Timing and the control of variation

Two rat experiments shed light on how variation in behavior is regulated. Experiment 1 used the peak procedure. On most trials, the 1st bar press more than 40 s after signal onset ended the signal and produced food. Other trials lasted much longer and ended without food. On those trials, the variability of bar-press duration increased greatly after the 1st response more than 40 s after signal onset. In Experiment 2, which asked whether the increase was due to the omission of expected reward or the decrease in reward expectation, reward expectation had a strong effect on response duration, whereas omission of expected reward had little effect. In both experiments, response rate and response duration changed independently, suggesting that they reflect different parts of the underlying mechanism. In Experiment 1, response durations implied that timing of the signal was more accurate than the rate-vs.-time function might suggest. Experiment 2 suggested that lowering reward expectation increases variation in response form.     

Relative durations of conditioned stimulus and intertrial interval in conditioned suppression.

The effects of the relative durations of the conditional stimulus and the intertrial interval on bar pressing during a conditioned-suppression procedure were examined as a function of two additional variables--type of operant baseline schedule and rate of shock presentation. In Experiment 1, response suppression was compared across components of a multiple fixed-ratio, random-ratio, fixed-interval, random-interval schedule, at relative conditioned-stimulus/intertrial-interval durations of 1/1, 1/4, and 1/9. In Experiment 2, relative conditioned-stimulus/intertrial-interval duration (1/5, 3/3, or 5/1) was manipulated across groups, while shock frequency (2, 6, or 10 shocks/hr) was manipulated within groups. In both experiments, suppression during the signal was virtually complete at all relative durations. Responding was also suppressed during the intertrial interval, but that suppression varied as a function of experimental manipulations. In Experiment 1, intertrial-interval response rates were higher when relative signal duration was 1/9 than when it was 1/1, although both relative signal duration and shock frequency, which covaried, could have contributed to the difference. In Experiment 2, the patterning of response rates between successive shocks was affected by relative duration, absolute rates during the intertrial interval varied as a function of shock frequency, and differences between suppression during the signal and suppression during the intertrial interval were affected by both relative duration and shock frequency. The data support an analysis based upon relationships between shock-correlated and intertrial-interval stimuli and, as assessed by the relative-delay-to-reinforcement metric, are comparable to results that have been reported from experiments using similar manipulations under the autoshaping paradigm.     

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.     

Within-subject testing of the signaled-reinforcement effect on operant responding as measured by response rate and resistance to change

Response rates under random-interval schedules are lower when a brief (500 ms) signal accompanies reinforcement than when there is no signal. The present study examined this signaled-reinforcement effect and its relation to resistance to change. In Experiment 1, rats responded on a multiple random-interval 60-s random-interval 60-s schedule, with signaled reinforcement in only one component. Response resistance to alternative reinforcement, prefeeding, and extinction was compared between these components. Lower response rates, and greater resistance to change, occurred in the component with the reinforcement signal. In Experiment 2, response rates and resistance to change were compared after training on a multiple random-interval 60-s random-interval 60-s schedule in which reinforcer delivery was unsignaled in one component and a response-produced uncorrelated stimulus was presented in the other component. Higher response rates and greater resistance to change occurred with the uncorrelated stimulus. These results highlight the significance of considering the effects of an uncorrelated signal when used as a control condition, and challenge accounts of resistance to change that depend solely on reinforcer rate.     

Time and rate measures in choice transitions

Three experiments with pigeons studied the relation between time and rate measures of behavior under conditions of changing preference. Experiment 1 studied a concurrent chain schedule with random-interval initial links and fixed-interval terminal links; Experiment 2 studied a multiple chained random-interval fixed-interval schedule; and Experiment 3 studied simple concurrent random-interval random-interval schedules. In Experiment 1, and to a lesser extent in the other two experiments, session-average initial-link wait-time differences were linearly related to session-average response-rate differences. In Experiment 1, and to a lesser extent in Experiment 3, ratios of session-average initial-link wait times and response rates were related by a power function. The weaker relations between wait and response measures in Experiment 2 appear to be due to the absence of competition between responses. In Experiments 1 and 2, initial-link changes lagged behind terminal-link changes. These findings may have implications for the relations between fixed- and variable-interval procedures and suggest that more attention should be paid to temporal measures in studies of free-operant choice.     

Methodological improvements to a Procedure for Rapidly Establishing Steady-State Behavior

We performed three experiments to improve the quality and retention of data obtained from a Procedure for Rapidly Establishing Steady-State Behavior (PRESS-B; Klapes et al., 2020). In Experiment 1, 120 participants worked on nine concurrent random-interval random-interval (conc RI RI) schedules and were assigned to four conditions of varying changeover delay (COD) length. The 0.5-s COD condition group exhibited the fewest instances of exclusive reinforcer acquisition. Importantly, this group did not differ in generalized matching law (GML) fit quality from the other groups. In Experiment 2, 60 participants worked on nine conc RI RI schedules with a wider range of scheduled reinforcement rate ratios than was used in Experiment 1. Participants showed dramatic reductions in exclusive reinforcer acquisition. Experiment 3 entailed a replication of Experiment 2 wherein blackout periods were implemented between the schedule presentations and each schedule remained in operation until at least one reinforcer was acquired on each alternative. GML fit quality was slightly more consistent in Experiment 3 than in the previous experiments. Thus, these results suggest that future PRESS-B studies should implement a shorter COD, a wider and richer scheduled reinforcement rate ratio range, and brief blackouts between schedule presentations for optimal data quality and retention.     

Contrast and autoshaping in multiple schedules varying reinforcer rate and duration

Thirteen master pigeons were exposed to multiple schedules in which reinforcement frequency (Experiment I) or duration (Experiment II) was varied. In Phases 1 and 3 of Experiment I, the values of the first and second components' random-interval schedules were 33 and 99 seconds, respectively. In Phase 2, these values were 99 seconds for both components. In Experiment II, a random-interval 33-second schedule was associated with each component. During Phases 1 and 3, the first and second components had hopper durations of 7.5 and 2.5 seconds respectively. During Phase 2, both components' hopper durations were 2.5 seconds. In each experiment, positive contrast obtained for about half the master subjects. The rest showed a rate increase in both components (positive induction). Each master subject's key colors and reinforcers were synchronously presented on a response-independent basis to a yoked control. Richer component key-pecking occurred during each experiment's Phases 1 and 3 among half these subjects. However, none responded during the contrast condition (unchanged component of each experiment's Phase 2). From this it is inferred that autoshaping did not contribute to the contrast and induction findings among master birds. Little evidence of local contrast (highest rate at beginning of richer component) was found in any subject. These data show that (a) contrast can occur independently from autoshaping, (b) contrast assays during equal-valued components may produce induction, (c) local contrast in multiple schedules often does not occur, and (d) differential hopper durations can produce autoshaping and contrast.     

Visual Reinforcement Signals Interfere with the Effects of Reinforcer Magnitude Manipulations

Three experiments examined the effect of reinforcement magnitude on free-operant response rates. In Experiment 1, rats that received four food pellets responded faster than rats that received one pellet on a variable ratio 30 schedule. However, when the food hopper was illuminated during reinforcer delivery, there was no difference between the rates of response produced by the two magnitudes of reward. In Experiment 2, there was no difference in response rates emitted by rats receiving either one or four pellets of food as reward on a random interval (RI) 60-s schedule. In Experiment 3, rats responding on an RI 30-s schedule did so at a lower rate with four pellets as reinforcement than with one pellet. This effect was abolished by the illumination of the food hopper during reinforcement delivery. These results indicate that the influence of magnitude is obscured by manipulations which signal the delivery of reinforcement.     

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.     

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.     

Conditioned suppression or facilitation as a function of the behavioral baseline

Rats were exposed to a multiple schedule of reinforcement. During one component, a bar-press was followed by reinforcement only if it occurred between 15 and 20 sec after the previous response. This differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule produced a typical slow rate of responding. During the other component, reinforcement followed the first response to be emitted during limited periods of time which occurred at fixed intervals. These fixed-interval schedules with a limited hold produced higher response rates, described as `interval' or `ratio-like' behavior. Responding during the DRL component increased in frequency during a tone which ended with an unavoidable shock of low intensity, but decreased during the tone when the shock intensity was raised. The `interval' and `ratio-like' responding decreased in frequency during the tone at all shock intensities. Initial acceleration of the DRL responding appeared to be due to adventitious punishment of collateral behavior which was observed between the bar-presses. The more severe conditioned suppression during the fixed-interval components might be the result of the lower probability of reinforcement after any single response.     

Responding of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of signaled-delayed reinforcement: effects of delay-signal duration.

Two experiments with pigeons examined the relation of the duration of a signal for delay ("delay signal") to rates of key pecking. The first employed a multiple schedule comprised of two components with equal variable-interval 60-s schedules of 27-s delayed food reinforcement. In one component, a short (0.5-s) delay signal, presented immediately following the key peck that began the delay, was increased in duration across phases; in the second component the delay signal initially was equal to the length of the programmed delay (27 s) and was decreased across phases. Response rates prior to delays were an increasing function of delay-signal duration. As the delay signal was decreased in duration, response rates were generally higher than those obtained under identical delay-signal durations as the signal was increased in duration. In Experiment 2 a single variable-interval 60-s schedule of 27-s delayed reinforcement was used. Delay-signal durations were again increased gradually across phases. As in Experiment 1, response rates increased as the delay-signal duration was increased. Following the phase during which the signal lasted the entire delay, shorter delay-signal-duration conditions were introduced abruptly, rather than gradually as in Experiment 1, to determine whether the gradual shortening of the delay signal accounted for the differences observed in response rates under identical delay-signal conditions in Experiment 1. Response rates obtained during the second exposures to the conditions with shorter signals were higher than those observed under identical conditions as the signal duration was increased, as in Experiment 1. In both experiments, rates and patterns of responding during delays varied greatly across subjects and were not systematically related to delay-signal durations. The effects of the delay signal may be related to the signal's role as a discriminative stimulus for adventitiously reinforced intradelay behavior, or the delay signal may have served as a conditioned reinforcer by virtue of the temporal relation between it and presentation of food.     

A TEST OF THE FORMAL AND MODERN THEORIES OF MATCHING

Pigeons' choosing between fixed-interval and random-interval schedules of reinforcement was investigated in three experiments using a discrete-trial procedure. In all three experiments, the random-interval schedule was generated by sampling a probability distribution at an interval (and in multiples of the interval) equal to that of the fixed-interval schedule. Thus the programmed delays to reinforcement on the random alternative were never shorter and were often longer than the fixed interval. Despite this feature, the fixed schedule was not strongly preferred. Increases in the probability used to generate the random interval resulted in decreased preferences for the fixed schedule. In addition, the number of consecutive choices on the preferred alternative varied directly with preference, whereas the consecutive number of choices on the nonpreferred alternative was fairly constant. The probability of choosing the random alternative was unaffected by the immediately prior interval encountered on that schedule, even when it was very long relative to the average value. The results loosely support conceptions of a "preference for variability" from foraging theory and the "utility of behavioral variability" from human decision-making literatures.     

Stock optimizing: maximizing reinforcers per session on a variable-interval schedule.

In Experiment 1, 2 monkeys earned their daily food ration by pressing a key that delivered food according to a variable-interval 3-min schedule. In Phases 1 and 4, sessions ended after 3 hr. In Phases 2 and 3, sessions ended after a fixed number of responses that reduced food intake and body weights from levels during Phases 1 and 4. Monkeys responded at higher rates and emitted more responses per food delivery when the food earned in a session was reduced. In Experiment 2, monkeys earned their daily food ration by depositing tokens into the response panel. Deposits delivered food according to a variable-interval 3-min schedule. When the token supply was unlimited (Phases 1, 3, and 5), sessions ended after 3 hr. In Phases 2 and 4, sessions ended after 150 tokens were deposited, resulting in a decrease in food intake and body weight. Both monkeys responded at lower rates and emitted fewer responses per food delivery when the food earned in a session was reduced. Experiment 1's results are consistent with a strength account, according to which the phases that reduced body weights increased food's value and therefore increased subjects' response rates. The results of Experiment 2 are consistent with an optimizing strategy, because lowering response rates when food is restricted defends body weight on variable-interval schedules. These contrasting results may be attributed to the discriminability of the contingency between response number and the end of a session being greater in Experiment 2 than in Experiment 1. In consequence, subjects lowered their response rates in order to increase the number of reinforcers per session (stock optimizing).     

Choice with uncertain outcomes: conditioned reinforcement effects.

Pigeons responded on concurrent chains with equal initial- and terminal-link durations. In all conditions, the terminal links of one chain ended reliably in reinforcement; the terminal links on the alternative chain ended in either food or blackout. In Experiment 1, the terminal-link stimuli were correlated with (signaled) the outcome, and the durations of the initial and terminal links were varied across conditions. Preference did not vary systematically across conditions. In Experiment 2, terminal-link durations were varied under different stimulus conditions. The initial links were variable-interval 80-s schedules. Preference for the reliable alternative was generally higher in unsignaled than in signaled conditions. Preference increased with terminal-link durations only in the unsignaled conditions. There were no consistent differences between conditions with and without a common signal for reinforcement on the two chains. In the first series of conditions in Experiment 3, a single response was required in the initial links, and the stimulus conditions during 50-s terminal links were varied. Preference for the reliable outcome approached 1.0 in unsignaled conditions and was considerably lower (below .50 for 3 of 5 subjects) in signaled conditions. In a final series of signaled conditions with relatively long terminal links, preference varied with duration of the initial links. The results extend previous findings and are discussed in terms of the delay reduction signaled by terminal-link stimuli.     

Effects of signaled versus unsignaled delay of reinforcement on choice

Pigeons chose between 5-s and 15-s delay-of-reinforcement alternatives. The first key peck to satisfy the choice schedule began a delay timer, and food was delivered at the end of the interval. Key pecks during the delay interval were measured, but had no scheduled effect. In Experiment 1, signal conditions and choice schedules were varied across conditions. During unsignaled conditions, no stimulus change signaled the beginning of a delay interval. During differential and nondifferential signal conditions, offset of the choice stimuli and onset of a delay stimulus signaled the beginning of a delay interval. During differential signal conditions, different stimuli were correlated with the 5-s and 15-s delays, whereas the same stimulus appeared during both delay durations during nondifferential signal conditions. Pigeons showed similar, extreme levels of preference for the 5-s delay alternative during unsignaled and differentially signaled conditions. Preference levels were reliably lower with nondifferential signals. Experiment 2 assessed preference with two pairs of unsignaled delays in which the ratio of delays was held constant but the absolute duration was increased fourfold. No effect of absolute duration was found. The results highlight the importance of delayed primary reinforcement effects and challenge models of choice that focus solely on conditioned reinforcement.     

Choice between response units: The rate constancy model

In a conjoint schedule, reinforcement is available simultaneously on two or more schedules for the same response. The present experiments provided food for key pecking on both a random-interval and a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule. Experiment 1 involved ordinary DRL schedules; Experiment 2 added an external stimulus to indicate when the required interresponse time had elapsed. In both experiments, the potential reinforcer frequency from each component was varied by means of a second-order fixed-ratio schedule, and the DRL time parameter was changed as well. Response rates were described by a model stating that time allocation to each component matches the relative frequency of reinforcement for that component. When spending time in a given component, the subject is assumed to respond at the rate characteristic of baseline performance. This model appeared preferable to the absolute-rate version of the matching law. The model was shown to be applicable to multiple-response concurrent schedules as well as to conjoint schedules, and it described some of the necessary conditions for response matching, undermatching, and bias. In addition, the pigeons did not optimize reinforcer frequency.     

Comparing preference and resistance to change in constant- and variable-duration schedule components

Two experiments explored preference and resistance to change in concurrent chains in which the terminal links were variable-interval schedules that ended either after a single reinforcer had been delivered (variable duration) or after a fixed period of access to the schedule (constant duration). In Experiment 1, pigeons' preference between the same pair of terminal links overmatched relative reinforcement rate when the terminal links were of constant duration, but not when they were of variable duration. Responding during the richer terminal link decreased less, relative to baseline, when response-independent food was presented during the initial links according to a variable-time schedule. In Experiment 2, all subjects consistently preferred a terminal link that consisted of 20-s access to a variable-interval 20-s schedule over a terminal link that ended after one reinforcer had been delivered by the same schedule. Results of resistance-to-change tests corresponded to preference, as responding during the constant-duration terminal link decreased less, relative to baseline, when disrupted by both response-independent food during the initial links and prefeeding. Overall, these data extend the general covariation of preference and resistance to change seen in previous studies. However, they suggest that reinforcement numerosity, including variability in the number of reinforcers per terminal-link entry, may sometimes affect preference and resistance to change in ways that are difficult to explain in terms of current models.     

Psychological distance to reward: A human replication

Choice behavior in college students was examined in two experiments using the concurrent-chains procedure. In both experiments, the concurrent chains were presented on a microcomputer in the form of an air-defense game in which subjects used two radar systems to detect and subsequently destroy enemy aircraft. Access to one of two radar systems was controlled by a pair of independent concurrent variable-interval 60-s schedules with a 4-s changeover delay always in effect. In the terminal link, the appearance of an enemy aircraft was determined by a pair of differentially segmented fixed-time schedules (Experiment 1) or fixed-interval schedules (Experiment 2) of equal overall duration. In Experiment 1, the terminal-link duration was either 20 s or 40 s, and subjects preferred the unsegmented to the segmented intervals. In Experiment 2, the duration was either 10 s or 60 s, and the reinforcement contingencies required responding during the terminal link. Prior to the reinstatement of the initial link, subjects estimated the duration of the terminal-link schedule. Segmentation affected choice in the 60-s conditions but not in the 10-s ones. Preference for the unsegmented schedule was correlated with an overestimation of the durations for the segmented schedules. These results replicated those found in animal experiments and support the notion of increasing the psychological distance to reward by segmenting a time-based schedule of reinforcement.     

OBSERVING RESPONSES AND SERIAL STIMULI: SEARCHING FOR THE REINFORCING PROPERTIES OF THE S−

The control exerted by a stimulus associated with an extinction component (S−) on observing responses was determined as a function of its temporal relation with the onset of the reinforcement component. Lever pressing by rats was reinforced on a mixed random-interval extinction schedule. Each press on a second lever produced stimuli associated with the component of the schedule in effect. In Experiment 1 a response-dependent clock procedure that incorporated different stimuli associated with an extinction component of a variable duration was used. When a single S− was presented throughout the extinction component, the rate of observing remained relatively constant across this component. In the response-dependent clock procedure, observing responses increased from the beginning to the end of the extinction component. This result was replicated in Experiment 2, using a similar clock procedure but keeping the number of stimuli per extinction component constant. We conclude that the S− can function as a conditioned reinforcer, a neutral stimulus or as an aversive stimulus, depending on its temporal location within the extinction component.