-s schedule (response independent) or a VI 15-s schedule (response dependent) in one of the components. The addition of response-independent food had different effects on responding depending on the operant response and on the frequency with which the components alternated. When components alternated frequently (every 10 s), all pigeons keypecked at a much higher rate during the component with the additional food deliveries, whether response dependent or independent. In comparison, treadle pressing was elevated only when the additional food was response dependent; rate of treadling was lower when the additional food was response independent. When components alternated infrequently (every 20 min), pigeons key pecked at high rates at points of transition into the component with the additional food deliveries. Rate of key pecking decreased with time spent in the 20-min component when the additional food was response independent, whereas rate of pecking remained elevated in that component when the additional food was response dependent. Under otherwise identical test conditions, rate of treadle pressing varied only as a function of its relative rate of response-dependent reinforcement. Delivery of response-independent food thus had different, but predictable, effects on responding depending on which operant was being studied, suggesting that animal-learning procedures can be integrated with biological considerations without the need to propose constraints that limit general laws of learning.     

Elimination of reinforced behavior: intermittent schedules of not-responding

Pigeons' key pecking resulted in food according to either a variable-ratio or a variable-interval schedule. At the same time, food was available for not pecking for a specified time. The required time of not-pecking was segmented into not-responding units, and these units were followed by food according to a fixed-ratio schedule. Both unit duration and the number required were varied. In general, the shorter the time unit or the smaller the ratio, the lower was response rate. When total required not-responding time was constant, but changes in unit duration and the number required altered how the total was achieved, shorter units produced lower rates. Other conditions involved substitution of food delivered independent of responding for the not-responding schedule. With low and moderate total times to food presentation, the not-responding schedule produced lower rates; with the longest times, the response-independent schedule generated less responding. When considered in terms of relative frequency of food presentation available from a source other than pecking, the not-responding schedule reduced rate more effectively than did the response-independent schedule. Comparisons with other research suggested that food presented dependent on not responding compared favorably with punishment as a procedure for reducing response rate. Transient effects differed. Although punishment temporarily depresses rate when first imposed and temporarily enhances it when first removed, food given for not responding quickly generated steady-state rates.     

Interactions in multiple schedules: the role of the stimulus-reinforcer contingency

In Experiments I and II, pigeons were exposed to single-key multiple schedules of response-independent and -dependent food presentation. Components were correlated with different keylights. When the rate of food presentation in the first component exceeded that in the second component, the local rate of key pecking was relatively high at onset of the first component. Overall rate in that component varied inversely with component duration and the rate of food presentation in the second component. When responding was maintained in the second component, the local rate of key pecking was relatively low at onset of that component. Overall rate in the second component varied directly with component duration and the rate of food presentation in that component. In Experiment III, pigeons were exposed to a two-key multiple schedule. Pecks on a constantly illuminated key produced food. Components were correlated with the color of a second key on which pecks had no scheduled consequences. The effects of component duration and rate of food presentation under the single-key response-dependent schedule were synthesized by combining response rates on each concurrently available key under the two-key procedure. The results support an account of multiple-schedule interactions in terms of the joint influence on responding of stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer contingencies.     

Changing the response unit from a single peck to a fixed number of pecks in fixed-interval schedules

Each of three pigeons was studied first under a standard fixed-interval schedule. With the fixed interval held constant, the schedule was changed to a second-order schedule in which the response unit was the behavior on a small fixed-ratio schedule (first a fixed-ratio 10 and then a fixed-ratio 20 schedule). That is, every completion of the fixed-ratio schedule produced a 0.7-sec darkening of the key and reset the response count to zero for the next ratio. The first fixed-ratio completed after the fixed-interval schedule elapsed produced the 0.7-sec blackout followed immediately by food. These manipulations were carried out under two different fixed-interval durations for each bird ranging from 3 min to 12 min. The standard fixed-interval schedules produced the typical pause after reinforcement followed by responding at a moderate rate until the next reinforcement. The second-order schedules also engendered a pause after reinforcement, but responding occurred in bursts separated by brief pauses after each blackout. For a particular fixed-interval duration, post-reinforcement pauses increased slightly as the number of pecks in the response unit increased despite large differences in the rate and pattern of key pecking. Post-reinforcement pause increased with the fixed-interval duration under all response units. These data confirm that the allocation of time between pausing and responding is relatively independent of the rate and topography of responding after the pause.     

Multiple schedules,off‐baseline reinforcement shifts,and resistance to extinction

Resistance to extinction in a target multiple‐schedule component varies inversely with the rate of reinforcement arranged in an alternative component during baseline. The present experiment asked whether changing the reinforcer rate in an alternative component would impact extinction of target component responding if those changes occurred in an off‐baseline phase during which the target component was never experienced. Pigeons' key pecking was studied in three types of conditions, and each condition consisted of three phases. In Phase 1, pecking produced food in the target and alternative components of a multiple schedule according to variable‐interval 60‐s schedules. In Phase 2, the alternative‐component stimulus was presented alone in a single schedule. Pecking during this phase produced the same reinforcer rate as in baseline in the Control condition, a higher rate of food (variable‐interval 15 s) in the High‐Rate condition, or was extinguished in the Extinction condition. Extinction of target‐ and alternative‐component key pecking then was assessed in a multiple schedule during the final phase of each condition. Resistance to extinction of target‐component key pecking was the same between the Control and High‐Rate conditions but lower in the Extinction condition. These findings are discussed in terms of discrimination and generalization processes.     

Effect of delay-interval stimuli on delayed symbolic matching to sample in the pigeon

In Experiment 1, food-deprived pigeons received delayed symbolic matching to sample training in a darkened Skinner box. Trials began with the illumination of the grain feeder lamp (no food sample), or illumination of this lamp, accompanied by the raising of the feeder tray (food sample). After a delay of a few seconds, the two side response keys were illuminated, one with red and one with green light, with positions counterbalanced over trials. Pecking the red (green) comparison produced grain reinforcement if the trial had started with food (no food); pecking red after a no-food sample or green after a food sample was not reinforced. Once matching performance was stable, four stimuli were presented during the delay interval, and their effects on matching accuracy were evaluated. Both illumination of the houselight and the center key with white geometric forms decreased matching accuracy, whereas presentation of a tone and vibration of the test chamber did not. In Experiment 2, pecking the red center key was reinforced with food according to a variable interval schedule. The effects of occasional brief presentations of the four stimuli used in the first experiment on ongoing pecking were assessed. The houselight and form disturbed key pecking, but the tone and vibration did not. Thus, stimuli that interfered with delayed matching also interfered with simple operant behavior. Implications of these results for theories of remembering are discussed.     

Response-produced timeouts under a progressive-ratio schedule with a punished reset option

Three behavioral options were available to food-deprived pigeons: (1) pecking one key resulted in food reinforcement according to a 50-response progressive-ratio schedule, (2) pecking a second key reset the progressive-ratio schedule to the initial progressive-ratio step, and (3) pecking a third key produced a 3-min timeout period. Pecks on the reset key were shocked. Under low and intermediate shock intensities, timeouts were not produced; under high shock levels, timeouts were produced regularly. Timeouts occurred during the initial period of a progressive-ratio step and were more frequent during the longer steps of the progressive-ratio schedule. Response-produced timeouts under these experimental conditions could be interpreted either as an escape from aversive behavioral options or as a low-probability behavior emerging when the food reinforcement schedule exerted weaker control.     

Behavioral contrast produced by a signaled decrease in local rate of reinforcement

Pigeons' key pecking in the presence of one stimulus (S1) was reinforced according to a response-dependent variable-interval schedule. Pecking rate during S1 increased (behavioral contrast) when a second stimulus (S2) [associated with either a response-dependent fixed-interval schedule (Experiment I) or a response-independent reinforcement schedule in which reinforcement availability was signaled by visual (Experiment II) or temporal (Experiment III) stimuli] alternated with S1. These experiments suggest that a discriminable, signaled decrease in local reinforcement rate during S2 is an antecedent of the behavioral contrast response rate increases during S1.     

Conjunctive schedules of reinforcement: III. A fixed-interval adjusting fixed-ratio schedule

Key pecking of three pigeons was studied under a conjunctive schedule that specified both a fixed-interval and an adjusting fixed-ratio requirement. The fixed-interval schedule was 6 min for one pigeon and 3 min for the other two. The size of the ratio requirement was determined within each cycle of the fixed interval by the duration of the pause before responding began. The fixed-ratio value was at maximum at the start of each fixed interval and decreased linearly until the first response occurred (adjusting fixed-ratio schedule). A peck produced food when the number of responses remaining on the fixed-ratio schedule was completed and when the fixed interval had elapsed. If no response occurred during the interval, the fixed-ratio requirement decreased to one and a single response after the interval elapsed produced food. The initial value of the adjusting fixed-ratio schedule was studied over a range of 0 to 900. Increases in the adjusting fixed-ratio schedule to about 300 responses increased both pause duration and running response rate and also modified the pattern of responding from that obtained under the fixed-interval schedule. Higher values of the adjusting fixed ratio generally decreased pause duration and running response rate and also disrupted responding. Interreinforcement time under the conjunctive schedule was increased substantially when the adjusting fixed-ratio size exceeded 300 responses.