Effects of a delay-reinforcement procedure on performance under IRT>t schedules

Water-deprived rats were studied under a compound schedule that prescribed that responses terminating interresponse times (IRTs) greater than a fixed value t₁ (IRT > t₁ component schedule) initiated a delay of reinforcement interval t₂, at the end of which water was presented if the subject did not respond ( > t₂ component schedule). If the subject responded before the t₂ interval elapsed, the IRT > t₁ component schedule was re-initiated and water was not presented. The IRT > t₁ and > t₂ component schedules were not differentially correlated with distinctive stimuli. Rate of responding during the IRT > t₁ component decreased as a function of the value of t₂. The magnitude of the decreases in response rate appeared to be proportional to the subject's rate under the IRT > t schedule with no delay of reinforcement (t₂ = 0 sec). The effects were independent of the parameter value of the IRT > t₁ component schedule and of the rate of reinforcement. The results suggested that “efficiency” of performance under IRT > t schedules can be increased by appropriately arranging brief delays of reinforcement.     

The effects of delayed reinforcement on free-operant responding

In previous studies of delayed reinforcement, response rate has been found to vary inversely with the response-reinforcer interval. However, in all of these studies the independent variable, response-reinforcer time, was confounded with the number of reinforcers presented in a fixed period of time (reinforcer frequency). In the present study, the frequency of available reinforcers was held constant, while temporal separation between response and reinforcer was independently manipulated. A repeating time cycle, T, was divided into two alternating time periods, t^D and t^Δ. The first response in t^D was reinforced at the end of the prevailing T cycle and extinction prevailed in t^Δ. Two placements for t^D were defined, an early t^D placement in which t^D precedes t^Δ and a late t^D placement in which t^D follows t^Δ. The duration of the early and late t^D was systematically decreased from 30 seconds (i.e., t^D = T) to 0.1 second. Manipulation of t^D placement and duration controlled the temporal separation between response and reinforcement, but it did not affect the frequency of programmed reinforcers, which was 1/T. The results show that early and late t^D placements of equal duration have similar overall effects upon response rate, reinforcer frequency, responses per reinforcer, and obtained response-reinforcer temporal separation. A stepwise regression analysis using log response rate as the dependent variable showed that the obtained delay was a significant first-step variable for six of eight subjects, with obtained reinforcer frequency significant for the remaining two subjects.     

Percentage reinforcement and choice

Pigeons responded on identical concurrent variable-interval schedules (choice phase), producing outcomes of either periodic reinforcement schedules always terminating in reinforcement (reliable schedule) or otherwise identical schedules providing reinforcement on only a percentage of instances (percentage reinforcement schedule). Comparisons of this type constituted two assessments of the generality of preference for percentage reinforcement reported by Kendall (1974). In a third set of conditions, a reliable schedule was pitted against a percentage reinforcement schedule in which the more negative outcome was a leaner schedule of reinforcement (rather than nonreinforcement, as in the other two conditions). In all three types of conditions, the schedule providing the higher rate of reinforcement was preferred. Results from a subsequent manipulation suggest that Kendall's contrasting results may have depended on the fact that the stimuli in his choice phase (unlit keys) were physically identical to the stimulus correlated with the nonchosen outcome in his outcome phase.     

A comparison of ratio and interval reinforcement schedules with comparable interreinforcement times

Pigeons were trained to peck keys on fixed-ratio and fixed-interval schedules of food reinforcement. Both schedules produced a pattern of behavior characterized as pause and run, but the relation of pausing to time between reinforcers differed for the two schedules even when mean time between reinforcers was the same. Pausing in the fixed ratio occupied less of the time between reinforcers for shorter interreinforcer times. For two of three birds, the relation was reversed at longer interreinforcer times. As an interreinforcer time elapsed, there was an increasing tendency to return to responding for the fixed interval, but a roughly constant tendency to return to responding for the fixed-ratio schedule. In Experiment 1 these observations were made for both single-reinforcement schedules and multiple schedules of fixed-ratio and fixed-interval reinforcement. In Experiment 2 the observations were extended to a comparison of fixed-ratio versus variable-interval reinforcement schedules, where the distribution of interreinforcement times in the variable interval approximated that for the fixed ratio.     

Concurrent schedules: a quantitative relation between changeover behavior and its consequences

Data from several published experiments on concurrent variable-interval schedules were analyzed with respect to the effects of changeover delay on the time spent responding on a schedule before changing to an alternate schedule: i.e., the interchangeover time. Interchangeover time increases as the duration of the changeover delay increases, and the present analysis shows that a power function describes the relation. The power relation applied in spite of numerous differences in the experiments: different variable-interval schedules for the concurrent pairs; equal or unequal reinforcement rates for the schedules of the concurrent pairs; different durations of the changeover delay; response-dependent or response-independent reinforcers; pigeons or rats as subjects; different reinforcers. A power function also described the data in experiments where the changeover incurred a timeout, where a fixed ratio was required to changeover, and also when asymmetrical changeover delays were used.     

SOME EFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULES IN TEACHING PICTURE NAMES TO RETARDED CHILDREN1

The effects of several different schedules of primary reinforcement were compared in a picture-naming task with retarded children. In Experiment I, number of correct responses and learning rate were higher under fixed-ratio schedules than under continuous reinforcement. In Experiment II, number of correct responses and learning rate tended to be greater under intermediate than under low or high fixed-ratio schedules. In Experiment III, number of correct responses was higher under interlocking schedules, in which the response requirement increased with time following the previous reinforcement, than under comparable fixed-ratio schedules. Learning rates were generally low and, perhaps because of this, not very different under the two types of schedules in this experiment. Accuracy (i.e., proportion of trials on which correct responses occurred) was typically high and insensitive to variations in schedule and schedule parameter throughout each experiment.     

A comparison of delays and ratio requirements in self-control choice.

In a discrete-trial procedure, pigeons could choose between 2-s and 6-s access to grain by making a single key peck. In Phase 1, the pigeons obtained both reinforcers by responding on fixed-ratio schedules. In Phase 2, they received both reinforcers after simple delays, arranged by fixed-time schedules, during which no responses were required. In Phase 3, the 2-s reinforcer was available through a fixed-time schedule and the 6-s reinforcer was available through a fixed-ratio schedule. In all conditions, the size of the delay or ratio leading to the 6-s reinforcer was systematically increased or decreased several times each session, permitting estimation of an "indifference point," the schedule size at which a subject chose each alternative equally often. By varying the size of the schedule for the 2-s reinforcer across conditions, several such indifference points were obtained from both fixed-time conditions and fixed-ratio conditions. The resulting "indifference curves" from fixed-time conditions and from fixed-ratio conditions were similar in shape, and they suggested that a hyperbolic equation describes the relation between ratio size and reinforcement value as well as the relation between reinforcer delay and its reinforcement value. The results from Phase 3 showed that subjects chose fixed-time schedules over fixed-ratio schedules that generated the same average times between a choice response and reinforcement.     

Successive discrimination training with equated reinforcement frequencies: failure to obtain behavioral contrast

In two experiments, pigeons were trained on two-component multiple schedules in which responding in one component (S₁) was always maintained by a variable-interval schedule. In Experiment I, low response rates were reinforced in the second (S₂) component for six master subjects. This schedule was adjusted to equate reinforcement frequencies in the two components. These subjects were compared to yoked partners, for which reinforcement in the S₂ component was made available on a variable-interval schedule whose value was determined by the master subjects. A similar procedure was used in Experiment II, where the S₂ schedule for master subjects made reinforcers contingent on the absence of responding. No evidence was found in either experiment for a behavioral contrast effect in the S₁ component attributable to response reduction in the S₂ component. A reliable contrast effect was obtained from a group of pigeons given extinction conditions in the S₂ component, which was compared to a group maintained throughout on a multiple variable-interval schedule. The results suggest that previous indications of behavioral contrast in similar situations were probably caused by uneven reinforcement distributions or reflect uncontrolled fluctuations in response rates.     

Response-rate differences in variable-interval and variable-ratio schedules: An old problem revisited

In Experiment 1, a variable-ratio 10 schedule became, successively, a variable-interval schedule with only the minimum interreinforcement intervals yoked to the variable ratio, or a variable-interval schedule with both interreinforcement intervals and reinforced interresponse times yoked to the variable ratio. Response rates in the variable-interval schedule with both interreinforcement interval and reinforced interresponse time yoking fell between the higher rates maintained by the variable-ratio schedule and the lower rates maintained by the variable-interval schedule with only interreinforcement interval yoking. In Experiment 2, a tandem variable-interval 15-s variable-ratio 5 schedule became a yoked tandem variable-ratio 5 variable-interval x-s schedule, and a tandem variable-interval 30-s variable-ratio 10 schedule became a yoked tandem variable-ratio 10 variable-interval x-s schedule. In the yoked tandem schedules, the minimum interreinforcement intervals in the variable-interval components were those that equated overall interreinforcement times in the two phases. Response rates did not decline in the yoked schedules even when the reinforced interresponse times became longer. Experiment 1 suggests that both reinforced interresponse times and response rate–reinforcement rate correlations determine response-rate differences in variable-ratio 10 and yoked variable-interval schedules in rats. Experiment 2 suggests a minimal role for the reinforced interresponse time in determining response rates on tandem variable-interval 30-s variable-ratio 10 and yoked tandem variable-ratio 10 variable-interval x-s schedules in rats.     

Stimulus generalization and the response-reinforcement contingency

Generalization gradients along a line-tilt continuum were obtained from groups of pigeons that had been trained to peck a key on different schedules of reinforcement. In Exp. I, gradients following training on a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule proved to be much flatter than gradients following the usual 1-min variable interval (VI) training. In Exp. II, the value of the VI schedule itself was parametrically studied; Ss trained on long VI schedules (e.g., 4-min) produced much flatter gradients than Ss trained on short VI schedules (30-sec; 1-min). The results were interpreted mainly in terms of the relative control exerted by internal, proprioceptive cues on the different reinforcement schedules. Several implications of the results for other problems in the field of stimulus generalization are discussed.     

The long-term effect of high- and low-rate responding histories on fixed-interval responding in rats

Tell rats were given extended lever-press training on a fixed-interval (FI) 30-s food reinforcement schedule from the outset or following exposure to one or two previous reinforcement schedules. For 4 rats the previots schedule was either fixed-ratio 20, which generated high response rates, or differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 20 s, which produced low response rates. For 4 additional rats the extended training on FI 30 s was preceded by experience with two schedules: fixed-ratio 20 followed by differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 20 s; or the same two schedules in the reverse order. Fixed-interval response rates were initially affected by the immediately preceding schedule, but after 80 to 100 sessions, all traces of prior schedule history had disappeared. The results also showed no long-term effect of schedule history on the interfood-interval patterns of responding on the FI 30-s schedule. These results support one of the most central tenets of the experimental analysis of behavior: control by the immediate consequences of behavior.     

A comparison of signaled and unsignaled delay of reinforcement

Pigeons were trained on either a variable-interval 60-second schedule, or on a schedule that differentially reinforced responses that were spaced at least 20 seconds apart. The birds were then exposed to several durations of reinforcement delay, with comparisons between signaled and unsignaled delays. Although unsignaled delays of 5 and 10 seconds produced large decreases in response rate, signaled delays of up to 10 seconds produced only moderate decreases in response rates. In addition, some subjects responded more rapidly with a .5 or 1.0 second duration of unsignaled delay than with immediate reinforcement. These response rate changes occurred regardless of whether the rate of reinforcement concomitantly decreased or increased.     

Absence of anticipatory contrast in rats trained on multiple schedules.

Rats were trained on three- and four-component multiple schedules in which two of the components were correlated with identical reinforcement schedules that remained unchanged throughout training. These target components differed in terms of whether their respective following schedules were either higher or lower in value. Unlike corresponding experiments previously reported with pigeons, higher response rates occurred in the target component followed by a higher valued schedule than in the target component followed by the lower valued schedule. Overall contrast effects occurred independently of these sequential effects, but were inconsistent across subjects. The results suggest that the effects of a following schedule of reinforcement are opposite for pigeons and rats, and that one reason previous studies have often failed to show contrast effects with rats is that the effects of the following schedule in rats are in competition with contrast dynamics.     

Choice between reliable and unreliable outcomes: mixed percentage-reinforcement in concurrent chains.

Pigeons' choices between alternatives that provided different percentages of reinforcement in mixed schedules were studied using the concurrent-chains procedure. In Experiment 1, the alternatives were terminal-link schedules that were equal in delay and magnitude of reinforcement, but that provided different percentages of reinforcement, with one schedule providing, reinforcement twice as reliably as the other. All pigeons preferred the more reliable schedule, and their level of preference was not systematically affected by variation in the absolute percentage values, or in the magnitude of reinforcement. In Experiment 2, preference for a schedule providing 100% reinforcement over one providing 33% reinforcement increased systematically with increases in the duration of the terminal links. In contrast, preference decreased systematically with increases in the duration of the initial links. Experiment 3 examined choice with equal percentages of reinforcement but unequal delays to reinforcement. Preference for the shorter delay to reinforcement was not systematically affected by variation in the absolute percentage of reinforcement. The overall pattern of results supported predictions based on an extension of the delay-reduction hypothesis to choice procedures involving mixed schedules of percentage reinforcement.     

Alternative reinforcement effects on fixed-interval performance

Pigeons' key pecks were reinforced with food on a fixed-interval schedule. Food also was available at variable time periods either independently of responding or for not key pecking (a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule). The latter condition arranged reinforcement following the first pause of t seconds after it became available according to a variable-time schedule. This schedule allowed separation of the effects of pause requirements ≤ five-seconds and reinforcement frequency. The time spent pausing increased as the duration of the pause required for reinforcement increased from 0 to 30 seconds and as the frequency of reinforcement for pausing increased from 0 to 2 reinforcers per minute. Key pecking was more evenly distributed within each fixed interval with shorter required pauses and with more frequent reinforcement for pausing. The results complement those obtained with other concurrent schedules in which the same operant response was reinforced in both components.     

Effect of signaled reinforcement on response variability

Three experiments examined the effect of signaling reinforcement on rats' lever pressing on contingencies that reinforced variable responding to extend the exploration of signaled reinforcement to a schedule that has previously not been examined in this respect. In Experiment 1, rats responding on a lag-8 variability schedule with signaled reinforcement displayed greater levels of variability (U values) than rats on the same schedule lacking a reinforcement signal. In Experiment 2, rats responding on a differential reinforcement of least frequent responses schedule also displayed greater operant variability with a signal for reinforcement compared with rats without a reinforcement signal. In Experiment 3, a reinforcement signal decreased the variability of a response sequence when there was no variability requirement. These results offer empirical corroboration that operant variability responds to manipulations in the same manner as do other forms of operant response and that a reinforcement signal facilitates the emission of the required operant.     

Influence of temporal context on value in the multiple-chains and successive-encounters procedures

This set of studies explored the influence of temporal context across multiple-chain and multiple-successive-encounters procedures. Following training with different temporal contexts, the value of stimuli sharing similar reinforcement schedules was assessed by presenting these stimuli in concurrent probes. The results for the multiple-chain schedule indicate that temporal context does impact the value of a conditioned reinforcer consistent with delay-reduction theory, such that a stimulus signaling a greater reduction in delay until reinforcement has greater value. Further, nonreinforced stimuli that are concurrently presented with the preferred terminal link also have greater value, consistent with value transfer. The effects of context on value for conditions with the multiple-successive-encounters procedure, however, appear to depend on whether the search schedule or alternate handling schedule was manipulated, as well as on whether the tested stimuli were the rich or lean schedules in their components. Overall, the results help delineate the conditions under which temporal context affects conditioned-reinforcement value (acting as a learning variable) and the conditions under which it does not (acting as a performance variable), an issue of relevance to theories of choice.     

What 50 years of research tell us about pausing under ratio schedules of reinforcement

Textbooks in learning and behavior commonly describe performance on fixed-ratio schedules as “break and run,” indicating that after reinforcement subjects typically pause and then respond quickly to the next reinforcement. Performance on variable-ratio schedules, on the other hand, is described as steady and fast, with few long pauses. Beginning with Ferster and Skinner''s magnum opus, Schedules of Reinforcement (1957), the literature on pausing under ratio schedules has identified the influences on pausing of numerous important variables, in particular ratio size and reinforcement magnitude. As a result, some previously held assumptions have been called into question. For example, research has shown that the length of the pause is controlled not only by the preceding ratio, as Ferster and Skinner and others had assumed (and as implied by the phrase postreinforcement pause), but by the upcoming ratio as well. Similarly, despite the commonly held belief that ratio pausing is unique to the fixed-ratio schedule, there is evidence that pausing also occurs under variable-ratio schedules. If such widely held beliefs are incorrect, then what about other assumptions? This article selectively examines the literature on pausing under ratio schedules over the past 50 years and concludes that although there may indeed be some common patterns, there are also inconsistencies that await future resolution. Several accounts of pausing under ratio schedules are discussed along with the implications of the literature for human performances, most notably the behaviors termed procrastination.     

Reinforcement of inhibition

A differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (DRO) schedule with trials and delayed reinforcement was investigated. Periodically a wheel was briefly available to rats, followed six seconds later by brief availability of a bar. Variable-ratio food reinforcement of wheel turns was adjusted to give 95% turns. After variable-ratio-five reinforcement of bar presses produced 100% pressing, then separate ratio schedules were used for presses following turns (turn presses) and presses following nonturns (nonturn presses). Increasing nonturn-press reinforcements decreased turns, even though total reinforcements increased. Reversal by decreasing nonturn-press reinforcements raised turns, though with hysteresis. Thus food reinforcement increased nonturns even though delayed six to ten seconds after nonturns, a delay that greatly reduces response reinforcement. Those and other results indicate that the turn decrease was not due to reinforcement of competing responses. Evidence against other alternatives, and the reduction of responding by increased reinforcement, indicate that the term inhibition is appropriate for the phenomenon reinforced. Response-specific inhibition appears appropriate for this particular kind, since its effects are more specific to particular responses than Pavlovian conditioned-inhibition. Response-specific inhibition seems best considered a behavioral output comparable to responses (e.g., both reinforcible) but with important properties different from responses (e.g., different reinforcement-delay gradients).