Behavioral contrast and relative reinforcement frequency in two multiple schedules

After preliminary variable-interval training, one group of pigeons was trained on a series of multiple variable-interval low-rate reinforcement schedules, while another group was trained on a series of multiple variable-interval fixed-ratio reinforcement schedules. Contrast effects were observed as variable-interval baseline rate changed in a direction away from the change in reinforcement frequency in the other component. The effects of the variable-interval component on performance in the low-rate and fixed-ratio reinforcement components in the multiple schedules were assessed by comparing the birds' performances on each of these schedules alone. Fixed-ratio reinforcement schedules showed a susceptibility to contrast effects, low-rate reinforcement schedules did not. The rate of reinforcement in fixed-ratio schedules at which no interaction occurred in the multiple schedules was higher than that in variable-interval 1-min schedules, suggesting that pigeons may prefer time-based, rather than response-based, reinforcement.     

Behavioral contrast as a function of the temporal location of reinforcement

Pigeons were trained on a multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule of reinforcement. One component was then changed to a variation of a fixed-interval schedule in which the same rate of reinforcement was obtained as previously but the location of the reinforcer was fixed within the component. The effects of different temporal locations were compared. An increase in response rate for the unchanged variable-interval component (behavioral contrast) occurred when the reinforcer was located in the middle or at the end of the FI component, but response suppression occurred when it was located at the beginning of the component. The pattern of results cannot be explained by any previous theories of contrast. The overall response rates, and the pattern of local rates within the components, were consistent with the hypothesis that the major determinant of the contrast effect was the transition to a lower reinforcement rate following the unchanged component.     

From contrast to reinforcement: role of response contingency in anticipatory contrast

Intake of a 0.15% saccharin solution is suppressed if access to the saccharin is followed by access to 32% sucrose in brief daily pairings. The present series of four experiments was concerned with factors that lead to this anticipatory contrast effect (suppressed saccharin intake) rather than a reinforcement effect. In Experiment 1, anticipatory contrast was obtained with an autoshaping procedure (no lick requirement on the initial tube), and degree of contrast did not vary as a function of intersolution interval in the range of 0-15 s. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that requirements of 10, 100, 200, or 400 licks on the first tube available led to a reinforcement effect in latency, but a requirement of 0 licks (autoshaping procedure) led to a contrast effect in licks and latency. In Experiment 4, a group with a 200-contingent-lick requirement showed a reinforcement effect in latency, but a group yoked to this contingent group showed a contrast effect in both latency and licks. Overall, the results suggest that anticipatory contrast occurs under conditions of a "relaxed" instrumental contingency. The data are discussed in terms of control of behavior by stimulus-stimulus, response-stimulus, and stimulus-response associations, and the results are related to behavioral contrast, to flavor-outcome associations, and to "misbehavior" produced by Pavlovian-instrumental interactions.     

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.     

Behavioral contrast in rats with different reinforcers and different response topographies

Experiment I demonstrated positive behavioral contrast in rats when one of two qualitatively different reinforcers (milk and pellets) was removed from a component of a multiple schedule. The contrast effect was larger and more enduring when milk was removed. Experiment II showed that the rats spent more time on the side of a shuttle-box on which milk was freely available than on the side on which pellets were freely available. Experiment III, a partial replication of Experiment I, failed to demonstrate the contrast effect of Experiment I. Experiment IV demonstrated contrast when two topographically distinct responses, nose-key poking and lever pressing, were required in different components of a multiple schedule. These results extend the conditions that generate behavioral contrast in rats.     

Behavioral contrast redux

Behavioral contrast is defined as a change in response rate during a stimulus associated with a constant reinforcement schedule, in inverse relation to the rates of reinforcement in the surrounding stimulus conditions. Contrast has at least two functionally separable components: local contrast, which occurs after component transition, and molar contrast. Local contrast contributes to molar contrast under some conditions, but not generally. Molar contrast is due primarily to anticipatory contrast. However, anticipatory contrast with respect to response rate has been shown to be inversely related to stimulus preference, which challenges the widely held view that contrast effects reflect changes in stimulus value owing to the reinforcement context. More recent data demonstrate that the inverse relation between response rate and preference with respect to anticipatory contrast is due to Pavlovian contingencies embedded in anticipatory contrast procedures. When those contingencies are weakened, anticipatory contrast and stimulus preference are positively related, thus reaffirming the view that the reinforcing effectiveness of a constant schedule is inversely related to the value of the context of reinforcement in which it occurs. The underlying basis of how the context of reinforcement controls reinforcement value remains uncertain, although clear parallels exist between contrast and the effects of contingency in both Pavlovian and operant conditioning.     

Behavioral contrast: Pavlovian effects and anticipatory contrast.

Two sources of behavioral contrast have been identified previously: Pavlovian stimulus-reinforcer relations and component sequence effects (anticipatory contrast). This study sought to isolate these sources of control procedurally in a four-ply multiple schedule composed of two fixed two-component sequences. Different cues were associated with the first component of each sequence, and contrast effects were studied in these target components. In Experiment 1, differential cuing of Component 2 between sequences and availability of reinforcement during target components were varied across three groups of pigeons; the stimulus-reinforcer relation between target-component cues and schedule of reinforcement in Component 2 was varied within subjects. Control by the Pavlovian relation was demonstrated under all conditions, and anticipatory contrast was not observed. In Experiment 2, target-component duration was systematically varied in the three groups of Experiment 1. Control by the Pavlovian relation was reliably obtained only when target-component behavior was unreinforced, and diminished with increases in component duration. Anticipatory contrast emerged in the two groups for which target-component reinforcement was available. These and other data indicate that Pavlovian effects in multiple schedules may be obscured when the requisite conditions for anticipatory contrast are present.     

Behavioral contrast without response-rate reduction

Behavioral contrast was obtained in two experiments, which both employed a standard free-operant successive discrimination (a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule), without the occurrence of reductions of response rate in the extinction component. In Experiment I, one group of four pigeons was trained on a multiple schedule in which one stimulus was associated with a variable-interval schedule and the second stimulus with response-independent reinforcement on a free variable-interval schedule. Though by the end of this training three pigeons were responding very little to the second stimulus, when this stimulus was associated with extinction all subjects showed a contrast effect. In Experiment II, eight pigeons were trained extensively to respond to a single stimulus on a variable-interval schedule, before a second stimulus associated with extinction was introduced. This second stimulus was dissimilar to the initial stimulus and five pigeons never responded in its presence. Nevertheless, all pigeons showed a contrast effect and there was no evidence that the effect was smaller in errorless subjects or smaller than in a subsequent discrimination where all subjects made many errors. Both experiments indicated that response reduction in one component of a multiple schedule is not a necessary condition for the occurrence of contrast.     

Behavioral contrast of time allocation

Pigeons' standing on a platform produced food reinforcement according to two-component multiple schedules in which either both components consisted of the same variable-interval schedule or one of these was replaced with a component without reinforcement (extinction). The components of the multiple schedule alternated every 30 sec, and were signalled by changes in the color of diffuse overhead illumination. Changing the schedule of one of the components to extinction increased the percentage of time spent on the platform during the unchanged component (behavioral contrast). This result casts doubt on accounts that attribute behavioral contrast to variations in the rate of noninstrumental elicited responses.     

Behavioral contrast in chained schedules

In each of two experiments, the rate of key pecking maintained by a variable-interval food reinforcement schedule was measured, first when that schedule was studied in isolation, and then when it was correlated with the second component of a two-component chained schedule. In the first experiment, the first component of the chained schedule was correlated with a fixed-interval schedule; in the second experiment it was correlated with a variable-interval schedule. In both experiments, behavioral contrast was demonstrated in the second component of the chained schedule. Compared to the rate of responding on the food-reinforcement schedule when it had operated in isolation, the rate of responding on the food-reinforcement schedule when it was correlated with the second component was higher, while the rate on the schedule of the first component was lower. The results are discussed with reference to the determinants of contrast.     

Behavioral and dimensional contrast in rats.

Rats pressed a nose key for brain stimulation reinforcement presented on a fixed-interval schedule. Stimuli were drawn at random from a continuum of 12 white noise intensities in the range 62-95 decibels, spaced in 3 decibel steps. Experiment 1 varied the number of stimuli and the reinforcement contingencies associated with them. In Condition I (baseline) all stimuli signaled reinforcement; in Conditions II and III stimuli from one half of the continuum signaled reinforcement and those from the other half, extinction. However, in Condition II the 6 stimuli from the middle of the continuum were omitted. Experiment 2 held constant the number of stimuli and varied their spacing. In Condition I, each of 6 sounds signaled reinforcement. In Conditions II and II, three stimuli from one half of the continuum signaled reinforcement and three from the other half, extinction. However, in Condition II the stimuli were near the extremes of the continuum (Stimuli 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12). Condition III replaced Stimulus 3 with Stimulus 6 and Stimulus 10 with Stimulus 7. Behavioral contrast was seen in an increase over baseline in response rate to the stimuli associated with the constant schedule component when the variable component was changed to extinction. Dimensional contrast was seen in a further elevation of rate to intermediate positive stimulus values when stimuli were added to the border region between positive and negative values.     

Behavioral contrast in competitive and noncompetitive environments

Three experiments examined the effects of opportunities for an alternative response (drinking) on positive behavioral contrast of rats' food-reinforced bar pressing. In both Experiments 1 and 2 the baseline multiple variable-interval schedules were rich (variable interval 10-s), and contrast was examined both with and without a water bottle present. In Experiment 1, the rats were not water deprived. When one component of the multiple schedule was changed to extinction, the rate of bar pressing increased in the constant component (positive behavioral contrast). The magnitude of contrast was larger when the bottle was absent than when it was present, as predicted by the matching law. Drinking did not shift from the constant variable-interval component to the extinction component, as might have been expected from competition theory. In Experiment 2, the rats were water deprived. Contrast was larger when the bottle was present than when it was absent, and drinking did shift to the extinction component, as predicted by competition theory. In Experiment 3, water-deprived rats responded on leaner multiple variable-interval schedules (60-s) in the presence of a water bottle. When one component was changed to extinction, contrast did not occur, and drinking did not shift to the extinction component. The present results suggest that there are at least two different sources of behavioral contrast: “competitive” contrast, observed when an alternative response occurs with high probability, and “noncompetitive” contrast, observed when an alternative response occurs with low probability. The results, in conjunction with earlier studies, also suggest that the form of the alternative response and the rate of food reinforcement provided by the multiple schedule combine to determine the amount of contrast.     

Behavioral contrast and the automaintained key peck

In two experiments behavioral contrast was demonstrated during discrimination training in a positive automaintenance procedure. During the baseline condition in each experiment, a key was transilluminated for eight seconds by one of two colors (CS) following a variable intertrial interval signaled by a dark key. Keylight transillumination terminated with a response-independent food presentation. In the first experiment, food was eliminated during one CS for up to fifty sessions. After reinstatement of food following each CS, the discrimination was reversed. Six of the eight subjects showed positive behavioral contrast, i.e., response rates increased during the CS associated with food as they decreased during the CS associated with no food. The effect was replicated in Experiment II, but it did not occur when both the food and its associated CS were eliminated. These results were comparable to those obtained with operant discrimination training procedures (behavioral contrast) and with Pavlovian discrimination training. The results suggest that additivity theories of behavioral contrast may be insufficient to account for these data.     

Behavioral aftereffects of reinforcement and its omission as a function of reinforcement magnitude

Rats responded on a multiple fixed-interval fixed-interval schedule of reinforcement. Each complete cycle of the multiple schedule was separated from the next by a relatively long period of timeout from all schedule contingencies. A response at the end of the second component of each cycle was always reinforced with an invariant reinforcement magnitude, while reinforcement magnitude and reinforcement omission were systematically varied in the first component. Response rate in the first component was a monotonic function of reinforcement magnitude in that component. These changes in response rate in the first component did not affect response rate in the second component. When reinforcement was omitted on 50% of occasions in the first component, following reinforcement there was a reduction in response rate in the second component that was monotonically related to reinforcement magnitude. Following reinforcement omission there was an increase in response rate in the second component that was unrelated to reinforcement magnitude. When reinforcement was omitted on 100% of occasions in the first component, behavioral contrast was observed.     

Key-peck durations under behavioral contrast and differential reinforcement

Pigeons were maintained on a multiple schedule in which both components were variable-interval one-minute schedules. When they were switched to a condition in which one component was extinction, behavioral contrast was observed. The median durations of the key pecks in the unchanged component did not decrease in size. The results are incompatible with a theory of behavioral contrast which considers the added pecks to be short-duration responses. In a second experiment, pigeons were required to emit short-duration key pecks in one component of a multiple schedule, and long-duration pecks in the other. Two of three pigeons learned to emit responses appropriate to the requirements of the component in effect, suggesting that the duration of the key-peck response is sensitive to differential reinforcement.