Response strength in extreme multiple schedules

Four pigeons were trained in a series of two-component multiple schedules. Reinforcers were scheduled with random-interval schedules. The ratio of arranged reinforcer rates in the two components was varied over 4 log units, a much wider range than previously studied. When performance appeared stable, prefeeding tests were conducted to assess resistance to change. Contrary to the generalized matching law, logarithms of response ratios in the two components were not a linear function of log reinforcer ratios, implying a failure of parameter invariance. Over a 2 log unit range, the function appeared linear and indicated undermatching, but in conditions with more extreme reinforcer ratios, approximate matching was observed. A model suggested by McLean (1991), originally for local contrast, predicts these changes in sensitivity to reinforcer ratios somewhat better than models by Herrnstein (1970) and by Williams and Wixted (1986). Prefeeding tests of resistance to change were conducted at each reinforcer ratio, and relative resistance to change was also a nonlinear function of log reinforcer ratios, again contrary to conclusions from previous work. Instead, the function suggests that resistance to change in a component may be determined partly by the rate of reinforcement and partly by the ratio of reinforcers to responses.     

Response strength in multiple periodic and aperiodic schedules

Responding in multiple periodic and aperiodic schedules of equal mean reinforcement rate was examined during extinction, satiation, and in the presence of various free-food schedules. In Experiments I and II, pigeons were trained on multiple variable-interval–fixed-interval schedules. Decreases in the rate of responding due to extinction, satiation, or food schedules were approximately equal regardless of the temporal pattern of reinforcer presentation. In Experiment III, pigeons responded on a two-component multiple schedule in which each component was a two-member homogeneous response chain terminating in a fixed-interval schedule during one component and in a variable-interval schedule during the other. The length of both terminal links was varied over a series of conditions. Initial-link responding in the fixed-interval component was reduced more by increasing terminal-link length than was initial-link responding in the variable-interval component. However, no differences in resistance to satiation and extinction were obtained across the fixed and variable components. If the relative decrease in responding produced by satiation and extinction is used as an index of the “value” of the conditions maintaining responding, then these data suggest that fixed and variable schedules of equal mean length are equally valued. This conclusion, however, is not consistent with findings of preference for variable over fixed schedules obtained in studies using concurrent-chain procedures.     

Performance in multiple fixed-interval schedules

The performances of five pigeons were studied under a variety of multiple fixed-interval schedules in which both component duration and reinforcement rate were varied. The three series of experimental conditions were: (a) when the ratio of component durations equalled the reciprocal of the ratio of component reinforcement rates; (b) when the component durations were equal; and (c) when the ratio of component durations equalled the ratio of component reinforcement rates. Relative response rates were related to relative reinforcement rates in the same manner as in multiple variable-interval schedules, but no effect of component duration was found.     

Performance in continuously available multiple schedules

Three pigeons were given continuous access in their home cages to food reinforcement on two-component multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedules. The reinforcer rates in the two components were varied over seven experimental conditions, and a partial replication over five conditions was arranged one year later. When component reinforcer rates were unequal, ratios of component response rates were more extreme than ratios of obtained component reinforcer rates, a result which in a generalized-matching analysis is termed overmatching. This finding contrasts sharply with results obtained when multiple schedules are arranged in shorter sessions, in which performance is characterized by undermatching when subjects are deprived of food, and by matching, or equality between component response- and reinforcer-rate ratios, when deprivation is minimal. More molecular data obtained in two subsequent conditions suggested that this finding did not reflect local fluctuations or asymmetries in deprivation. Theories of multiple-schedule performance that predict that matching cannot be exceeded are disconfirmed by the present results.     

Spaced responding in multiple DRL schedules

Rats were able to adjust to two different temporal requirements within several multiple DRL schedules of reinforcement, and a slight induction between pairs of components was found. Initial administration of dl-amphetamine differentially disrupted spaced responding in the components of a multiple DRL 36 DRL 18 schedule, but did not eliminate discrimination between the components. After maximum drug effects, the continued administration of dl-amphetamine was accompanied by a progressive recovery of the behavior towards the characteristics of saline control.     

Behavioral interactions in multiple variable-interval schedules

In Experiment I, two groups of four pigeons each were exposed to multiple schedules in which one component was always a variable-interval schedule with a mean interreinforcement interval of 30 or 180 seconds. The other component was either an equal variable-interval schedule or extinction. Response rates in the unchanged component always increased when reinforcement was no longer scheduled in the changed component, and decreased in seven of eight cases when the variable-interval schedule was re-introduced. The per cent rate change in the unchanged component was inversely related to the frequency of reinforcement and to the ongoing response rate in the unchanged component. Rate changes in the unchanged component were not consistently correlated with changes in any single feature of the relative-frequency interresponse-time distributions. In Experiment II, the same pigeons were exposed to variable-interval schedules and multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedules with equal mean interreinforcement intervals. Response rates were similar under both conditions.     

The relative law of effect: effects of shock intensity on response strength in multiple schedules

Key pecking of four birds was reinforced with food according to a two-component multiple variable-interval 1-minute variable-interval 4-minute schedule. In addition, key pecking was punished by a brief shock according to a variable-interval 30-second schedule during both components of the multiple schedule. The intensity of the shock was varied. For all birds, punishment had a stronger suppressive effect on the responding maintained by the leaner food schedule, and the ratio of responding during the two components of the multiple schedule became closer to the ratio of reinforcement as shock intensity was increased, as the relative law of effect predicts. At the higher shock intensity, there was some evidence that the ratio of responses overmatched the ratio of reinforcements.     

Schedule-induced licking during multiple schedules

Schedule-induced polydipsia was studied in rats bar pressing under two-component multiple schedules of food reinforcement. The first component of the multiple schedule was a variable-interval 1-min schedule throughout the experiment. The schedule comprising the second component was varied over blocks of sessions in terms of rate and magnitude of reinforcement, and was either variable-interval 3-min (one pellet), variable-interval 3-min (three pellets), variable-interval 1-min (one pellet), or extinction. Water intake per session varied with the rate of reinforcement in the schedule comprising the second component and was highest when the schedule was variable-interval 1-min. Both bar-pressing behavior and licking behavior showed behavioral interactions between the two components of the multiple schedules. With magnitude of reinforcement held constant, a matching relationship was observed between lick rate and reinforcement rate; the relative frequency of licks in the constant component matched the relative frequency of reinforcement in that component. Bar pressing, however, showed only a moderate degree of relativity matching. During the schedule-induced licking, a burst of licking followed each delivery of a pellet (post-prandial drinking). The duration of these bursts of licking was observed to be a function of the inter-reinforcement interval.     

Signalled reinforcement and multiple schedules

The responses of four pigeons were first reinforced in the presence of two different wave-lengths (green and red) on a two-ply multiple schedule with identical variable-interval 3-min schedules of reinforcement associated with each component. While the constant-component reinforcement schedule remained unchanged during the experiment, the schedule associated with the variable component was changed to (1) signalled variable time, (2) unsignalled variable time, or (3) signalled variable interval. The probability with which the availability of the reinforcer was signalled in the variable-interval schedules was either 0.5 or 1.0. Positive contrast occurred in both signalled variable-interval and variable-time schedules, but only when the availability of all the variable-component reinforcers was signalled. Signalling the availability of only 50% of the reinforcers in signalled variable-interval schedules resulted in negative induction. The present data suggest that positive behavioral contrast resulting from signalled reinforcer availability is due to the presence of an extinction-correlated stimulus.     

Variable-time reinforcement in multiple and concurrent schedules

Experiment I examined the role of a reduced rate of responding in the occurrence of behavioral contrast. Four rats and a pigeon were exposed to a two-component multiple schedule in which one component was always a variable-interval schedule. The second component was, at different times, either a variable-time schedule in which food was delivered independently of responding, or extinction. Both extinction and the variable-time schedule reduced the rate of responding in the second component. Behavioral contrast was observed, however, only when extinction was scheduled in the second component. Experiment II examined preference, as measured by time allocation in concurrent schedules for a variable-interval schedule relative to a variable-time schedule. Two rats displayed a lack of preference between the two schedules. The results of these experiments support a preference interpretation of behavioral contrast, which holds that behavioral contrast is the result of the introduction of a less-preferred condition in one component of a multiple schedule.     

Contrast effects in multiple fixed-interval reinforcement schedules

Pigeons were exposed to a multiple fixed-interval one-minute fixed-interval three-minute schedule of reinforcement following training on either a multiple fixed-interval one-minute fixed-interval one-minute schedule or a multiple fixed-interval three-minute fixed-interval three-minute schedule. For all birds, large negative local contrast effects developed during the first of four three-minute intervals in a component; response rate was depressed and postreinforcement pause lengthened in this interval. Positive local contrast effects were evident during the first of 12 one-minute intervals in a component for five of six birds; at asymptote, the pause was very short and response rate slightly elevated during this interval. Overall positive contrast was generally transient and varied considerably across subjects, while overall negative contrast effects, if they occurred, appeared only after a large number of sessions.     

Concurrent responses during multiple schedules in rats

Abstract.— Rats' lever pressing was reinforced with a sucrose solution. In the presence of a tone pressing one lever was reinforced on a FR 40 schedule, in the absence of the tone pressing another lever was reinforced on a FR 20 schedule. The components alternated every fourth minute. In both components, the duration of pauses in lever pressing after reinforcement was positively correlated with the duration of licking the empty sucrose-delivery mechanism. In the FR 40 component, the duration of pauses was also positively correlated with the number of presses on the non-reforced lever. Licking and non-reinforced lever pressing were decreased when the rate of reinforced lever pressing was high. The response interactions were similar to those described for concurrent reinforcement schedules.     

Signalled reinforcement in multiple and concurrent schedules

Five pigeons were exposed to multiple and concurrent variable-interval, variable-interval reinforcement schedules in which reinforcement availability in one component was never signalled. During certain phases of the experiment, reinforcement availability in the other component was signalled. Behavioral contrast was observed in seven of eight instances when reinforcement availability in the multiple schedules was signalled. Under the concurrent schedules in which reinforcement availability was signalled, the subjects did not always allocate more time to (prefer) the component containing non-signalled reinforcement, as would be predicted by an account of behavioral contrast holding that contrast results from the introduction of a less-preferred condition in one component of a multiple schedule.     

Dishabituation produces interactions during multiple schedules

McSweeney and Weatherly (1998) argued that differential habituation to the reinforcer contributes to the behavioral interactions observed during multiple schedules. The present experiment confirmed that introducing dishabituators into one component of a multiple schedule increases response rate in the other, constant, component. During baseline, pigeons and rats responded on multiple variable interval 30-s variable interval 30-s schedules. During experimental conditions, subjects responded on the same schedule except that a dishabituating stimulus (manipulation of a light) was also presented randomly during one of the components. Constant-component responding was faster during the experimental than during the baseline conditions. This difference in responding grew larger across the session. The within-session pattern of responding was similar for the two components of each multiple schedule. Qualitatively similar results were observed for rats and pigeons. These results suggest that behavioral interactions sometimes arise from a change in reinforcer effectiveness between the baseline and experimental phases of the experiment, rather than from an assessment of reinforcer relativity (a comparison of reinforcers delivered during the two components in the experimental phase). Behavioral contrast and induction are sometimes produced by similar factors.     

Response discriminative and reinforcement factors in stimulus control of performance on multiple and chained schedules of reinforcement

Discriminative control of the response rates of two groups of rats was equated by training them to cease bar pressing in light-out no-tone ( + ) and to respond during tone and light. Multiple-schedule subjects received food at the same rate for responding during tone or light as for nonresponding in + . For the chained-schedule subjects responding in tone or light only produced + where food was received for nonresponding. In extinction tests multiple-schedule subjects emitted approximately twice the responses to tone-plus-light as to tone or light presented individually (additive summation). The rats trained on the chained schedule, in which the tone and light each controlled substantial response rates but were never paired with food, showed no summation when the tone and light were presented together. The results indicate that discriminative control of response rates and reinforcement differences between schedule components determine stimulus control.     

Eccentric stimuli on multiple fixed-interval schedules

The effects of presenting a different (“eccentric”) stimulus for one interval during either or both components of a cyclic multiple fixed-interval fixed-interval schedule, with 12 short and four long intervals per cycle, were studied in three experiments. Eccentric stimuli in the short-interval component reliably produced a persistent, substantial elevation in key-peck rate. The effect appears to depend on schedule context and an initial “disinhibiting” effect of the eccentric stimulus.     

Defining behavioral contrast for multiple schedules

Two different definitions of behavioral contrast have been used for multiple schedules. One, interschedule, definition identifies contrast as changes in the rates of responding which occur when subjects move from one multiple schedule to another. The other, intraschedule, definition emphasizes changes in the rates of responding which occur relative to a baseline rate of responding. The baseline is the rate of responding emitted during a multiple schedule that supplies equal rates of reinforcement in the two components. The distinction between these two definitions is important for empirical and theoretical reasons. For example, theoretical confusion has arisen when the interschedule definition has been used to test and reject theories which implicitly define contrast by the intraschedule definition.     

Behavioral contrast during multiple avoidance schedules

Changes were observed in the rate of avoidance responding in both components of a multiple schedule of Sidman-avoidance after the shock frequency was changed in only one component. The rate change in each component was positively correlated, in direction and magnitude, with the change in the relative rate of reinforcement (percentage of total shocks) in that component.     

Response and time allocation in concurrent second-order schedules

Six pigeons were trained on two-key concurrent variable-interval schedules in which the required response was the completion of a fixed number of key pecks. When the required number of pecks was equal on the two keys, response- and time-allocation ratios under-matched obtained reinforcement rate ratios. A similar result was found when the required number of pecks was unequal, except that performance, measured in response terms, was biased to the shorter required number of pecks and was less sensitive to reinforcement-rate changes. No such differences were found in the data on time spent responding. When the variable-interval schedules were kept constant and the required numbers of pecks were systematically varied, response ratios changed inversely with the ratio of the required number of pecks, but time-allocation ratios varied directly with the same independent variable. Thus, on response measures, pigeons “prefer” the schedule with the smaller peck requirement, but on time measures they “prefer” the schedule with the larger peck requirement. This finding is inconsistent with a commonsense notion of choice, which sees response and time-allocation measures as equivalent.