Some effects of relative reinforcement rate and changeover delay in response-independent concurrent schedules of reinforcement

Reinforcements were arranged independently of the pigeon's behavior by concurrent variable-interval schedules. The reinforcements arranged by one of the schedules occurred when the chamber was illuminated with amber light, and the reinforcements arranged by the other schedule occurred when the chamber was illuminated with blue light. Both schedules functioned concurrently, but reinforcers were delivered by each only in the presence of the appropriate stimulus condition. A response on a white key, the only key in the chamber, alternated the stimulus condition and the effective schedule. The results of this procedure were similar to those obtained with concurrent response-dependent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. The proportion of the total session time spent in the presence of a schedule component approximated the proportion of the total number of reinforcements in the component. Changeover rate was a decreasing function of the changeover delay and of the difference between the relative rates of reinforcement for each pair of concurrent schedules.     

Resistance to the response-decrementing effects of response-independent reinforcement produced by delay and non-delay schedules of reinforcement

In two experiments, animals were initially exposed to response-dependent schedules of food before exposure to response-independent reinforcement matched for overall rate and temporal distribution of reinforcers to the preceding condition. In Experiment I, response decrements during the response-independent phase were smaller after delayed reinforcement training than after a comparable immediate reinforcement schedule, for both doves and rats. In Experiment II variable-interval and variable-ratio schedules, both with either immediate or delayed reinforcement, were used with rats. Both the delayed reinforcement schedules produced resistance to subsequent response-independent reinforcement, but response decrements were larger after either of the immediate reinforcement conditions. It was concluded that the critical factor in response maintenance under response-independent reinforcement was the type of response-reinforcer contiguities permitted under the response-dependent schedule rather than perception of response-reinforcer “contingencies”. If the response-dependent schedule was arranged so that behaviours other than a designated operant (key pecking or lever pressing) could be contiguous with food, responding was maintained well under response-independent schedules.     

Partial reinforcement and partial delay of reinforcement effects with 72-hour intertrial intervals and interpolated continuous reinforcement

Three groups of rats ran 108 trials in a straight runway, one trial every 3 days. On the first 44 trials, one group received continuous (and immediate) reinforcement (CRF), a second group 50 per cent partial reinforcement (PRF), and the third group a 50 per cent schedule of partial delay of reinforcement (PDR). All groups received CRF on the next 20 trials, and extinction on the last 44 trials. The PRF and PDR groups extinguished at approximately the same rate, and significantly more slowly than the CRF group.     

Choice, rate of reinforcement, and the changeover delay

Pigeons distribute their responses on concurrently available variable-interval schedules in the same proportion as reinforcements are distributed on the two schedules only when a changeover delay is used. The present study shows that this equality between proportions of responses and proportions of reinforcements (“matching”) is obtained when the value of the changeover delay is varied. When responses are partitioned into the set of rapid response bursts occurring during the delay interval and the set of responses occurring subsequently, the proportion of neither set of responses matches the proportion of reinforcements. Instead, each set deviates from matching but in opposite directions. Matching on the gross level results from the interaction of two patterns evident in the local response rates: (I) the lengthening of the changeover delay response burst is accompanied by a commensurate decrease in the number of changeovers; (2) the changeover delay response burst is longer than the scheduled delay duration. When delay responses are eliminated by introducing a blackout during the delay interval, response matching is eliminated; the pigeon, however, continues to match the proportion of time spent responding on a key to the proportion of reinforcements obtained on that key.     

Choice and reinforcement delay

Previous studies of choice between two delayed reinforcers have indicated that the relative immediacy of the reinforcer is a major determinant of the relative frequency of responding. Parallel studies of choice between two interresponse times have found exceptions to this generality. The present study looked at the choice by pigeons between two delays, one of which was always four times longer than the other, but whose absolute durations were varied across conditions. The results indicated that choice is not uniquely determined by the relative immediacy of reinforcement, but that absolute delays are also involved. Models for concurrent chained schedules appear to be more applicable to the present data than the matching relation; however, these too failed to predict choice for long delays.     

Choice and delay of reinforcement

Pigeons were trained to peck either of two response keys for food reinforcement on equated aperiodic schedules. The distribution of responding at the two keys was studied as reinforcement was delayed for various durations. The relative frequency of responding at each key was shown to match the relative immediacy of reinforcement, immediacy defined as the reciprocal of the delay of reinforcement.     

Homogeneous chains, heterogeneous chains, and delay of reinforcement

Three pigeons responded on two-component chain schedules in which the required response topography in the initial and terminal links was similar (a homogeneous chain) or dissimilar (a heterogeneous chain). Key-peck responding in the initial link under a variable-interval 60-second (VI 60) schedule produced a terminal link in which, in different conditions, either key pecking or foot treadling was reinforced according to a VI 60 schedule. Multiple VI 60 VI 60 schedules, in which the responses required in the chain schedules were maintained by primary reinforcement in the two components, preceded and followed each type of chain. These multiple schedules were used to ensure that both responses occurred reliably prior to introducing the chain schedule. Key-peck response rates in the initial link of the chain consistently were higher during the homogeneous chain than during the heterogeneous chain. These results illustrate that intervening events during a period separating an operant response from primary reinforcement influence that operant, independently of the delay between the response and reinforcement.     

Effects on choice of reinforcement delay and conditioned reinforcement

Pigeons chose between fixed-interval schedules of different durations presented in the terminal links of concurrent-chains schedules. The pair of schedules was always in the ratio of 2:1, but the absolute duration of the fixed intervals varied. In one set of conditions, the different terminal-link schedules were associated with different keylight stimuli (cued conditions). In a second set of conditions, the different terminal-link schedules were associated with the same stimulus (uncued conditions). Results from the cued conditions replicated previous findings that preference for the shorter fixed-interval schedule increased with fixed-interval duration. Preferences in the uncued conditions were lower than in the corresponding cued conditions but also increased with fixed-interval length. In addition, the degree of control under the uncued conditions was correlated with the extent to which the schedule during the terminal link was discriminated immediately upon entry into the terminal link. The pattern of results in both conditions was inconsistent with the notion that choice behavior matches relative immediacy of reinforcement. Reanalysis of previous evidence for matching (Chung and Herrnstein, 1967) showed that matching in fact did not occur, as the preferences of their subjects for the shorter of two delays also increased with the absolute size of the delays.     

Choice with probabilistic reinforcement: effects of delay and conditioned reinforcers.

Two experiments measured pigeons' choices between probabilistic reinforcers and certain but delayed reinforcers. In Experiment 1, a peck on a red key led to a 5-s delay and then a possible reinforcer (with a probability of .2). A peck on a green key led to a certain reinforcer after an adjusting delay. This delay was adjusted over trials so as to estimate an indifference point, or a duration at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. In all conditions, red houselights were present during the 5-s delay on reinforced trials with the probabilistic alternative, but the houselight colors on nonreinforced trials differed across conditions. Subjects showed a stronger preference for the probabilistic alternative when the houselights were a different color (white or blue) during the delay on nonreinforced trials than when they were red on both reinforced and nonreinforced trials. These results supported the hypothesis that the value or effectiveness of a probabilistic reinforcer is inversely related to the cumulative time per reinforcer spent in the presence of stimuli associated with the probabilistic alternative. Experiment 2 tested some quantitative versions of this hypothesis by varying the delay for the probabilistic alternative (either 0 s or 2 s) and the probability of reinforcement (from .1 to 1.0). The results were best described by an equation that took into account both the cumulative durations of stimuli associated with the probabilistic reinforcer and the variability in these durations from one reinforcer to the next.     

Unsignalled delay of reinforcement in variable-interval schedules

Three pigeons responded on several tandem variable-interval fixed-time schedules in which the value of the fixed-time component was varied to assess the effects of different unsignalled delays of reinforcement. Actual (obtained) delays between the last key peck in an interval and reinforcement were consistently shorter than the nominal (programmed) delay. When nominal delays were relatively short, response rates were higher during the delay condition than during the corresponding nondelay condition. At longer nominal delay intervals, response rates decreased monotonically with increasing delays. The results were consistent with those obtained from delay-of-reinforcement procedures that impose either a stimulus change (signal) or a no-response requirement during the delay interval.     

Concurrent schedules of reinforcement: effects of gradual and abrupt increases in changeover delay

Pigeons' pecks were maintained on concurrent variable-interval 1-min variable-interval 3-min schedules of reinforcement, with a changeover delay of 2 sec. When changeover delay was increased successively to 5.0, 7.5, and 12.5 sec (Exp. I) the actual relative rate of reinforcement for the variable-interval 3-min key decreased progressively for two birds, abruptly for two other birds, and the subjects devoted proportionately less of their time and responding to that key. However, the relative performance measures (relative time and relative responding) approximated the actual relative rate of reinforcement, with a maximum discrepancy of 11%, over all changeover delay values investigated. Experiment II attempted to lengthen response-run durations on the variable-interval 3-min key so that they were long enough to meet the changeover delay requirement at each new changeover delay value, by progressively increasing the changeover delay by 0.5-sec increments. With this procedure the actual relative rate of reinforcement approximated more closely the scheduled relative rate as changeover delay increased. As in Exp. I, relative performance measures approximated the actual relative reinforcement rate (maximum discrepancy 17%).     

Relative delay of reinforcement and choice

Pigeons' responses on either of two concurrently available keys each associated with variable-interval 60-sec schedules occasionally changed the schedule on that key to a terminal-link interval schedule providing access to gain while the other key became inoperative. Experiment I compared simple fixed- and mixed-interval schedules in the terminal links, and showed that for all subjects and schedules the distribution of responses during the concurrent initial links was accurately described by the relative inverse delay of reinforcement squared. Experiment II extended the generality of this formulation to a situation in which rate of reinforcement was constant and delay alone was varied.     

Unsignaled delay of reinforcement, relative time, and resistance to change

Two experiments with pigeons examined the effects of unsignaled, nonresetting delays of reinforcement on responding maintained by different reinforcement rates. In Experiment 1, 3-s unsignaled delays were introduced into each component of a multiple variable-interval (VI) 15-s VI 90-s VI 540-s schedule. When considered as a proportion of the preceding immediate reinforcement baseline, responding was decreased similarly for the three multiple-schedule components in both the first six and last six sessions of exposure to the delay. In addition, the relation between response rates and reinforcement rates was altered such that both parameters of the single-response version of the matching law (i.e., k and Re) were decreased. Experiment 2 examined the effects of unsignaled delays ranging from 0.5 s to 8.0 s on responding maintained by a multiple VI 20-s VI 120-s schedule of reinforcement. Response rates in both components increased with brief unsignaled delays and decreased with longer delays. As in Experiment 1, response rates as a proportion of baseline were affected similarly for the two components in both the first six and last six sessions of exposure to the delay. Unlike delays imposed between two stimulus events, the effects of delays between responses and reinforcers do not appear to be attenuated when the average time between reinforcers is longer. In addition, the disruptions produced by unsignaled delays appear to be inconsistent with the general finding that responding maintained by higher rates of reinforcement is less resistant to change.     

Resistance to continuous delay of reinforcement or extinction following partial delay or partial reinforcement in acquisition: A direct comparison

Rats received either partial reward (PR) or partial delay (PD) in acquisition with one, two, or three delay or nonreward trials followed by an immediately rewarded trial or one delay or nonreward trial followed by an immediately rewarded trial. These four groups were then split in half and given either continuous delay or continuous nonreward (extinction) in a “response persistence” phase. In addition, two continuously reinforced groups, one experiencing continuous delay, and the other experiencing extinction were included. The results showed that response persistence was greater when PD groups were given continuous delay rather than extinction, but the opposite was true for PR groups. The “length” (1, 2, or 3 versus 1 nonreward or delay trial) also transferred to the response persistence phase with the length 1, 2, and 3 conditions being more persistent than the 1 length conditions. The results were discussed with respect to theoretical notions of response persistence.     

Fixed interval schedules and delay of reinforcement

In a fixed interval schedule of reinforcement the only responses to be reinforced are those made when a certain time interval has elapsed since the previous reinforcement. The behaviour of three rats on such a schedule was compared with their behaviour on a schedule where a response made at any time during the interval was reinforced by setting up a reward which was delivered when the interval had elapsed. Response rates were higher in the ordinary fixed interval schedule than in its modified version, and it is argued that this rules out attempts to explain the maintenance of fixed interval performance by delayed reinforcement. Despite the clear difference in response rates, there was considerable similarity between the post-reinforcement pauses developed in the two schedules, and this suggests that pausing is influenced more by temporal than by response contingencies.     

Rapid acquisition of preference in concurrent chains: effects of d-amphetamine on sensitivity to reinforcement delay

The purpose of this study was to examine effects of d-amphetamine on choice controlled by reinforcement delay. Eight pigeons responded under a concurrent-chains procedure in which one terminal-link schedule was always fixed-interval 8 s, and the other terminal-link schedule changed from session to session between fixed-interval 4 s and fixed-interval 16 s according to a 31-step pseudorandom binary sequence. After sufficient exposure to these contingencies (at least once through the pseudorandom binary sequence), the pigeons acquired a preference for the shorter reinforcement delay within each session. Estimates of the sensitivity to reinforcement immediacy were similar to those obtained in previous studies. For all pigeons, at least one dose of d-amphetamine attenuated preference and, hence, decreased estimates of sensitivity to reinforcement immediacy; in most cases, this effect occurred without a change in overall response rates. In many cases, the reduced sensitivity to reinforcement delay produced by d-amphetamine resulted primarily from a decrease in the asymptotic level of preference achieved within the session; in some cases, d-amphetamine produced complete indifference. These findings suggest that a reduction in the sensitivity to reinforcement delay may be an important behavioral mechanism of the effects of psychomotor stimulants.     

Discriminative functions based on a delay in the reinforcement relation

Pigeons were shown to come under discrimination control when the S^D and S^Δ were temporally separated from reinforcement and non-reinforcement. S^D and S^Δ consisted of distinctive key illuminations presented separately. Responding on an FR 5 in the presence of S^D or S^Δ produced a third stimulus containing a schedule requirement. If this third (or interpolated) stimulus was preceded by S^D, responding in its presence produced reinforcement followed by a time-out (TO). If, on the other hand, the third stimulus was preceded by S^Δ, responding produced TO alone. In this fashion, the same stimulus and the same response requirement were imposed between S^D and the reinforcement as between S^Δ and the TO. In Experiment I, the schedule employed during the interpolated stimulus was FR; in Experiment II, FI. Discrimination reversal was accomplished in both experiments.