Timeout postponement without increased reinforcement frequency

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

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.     

Increased reinforcement when timeout from avoidance includes access to a safe place

Three experiments investigated the reinforcing value of access to a safe place during timeout from an avoidance schedule. Rats were trained on conjoint schedules in which responding both postponed shock on a free-operant avoidance schedule and produced periods of timeout on fixed-ratio schedules. In some conditions, a shelf was inserted into the operant chamber during timeout, enabling subjects to get off the grid floor. The combination of timeout and shelf maintained substantially higher response rates than the baseline avoidance schedule with ratio requirements as high as 90 (Experiment I). Adding the shelf to timeouts in one component of multiple fixed-ratio schedules of timeout resulted in higher response rates in the component where the shelf was included (Experiment II). When timeouts with and without the shelf were arranged on concurrent schedules, the shelf-timeout combination was preferred, even when of shorter duration than timeout alone (Experiment III). In all three experiments, subjects climbed on the shelf, although all shocks were cancelled during timeout periods. The results could not be accounted for solely in terms of the reinforcing properties of changes in shock rates, but required an interpretation that ascribed conditioned reinforcing value to stimuli associated with such changes.     

Aversive properties of the negative stimulus in a successive discrimination

Experiment I sought to determine if the stimulus correlated with extinction in a successive discrimination was an aversive stimulus. An escape response provided an index of aversive control. Two groups of pigeons were exposed to a multiple variable-interval 30-sec extinction schedule. For the experimental group, a single peck on a second key produced a timeout during which all lights in the chamber were dark. For the control group, pecks on the second key had no contingency. The rate of responding on the timeout key during extinction for the experimental group was higher than that of the control group during all sessions of discrimination training except the first. In Exp. II, green was correlated with variable interval 30-sec and red was correlated with variable-interval 5-min. Timeouts were obtained from variable-interval 5-min. There were more timeouts from extinction in Exp. I than from variable-interval 5-min in Exp. II. Experiment III showed that not presenting the positive stimulus reduced the number of timeouts from the negative stimulus for the two birds from Exp. I that had the highest rate of timeouts from extinction, but had little effect on the two birds that had the lowest rate of timeouts. These results suggest that in a multiple schedule, the stimulus correlated with extinction, or the lower response rate, functions as a conditioned aversive stimulus. Explanations of the timeout response in terms of extinction produced variability, displaced aggression, and stimulus change, were considered but found inadequate.     

Self-imposed timeouts under increasing response requirements

Self-imposed timeouts by pigeons working under a progressive-ratio food schedule were studied under different conditions. The main findings were (1) continued production of timeouts over an extended series of sessions, (2) more frequent responding on the key with the timeout consequence than on a key having no consequence, (3) an inverse relationship between number of timeouts and level of body weight, (4) production of timeouts when the timeout duration was brief, lengthy, or controlled by the pigeon, and (5) dependence of self-imposed timeouts on variables controlling responding under the progressive-ratio schedule. Under all experimental conditions, with the exception of performances at the high body weight, timeouts were more frequent during the longer progressive-ratio steps and usually were localized in the post-reinforcement pause or the early part of the step. The timeout behavior could be interpreted as either an escape from aversive stimuli generated by the progressive-ratio schedule or as a response reinforced by the consequent stimulus change.     

Timeout from concurrent schedules.

Response-contingent timeouts of equal duration and frequency were added to both alternatives of unequal concurrent schedules of reinforcement. For each of 4 pigeons in Experiment 1, relative response rates generally became less extreme as the frequency of timeout increased. In Experiment 2, relative response rates consistently approached indifference as the duration of timeout was increased. Variation in time allocation was less consistent in both experiments. Absolute response rates did not vary with the timeout contingency in either experiment. In a third experiment, neither measure of choice varied systematically when the duration of a postreinforcement blackout was varied. In contrast to the present results, preference has been shown to vary directly with the parameters of shock delivery in related procedures. The pattern of results in the first two experiments follows that obtained with other manipulations of the overall rate of reinforcement in concurrent schedules. The results of the third experiment suggest that an intertrial interval following reinforcement is not a critical feature of the overall rate of reinforcement.     

Avoidance of timeout from response-independent reinforcement

Responses on a lever by rats postponed scheduled timeouts, or periods during which the delivery of response-independent food was withheld. The effects of a number of experimental variables were examined and the conclusions drawn are that the functional relations describing free-operant avoidance of timeout from response-independent reinforcement are similar to those for avoidance of electric shock and that both phenomena are sensitive to the same parametric manipulations. Results suggest that high frequency of food delivery in timein maintains a higher rate of timeout avoidance than low frequency. The evidence argues against an interpretation in terms of adventitious food-reinforcement of the timeout avoidance response. Finally, the effects of scheduling timeouts independently of responding and of omitting timeouts confirm the view that timeouts can be aversive and may act as punishment for responding.     

Conjoint schedules of timeout deletion in pigeons.

This experiment attempted to bring behavior under joint control of two distinct contingencies, one that provided food and a second that extended the periods during which that food was available. Pigeons' responses on each of two keys were reinforced according to a single random-interval schedule of food presentation except during signaled timeout periods during which the schedule was temporarily disabled. By means of a conjoint schedule, responses on the initially less preferred key not only produced food but also canceled impending timeouts. When behavior came to predominate on this conjoint alternative, the consequences of responding on the two keys were reversed. Responding in 3 of 4 pigeons proved sensitive to the conjoint scheduled consequences, as evidenced by systematic shifts in response rates favoring the conjoint key. In 2 of these 3 pigeons, sensitivity to the conjoint contingency was evident under time-in:timeout ratios of 2:1 (time-in = 120 s, timeout = 60 s) and 1:5 (time-in = 30 s, timeout = 150 s), whereas for the other pigeon preference for the conjoint key was observed only under the latter sequence of conditions. There was only weak evidence of control by the conjoint scheduled consequences in the 4th subject, despite extended training and forced exposure to the conjoint alternative. The overall pattern of results is consistent with studies of timeout avoidance but also shares features in common with positively reinforced behavior.     

Parameters affecting the maintenance of negatively reinforced key pecking

Three negative reinforcement experiments employing a key-peck response are described. In Experiment I, pigeons shocked on the average of twice per minute (imposed condition) could produce, by pecking a key, an alternate condition with correlated stimuli. Delayed shocks were added, across sessions, to the alternate condition until pecking stopped. Two of three pigeons continued to peck despite a 100% increase in shock frequency. In Experiment II, pigeons were shocked in the imposed condition four times per minute. The postresponse delay to shock was held constant by delivering, in the alternate condition, the next shock, or the next two, three, or four shocks from the imposed-condition shock schedule. All three subjects continued to peck with no change in delay to the first two postresponse shocks but with a 75% reduction in shock frequency. In Experiment III, a response produced an immediate shock followed by a shock-free period. Three of four subjects continued to respond despite reduced delay to shock. Delay-to-shock or shock-frequency reduction was sufficient to maintain key pecking, but neither was necessary. The conditions that negatively reinforce the pigeon's key peck were similar to conditions that negatively reinforce the rat's bar press.     

Mechanisms underlying the effects of unsignaled delayed reinforcement on key pecking of pigeons under variable-interval schedules.

Three experiments were conducted to test an interpretation of the response-rate-reducing effects of unsignaled nonresetting delays to reinforcement in pigeons. According to this interpretation, rates of key pecking decrease under these conditions because key pecks alternate with hopper-observing behavior. In Experiment 1, 4 pigeons pecked a food key that raised the hopper provided that pecks on a different variable-interval-schedule key met the requirements of a variable-interval 60-s schedule. The stimuli associated with the availability of the hopper (i.e., houselight and keylight off, food key illuminated, feedback following food-key pecks) were gradually removed across phases while the dependent relation between hopper availability and variable-interval-schedule key pecks was maintained. Rates of pecking the variable-interval-schedule key decreased to low levels and rates of food-key pecks increased when variable-interval-schedule key pecks did not produce hopper-correlated stimuli. In Experiment 2, pigeons initially pecked a single key under a variable-interval 60-s schedule. Then the dependent relation between hopper presentation and key pecks was eliminated by arranging a variable-time 60-s schedule. When rates of pecking had decreased to low levels, conditions were changed so that pecks during the final 5 s of each interval changed the keylight color from green to amber. When pecking produced these hopper-correlated stimuli, pecking occurred at high rates, despite the absence of a peck-food dependency. When peck-produced changes in keylight color were uncorrelated with food, rates of pecking fell to low levels. In Experiment 3, details (obtained delays, interresponse-time distributions, eating times) of the transition from high to low response rates produced by the introduction of a 3-s unsignaled delay were tracked from session to session in 3 pigeons that had been initially trained to peck under a conventional variable-interval 60-s schedule. Decreases in response rates soon after the transition to delayed reinforcement were accompanied by decreases in eating times and alterations in interresponse-time distributions. As response rates decreased and became stable, eating times increased and their variability decreased. These findings support an interpretation of the effects of delayed reinforcement that emphasizes the importance of hopper-observing behavior.     

Effects of timeout on spaced responding in pigeons

Three pigeons were trained under a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule of 20 sec, and then exposed to a schedule under which responses terminating interresponse times less than 20 sec produced timeout and responses terminating interresponse times greater than 20 sec produced reinforcement. Response-produced timeouts selectively decreased the probability of short interresponse times and thereby produced a higher frequency of reinforcement. The suppressive effect of timeout was independent of timeout duration, with timeouts of 5, 10, or 20 sec. Similar effects were found when the minimum interresponse time that could be terminated by response-produced reinforcement was increased to 30 sec. The suppressive effects of timeout on responding maintained by these schedules were similar to previous reports in which responding was punished with electric shock.     

Key pecking as a function of response-shock and shock-shock intervals in unsignalled avoidance

Five pigeons were exposed to an unsignalled avoidance procedure where key pecks were maintained through shock postponement. Functions obtained showed an inverse relationship between rate of responding and length of the response-shock interval, while changes in the shock-shock interval had no systematic effect on response rates. The rate of shocks delivered generally decreased with increases in length of both response-shock and shock-shock intervals. Results show that key pecking in pigeons, maintained through an unsignalled avoidance procedure, was affected by changes in response-shock and shock-shock intervals in the same manner as other responses in pigeons and in rats.     

Discriminated timeout avoidance in pigeons: the roles of added stimuli

Two experiments examined pigeons' postponement of a signaled extinction period, or timeout (TO), from an ongoing schedule of response-dependent food delivery. A concurrent-operant procedure was used in which responses on one (food) key produced food according to a variable-interval schedule and responses on a second (postponement) key delayed the next scheduled TO according to a response-TO (R-TO) interval. A series of response-independent stimulus changes on the food key temporally partitioned the R-TO into three equal segments (S1, S2, and S3). Postponement responses, in addition to postponing TO, also reinstated S1, the stimulus correlated with the greatest temporal distance from TO. In Experiment 1, the R-TO interval was manipulated systematically across blocks of sessions (conditions) at a given ratio of R-TO:TO duration. This R-TO:TO ratio was manipulated across blocks of conditions (phases). Postponement response rates varied inversely with R-TO interval in each phase. Changes in the R-TO:TO ratio did not produce consistent differences except at the 1:10 ratio for some pigeons, where it disrupted postponement responding in some conditions. Most of the postponement responses occurred in the presence of S2 and S3, the stimuli most proximal to TO, whereas most of the food-key responses occurred in S1. In Experiment 2, the R-TO contingencies were systematically manipulated in the presence of the time-correlated stimuli. In one set of conditions, the R-TO contingencies were made either ineffective or less effective in the presence of one or more stimuli. Postponement responses typically shifted to stimuli in the presence of which responses were relatively more effective. Postponement responses decreased markedly when the added stimuli were removed, and then recovered when the stimuli were reinstated. Results from both experiments indicate that the added stimuli in a discriminated TO-avoidance procedure serve predominately discriminative functions, delineating periods during which behavior is maximally effective. The results parallel those obtained in shock-avoidance procedures, providing further evidence that TO functions as an aversive stimulus.     

Effects of two procedures for varying information transmission on observing responses

Two experiments were conducted with pigeons to examine the effects of procedures that varied information transmission on observing responses. The basic procedure for Experiment I was one in which a trial terminated in either non-contingent reinforcement or timeout. Pecking during a trial produced either green (positive) or red (negative) keylights. If no pecking occurred no differential stimuli appeared. The probability of positive trials was either 0.25, 0.50, or 0.75. Observing response rates and relative frequencies of occurrence were highest when the probability of positive trials was 0.25 and lowest at 0.75. In Experiment II, a modified chain procedure was used in which responding produced either red or green lights. Reinforcement or timeout followed light onset by 15 sec. The correlation between the stimuli and the event at the end of the trial (reinforcement or timeout) was varied. Reinforcement followed green 100%, 90%, 70%, or 50% of the time that green occurred. Since the overall probability of reinforcement remained at 0.50, reinforcement followed red in either 0%, 10%, 30%, or 50% of the time that it occurred. The rate of responses that produced these stimuli varied as a function of the correlation. The greater the probability of reinforcement after green, the higher the response rate.     

Escape from rich‐to‐lean transitions: Stimulus change and timeout

Extended pausing during discriminable transitions from rich‐to‐lean conditions can be viewed as escape (i.e., rich‐to‐lean transitions function aversively). In the current experiments, pigeons’ key pecking was maintained by a multiple fixed‐ratio fixed‐ratio schedule of rich or lean reinforcers. Pigeons then were provided with another, explicit, mechanism of escape by changing the stimulus from the transition‐specific stimulus used in the multiple schedule to a mixed‐schedule stimulus (Experiment 1) or by producing a period of timeout in which the stimulus was turned off and the schedule was suspended (Experiment 2). Overall, escape was under joint control of past and upcoming reinforcer magnitudes, such that responses on the escape key were most likely during rich‐to‐lean transitions, and second‐most likely during lean‐to‐lean transitions. Even though pigeons pecked the escape key, they paused before doing so, and the latency to begin the fixed ratio (i.e., the pause) remained extended during rich‐to‐lean transitions. These findings suggest that although the stimulus associated with rich‐to‐lean transitions functioned aversively, pausing is more than simply escape responding from the stimulus.     

Pigeons flexibly time or count on cue

In Experiment 1, pigeons were presented with a sequence of light flashes and cued to peck a key for reward either after a fixed time or after a fixed number of flashes. Curves that showed the rate of key pecking over time within trials indicated that peak rates of response were reached near the fixed time on timing-cued trials and near the fixed number of flashes on counting-cued trials. In Experiment 2, the key cue was shifted from timing to counting or from counting to timing midway through a trial. The peak times reached after the cue change indicated that pigeons kept track of time while cued to count but did not count while cued to time. These findings suggest a basic asymmetry in the dual-mode model of timing and counting.     

The role of preliminary magazine training in acquisition of the autoshaped key peck

A series of experiments tested the hypothesis that initial key pecks in the autoshaping procedure are generalized pecks at the illuminated grain hopper. Experiment I found that autoshaping readily occurred when the chamber was continuously illuminated by a house-light. In Experiment II, pigeons given magazine training and autoshaping with an unlighted grain hopper failed to autoshape in 200 trials. Acquisition of autoshaped key pecking was retarded in Experiment III when stimulus control by the magazine light was reduced. In the fourth study, pigeons were given magazine training with either a red or white magazine light and then given autoshaping with concurrently presented red and white keys. For all pigeons in this experiment, the first key peck occurred on the key of the same color as that pigeon's magazine light. The results of these experiments were interpreted as supporting an account of autoshaping that identifies initial key pecks as arising due to generalization of pecking at the lighted grain hopper to pecking at the lighted key.     

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.     

Time-place learning by pigeons, Columba livia

In each of two experiments, 2 pigeons received discrimination training in which food reinforcement for key pecking was conditional upon both spatial and temporal cues. In Experiment 1, food was available for periods of 30 s at each of three locations (pecking keys) during trials that lasted 90 s. In Experiment 2, food was available for periods of 15 min at each of four locations (pecking keys) during a 60-min trial. In both experiments, pigeons' key pecking was jointly controlled by the spatial and temporal cues. These data, and other recent experiments, suggest that animals learn relationships between temporal and spatial cues that predict stable patterns of food availability.     

ASSESSING THE ROLE OF EFFORT REDUCTION IN THE REINFORCING EFFICACY OF TIMEOUT FROM AVOIDANCE

Rats responded on concurrent schedules of shock‐postponement or deletion (avoidance) and timeout from avoidance. In Experiment 1, 3 rats' responses on one lever postponed shocks for 20 s and responses on a second lever produced a 1‐min timeout according to a variable‐interval 45‐s schedule. Across conditions, a warning signal (white noise) was presented 19.5 s, 16 s, 12 s, 8 s, or 4 s before an impending shock. Raising the duration of the warning signal increased both avoidance and timeout response rates. Timeout responding, although positively correlated with avoidance responding, was not correlated with the prevailing shock rate. In Experiment 2, 3 rats' responses on one lever deleted scheduled shocks according to a variable‐cycle 30‐s schedule and responses on a second lever produced a 2‐min timeout as described above. After this baseline condition, the avoidance lever was removed and noncontingent shocks were delivered at intervals yoked to the receipt of shocks in the baseline sessions. Timeout responding decreased when the avoidance lever was removed, even though the shock‐frequency reduction afforded by the timeout remained constant. These results suggest that a key factor in the reinforcing efficacy of timeout is suspension of the requirement to work to avoid shock, rather than the reduction in shock frequency associated with timeout.