Effects of varying stimulus disparity and the reinforcer ratio in concurrent-schedule and signal-detection procedures.

The present study measured the effects of stimulus and reinforcer variations on pigeons' behavior in two different choice procedures. Two intensities of white light were presented as the stimuli on the main key in a switching-key concurrent schedule and as the sample stimuli in a signal-detection procedure. Under both procedures, the scheduled rate of reinforcement was varied across conditions to produce various ratios of obtained reinforcement. These ratios were obtained for seven pairs of light intensities. In the concurrent schedules, the effects of reinforcer-ratio variations were positively correlated with the physical disparity between the two light intensities. In the signal-detection procedure, changes in the reinforcer ratio produced greater effects on performance when stimulus disparity was very low or very high compared to those found at intermediate levels of stimulus disparity. This discrepancy creates a dilemma for existing behavioral models of signal-detection performance.     

The interaction of stimulus and reinforcer control in complex temporal discrimination.

Six pigeons were trained in a discrete-trials signal-detection procedure to discriminate between a fixed-duration stimulus (5 s or 20 s) and a set of variable durations ranging from 2.5 s to 57.5 s in steps of 5 s. For each fixed-duration stimulus, the ratio of reinforcer frequencies contingent upon reporting the fixed versus the variable stimulus was systematically manipulated. Detection performance was well controlled by both the stimulus value and the reinforcer ratio. Both the discriminability between the fixed duration and the set of variable durations, and the discriminability between the fixed duration and each of the variable durations, were independent of the reinforcer-frequency ratio when discriminability was measured as log d. The sensitivity of response bias to reinforcement-ratio changes was independent of the value of the fixed duration, but was not independent of the discriminability of the variable durations from the fixed durations. Under current models, discriminability measures in complex temporal discrimination may be independent of biasing manipulations, but bias measures are not independent of stimulus values.     

Human symbolic matching-to-sample performance: Effects of reinforcer and sample-stimulus probabilities

Four experiments, each with 6 human subjects, varied the distribution of reinforcers for correct responses and the probability of sample-stimulus presentation in symbolic matching-to-sample procedures. Experiment 1 held the sample-stimulus probability constant and varied the ratio of reinforcers obtained for correct responses on the two alternatives across conditions. There was a positive relation between measures of response bias and the ratio of reinforcers. Experiment 2 held the ratio of reinforcers constant and varied the sample-stimulus probability across conditions. Unlike previous studies that used pigeons as subjects, there was a negative relation between bias and the ratio of sample-stimulus presentations. In Experiment 3, the sample-stimulus probability and the reinforcer ratio covaried across conditions. Response bias did not vary systematically across conditions. In Experiments 1 to 3, correct responses were reinforced intermittently. Experiment 4 used the same procedure as Experiment 3, but all correct responses now produced some scheduled consequence. There was a positive relation between response bias and the ratio of reinforcers. The results suggest that human performance in these tasks was controlled by both the relative frequency of reinforced responses and the relative frequency of nonreinforced responses.     

Rapid acquisition of bias in signal detection: dynamics of effective reinforcement allocation

We investigated changes in bias (preference for one response alternative) in signal detection when relative reinforcer frequency for correct responses varied across sessions. In Experiment 1, 4 rats responded in a two-stimulus, two-response identification procedure employing temporal stimuli (short vs. long houselight presentations). Relative reinforcer frequency varied according to a 31-step pseudorandom binary sequence and stimulus duration difference varied over two values across conditions. In Experiment 2, 3 rats responded in a five-stimulus, two-response classification procedure employing temporal stimuli. Relative reinforcer frequency was varied according to a 36-step pseudorandom ternary sequence. Results of both experiments were analyzed according to a behavioral model of detection. The model was extended to incorporate the effects of current and previous session reinforcer frequency ratios on current-session performance. Similar to findings with concurrent schedules, effects on bias of relative reinforcer frequency were highest for the current session. However, carryover from reinforcer ratios of previous sessions was evident. Generally, the results indicate that bias can come under control of frequent changes in relative reinforcer frequency in both identification and classification procedures.     

Isobias curves in some detection tasks

Signal/noise ratio was varied in three tone-detection tasks while other conditions were held constant, generating 9 8-point and 12 12-point isobias plots. These plots were compared with the theoretical isobias curves associated with seven proposed bias measures. Each of the proposed measures covaried with signal/noise ratio in at least half of the data. For two of the plots, none of the measures was invariant. It is clear that different subjects respond quite differently to change in discriminability, and the implications of this for bias measurement are discussed.     

Effects of differences between stimuli, responses, and reinforcer rates on conditional discrimination performance

In a discrete-trial conditional discrimination procedure, 4 pigeons obtained food reinforcers by pecking a key with a short latency on trials signaled by one stimulus and by pecking the same key with a long latency on trials signaled by a second stimulus. The physical difference between the two stimuli and the temporal separation between the latency values required for reinforcement were varied factorially over four sets of conditions, and the ratio of reinforcer rates for short and long latencies was varied within each set of conditions. Stimulus discrimination varied directly with both stimulus and response differences and was unaffected by the reinforcer ratio. Sensitivity to reinforcement, estimated by generalized-matching-law fits to the data within each set of conditions, varied directly with the response difference but inversely with the stimulus difference arranged between sets of conditions. Because variations in stimulus differences, response differences, and reinforcer differences did not have equivalent effects, these findings question the functional equivalence of the three terms of the discriminated operant: antecedent stimuli, behavior, and consequences.     

Stimulus disparity and punisher control of human signal-detection performance

The present experiment examined the effects of varying stimulus disparity and relative punisher frequencies on signal detection by humans. Participants were placed into one of two groups. Group 3 participants were presented with 1:3 and 3:1 punisher frequency ratios, while Group 11 participants were presented with 1:11 and 11:1 punisher frequency ratios. For both groups, stimulus disparity was varied across three levels (low, medium, high) for each punisher ratio. In all conditions, correct responses were intermittently reinforced (1:1 reinforcer frequency ratio). Participants were mostly biased away from the more punished alternative, with more extreme response biases found for Group 11 participants compared to Group 3. For both groups, estimates of discriminability increased systematically across the three disparity levels and were unaffected by the punisher ratios. Likewise, estimates of response bias and sensitivity to the punisher ratios were unaffected by changes in discriminability, supporting the assumption of parameter invariance in the Davison and Tustin (1978) model of signal detection. Overall, the present experiment found no relation between stimulus control and punisher control, and provided further evidence for similar but opposite effects of punishers to reinforcers in signal-detection procedures.     

Elimination of position-biased responding in individuals with autism and intellectual disabilities

Five individuals with autism or other developmental disabilities participated in paired-stimulus preference assessments during repeated baseline probes. All subjects initially showed a pronounced bias by typically selecting the stimulus placed in either the left or right position. Biased responding for 3 subjects was eliminated when training trials were conducted in which a stimulus of known lesser quality was presented as one of the choices. Reinforcer-quality training was unsuccessful for 2 subjects, as was a condition in which reinforcer magnitude was modified to favor unbiased responding. These subjects' biased responding was eliminated only when a correction procedure (repetition of error trials) was implemented.     

The effects of number of sample stimuli and number of choices in a detection task on measures of discriminability

Six pigeons were trained on a conditional discrimination task involving the discrimination of various intensities of yellow light. The research asked whether stimulus—response discriminability measures between any pair of stimuli would remain constant when a third or fourth sample and reinforced response were added. The numbers of different sample stimuli presented and different responses reinforced were two (Part 1), three (Parts 2 and 4), and four (Part 3). Across conditions within parts, the ratios of reinforcers obtainable for correct responses were varied over at least five levels. In Part 5, the numbers of sample stimuli and reinforced responses were varied among two, three, and four, and the reinforcer ratio between consecutive remaining samples was constant at 2:1. It was found that once a particular response had been reinforced, subjects continued to emit that response when the conditional stimulus for that response was no longer presented. Data analysis using a generalization-based detection model indicated that this model was able to describe the data effectively. Four findings were in accord with the theory. First, estimates of stimulus—response discriminability usually decreased as the arranged physical disparity between the sample stimuli decreased. Second, stimulus—response discriminability measures were independent of response—reinforcer discriminability measures, preserving parameter invariance between these measures. Third, stimulus—response discriminability measures for constant pairs of conditional stimuli did not change systematically as conditional stimulus—response alternatives were added. Fourth, log stimulus—response discriminability values between physically adjacent conditional stimuli summed to values that were not significantly different from estimates of the discriminability values for conditional stimuli that were spaced further apart.     

Receiver operating characteristics from nonhuman animals: Some implications and directions for research with humans

Reviews of signal detection have largely overlooked the research involving nonhuman animal subjects. Some of this research is presented and reanalyzed here. Plots of receiver operating characteristics show that human and nonhuman signal-detection performance is very similar. The studies emphasize the series of discriminations that comprise signal-detection tasks and illustrate the systematic effects of different methods of arranging payoffs or feedback, of the consistency of that feedback, and of the physical disparity between response alternatives. The data provide some support for recent theoretical accounts that favor a criterion location measure of isobias over the likelihood ratio, but they also suggest that more systematic work is required in this area. Overall, this research supports many contemporary views concerning signal detection, and it provides an alternative way of looking at some recurrent issues. It also suggests that extensions of signal detection to analyze data from other research paradigms require some caution, and it offers directions for complementary research with human subjects.     

On the discriminability of stimulus duration.

The performance of pigeons trained to detect differences in the duration of stimuli was analysed using a matching model of signal detection. Two white stimuli, S1 and S2, differing in duration, were arranged with equal probability on the center key of a three-key chamber. S1 was systematically varied from 5 seconds to 25 seconds while S2 remained constant at 30 seconds. On completion of the center-key stimulus, a peck on the center key turned on the two red side keys. A left-key response was "correct" when S1 had been in effect on the center key and a right-key response was "correct" on S2 trials. A correct response produced a 3-second magazine light accompanied intermittently by food. Incorrect responses produced 3-second blackouts. Detection performance was measured under two procedures. In the first, the obtained reinforcement ratio was uncontrolled by allowing the number of food reinforcements obtained for correct left- and right-key responses to vary as the stimuli were changed. In the second procedure, the presentation of food reinforcement was controlled by holding the obtained reinforcement ratio constant. Discriminability changed as a function of stimulus differences under both procedures. No such trend was found in response bias.     

Effects of response disparity on stimulus and reinforcer control in human detection tasks

In two detection experiments, university students reported whether the second of two sequentially presented tones was longer or shorter than the first by responding to stimuli presented on a touch screen. Stimulus disparity and response disparity were manipulated to compare their effects on measures of discrimination and response bias when the reinforcement ratio for correct responses was asymmetric. Choice stimuli consisted of squares filled with different pixel densities. Response disparity was manipulated by varying the difference in density between the two choice stimuli. In both experiments, decreasing stimulus disparity reduced discrimination but had no consistent effect on bias. Decreasing response disparity also reduced discrimination in both experiments, and often reduced estimates of bias. The effects of response disparity on bias were most clear in Experiment 2, in which a greater overall level of response disparity was arranged. The data show that, like corresponding research with pigeons, detection performance of human subjects can be conceptualized as discriminated operants.     

Stimulus Effects On Behavior Allocation In Three-alternative Choice

Six pigeons were trained on three-alternative concurrent variable-interval schedules that were available through a switching response and were signaled by colored stimuli. The discriminative stimuli for two of the schedules were always 560 nm and 630 nm, but the stimulus signaling the third alternative was varied across conditions over seven levels between these colors. For each third-alternative stimulus condition, the relative frequency of reinforcers was varied over three conditions with 4:1 and 16:1 reinforcer ratios between each pair of alternatives. The distribution of responses between the alternatives was dependent jointly on the third-alternative reinforcer rate and on the disparity between the stimulus signaling the third alternative and those signaling the other alternatives. A generalized matching approach was unable to provide invariant measures of the discriminability between constant stimuli, but a contingency-discriminability approach provided excellent fits and sensible and invariant stimulus discriminability measures.     

Stimulus Presentation Ratios And The Outcomes For Correct Responses In Signal-detection Procedures

Three pigeons were trained to discriminate between two line orientations (S₁ and S₂). A left-key peck was correct when S₁ was presented, and a right key-peck was correct when S₂ was presented. In all procedures, correct responses were occasionally reinforced with food paired with the presentation of the magazine light. Incorrect responses produced a blackout. Six detection procedures were used. In the first, the signal presentation ratio was varied across conditions and the reinforcer ratio was allowed to covary. In the second, the signal presentation ratio was held constant at 1:1 and the reinforcer ratio varied across conditions. In the third, the signal presentation ratio was varied across conditions and the reinforcer ratio was held constant at 1:1. In these three procedures, correct responses that were not scheduled for reinforcement were followed by blackout. The remaining three procedures repeated those described above with one procedural change: Nonreinforced but correct trials were followed by the presentation of the magazine light. Birds showed systematic preferences for the key associated with the stimulus presented or reinforced most often. There was no change in the birds' performance over changes in the feedback for nonreinforced but correct responses.     

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN SINGLE VERSUS DAILY PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES AND REINFORCER EFFICACY UNDER PROGRESSIVE‐RATIO SCHEDULES

Research has suggested that a daily multiple‐stimulus‐without‐replacement (MSWO) preference assessment may be more sensitive to changes in preference than other assessment formats, thereby resulting in greater correspondence with reinforcer efficacy over time ( DeLeon et al., 2001 ). However, most prior studies have measured reinforcer efficacy using rate of responding under single‐operant arrangements and dense schedules or under concurrent‐operants arrangements. An alternative measure of reinforcer efficacy involves the evaluation of responding under progressive‐ratio (PR) schedules. In the present study, 7 participants were given a single paired‐stimulus (PS) preference assessment followed by daily MSWO preference assessments. After each daily MSWO, participants responded for each stimulus on a PR schedule. The correspondence between break points and preferences, as assessed by the 2 assessment formats, was examined. Results demonstrated that both preference assessments did equally well at predicting reinforcer efficacy, although the PS more consistently identified the most effective reinforcer.     

EFFECTS OF A SIGNALED DELAY TO REINFORCEMENT IN THE PREVIOUS AND UPCOMING RATIOS ON BETWEEN-RATIO PAUSING IN FIXED-RATIO SCHEDULES

Domestic hens responded under multiple fixed‐ratio fixed‐ratio schedules with equal fixed ratios. One component provided immediate reinforcement and the other provided reinforcement after a delay, signaled by the offset of the key light. The components were presented quasirandomly so that all four possible transitions occurred in each session. The delay was varied over 0, 4, 8, 16, and 32 s with fixed‐ratio 5 schedules, and over 0, 8 and 32 s with fixed‐ratio 1, 15 and 40 schedules. Main effects of fixed‐ratio value and delay duration were detected on between‐ratio pauses. Pauses were longer when the multiple‐schedule stimulus correlated with a delayed‐reinforcer component was presented, with the longest pauses occurring at the transition from a component with an immediate reinforcer to one with a delayed reinforcer. Pause durations were shortest during immediate components. Overall, both the presence or absence of a delay in the upcoming component, and the presence or absence of a delay in the preceding component affected pause length, but the upcoming delay had the larger effect. Thus changes in delay had similar effects to past reports of the effects of changes in response force, response requirement, and reinforcer magnitude in multiple fixed‐ratio fixed‐ratio schedules.     

Self-control in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta): controlling for differential stimulus exposure

Previous research on self-control using macaques (Macaca fascicularis) showed these animals have a strong bias for a delayed, larger reinforcer (Self-control) over an immediate, smaller reinforcer (Impulsive). Typical studies of self-control have used a discrete trials methodology with a secondary discriminative stimulus during the delay periods. This results in a greater exposure to the stimulus representing the self-controlled option and may account for some of the early exclusive preference for self-control observed. The present experiment examined self-control bias in three rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) while controlling for differential durations of stimulus exposure. Subjects were presented stimuli via a computer monitor and made choices by touching the stimulus at which point both stimuli were removed for the delay periods. All three subjects displayed a nearly exclusive bias for the delayed, larger reinforcer self-control). These results are consistent with previous studies, despite the variations in methodology and species.     

Control by past and present stimuli depends on the discriminated reinforcer differential

The extent to which a stimulus exerts control over behavior depends largely on its informativeness. However, when reinforcers have discriminative properties, they often exert less control over behavior than do other less reliable stimuli such as elapsed time. We investigated why less reliable cues in the present often overshadow stimulus control by more reliable cues presented in the recent past, by manipulating the reliability and duration of stimulus presentations. Five pigeons worked on a modified concurrent schedule in which the location of the response that produced the last reinforcer was a discriminative stimulus for the likely time and location of the next reinforcer. In some conditions, either the location of the previous reinforcer, or the location of the next reinforcer, was signaled by a red key light. This stimulus was either Brief, occurring for 10 s starting a fixed time after the most recent reinforcer, or Extended, being present at all times between food deliveries. Brief and Extended stimuli that signaled the same information had a similar effect on choice when they were present, but control by Brief stimuli weakened as time since stimulus offset elapsed. Control was divided among stimuli in the present and recent past according to the apparent reliability of the information signaled about the next reinforcer. More reliable stimuli in the present degraded, but did not erase, control by less reliable stimuli presented in the recent past. Thus, we conclude that less reliable stimuli in the present control behavior to a greater degree than do more reliable stimuli in the recent past because these more reliable stimuli are forgotten, and hence their relation to the likely availability of food cannot be discriminated.     

Does overall reinforcer rate affect discrimination of time‐based contingencies?

Overall reinforcer rate appears to affect choice. The mechanism for such an effect is uncertain, but may relate to reinforcer rate changing the discrimination of the relation between stimuli and reinforcers. We assessed whether a quantitative model based on a stimulus‐control approach could be used to account for the effects of overall reinforcer rate on choice under changing time‐based contingencies. On a two‐key concurrent schedule, the likely availability of a reinforcer reversed when a fixed time had elapsed since the last reinforcer, and the overall reinforcer rate was varied across conditions. Changes in the overall reinforcer rate produced a change in response bias, and some indication of a change in discrimination. These changes in bias and discrimination always occurred quickly, usually within the first session of a condition. The stimulus‐control approach provided an excellent account of the data, suggesting that changes in overall reinforcer rate affect choice because they alter the frequency of reinforcers obtained at different times, or in different stimulus contexts, and thus change the discriminated relation between stimuli and reinforcers. These findings support the notion that temporal and spatial discriminations can be understood in terms of discrimination of reinforcers across time and space.