Schedule-induced mirror responding in the pigeon

Two pigeons that were previously exposed to a multiple schedule of reinforcement in the presence of a stuffed and a live pigeon, and two of three naive pigeons, responded on a mirror during exposure to multiple fixed-ratio, fixed-ratio schedules of reinforcement for key pecking. Both the topography and temporal pattern of mirror responding were comparable to schedule-induced “attack” on live and stuffed targets. Rate of target responding was reduced when either the mirror was covered with paper or when the multiple schedule was removed. A reversal in the relationship between reinforcement schedules and discriminative stimuli demonstrated that mirror responding was controlled by the stimulus correlated with the higher fixed-ratio schedule. With one component of the multiple schedule held constant at fixed ratio 25 and the ratio requirement of the other component varying from 25 to 150, there was an inverted U-shaped relationship between rate of mirror responding and fixed-ratio schedule in the varied component. As in Flory's study (1969b) there was an inverted U-shaped relationship between target responding and inter-food intervals. The combined results of these studies suggest that the relationship between rate of target responding and reinforcement schedules is controlled primarily by the inter-food intervals resulting from the schedules.     

Operant and nonoperant vocal responding in the mynah: Complex schedule control and deprivation-induced responding

Several recent studies have been concerned with operant responses that are also affected by nonoperant factors, (e.g., biological constraints, innate behavior patterns, respondent processes). The major reason for studying mynah vocal responding concerned the special relation of avian vocalizations to nonoperant emotional and reflexive systems. The research strategy was to evaluate operant and nonoperant control by comparing the schedule control obtained with the vocal response to that characteristic of the motor responses of other animals. We selected single, multiple, and chain schedules that ordinarily produce disparate response rates at predictable times. In multiple schedules with one component where vocal responding (“Awk”) was reinforced with food (fixed-ratio or fixed-interval schedule) and one where the absence of vocal responding was reinforced (differential reinforcement of other behavior), response rates never exceeded 15 responses per minute, but clear schedule differences developed in response rate and pause time. Nonoperant vocal responding was evident when responding endured across 50 extinction sessions at 25% to 40% of the rate during reinforcement. The “enduring extinction responding” was largely deprivation induced, because the operant-level of naive mynahs under food deprivation was comparable in magnitude, but without deprivation the operant level was much lower. Food deprivation can induce vocal responding, but the relatively precise schedule control indicated that operant contingencies predominate when they are introduced.     

Interactions in multiple schedules: the role of the stimulus-reinforcer contingency

In Experiments I and II, pigeons were exposed to single-key multiple schedules of response-independent and -dependent food presentation. Components were correlated with different keylights. When the rate of food presentation in the first component exceeded that in the second component, the local rate of key pecking was relatively high at onset of the first component. Overall rate in that component varied inversely with component duration and the rate of food presentation in the second component. When responding was maintained in the second component, the local rate of key pecking was relatively low at onset of that component. Overall rate in the second component varied directly with component duration and the rate of food presentation in that component. In Experiment III, pigeons were exposed to a two-key multiple schedule. Pecks on a constantly illuminated key produced food. Components were correlated with the color of a second key on which pecks had no scheduled consequences. The effects of component duration and rate of food presentation under the single-key response-dependent schedule were synthesized by combining response rates on each concurrently available key under the two-key procedure. The results support an account of multiple-schedule interactions in terms of the joint influence on responding of stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer contingencies.     

Stimulus properties of conspecific behavior

Two experiments identified the conditions in which the behavior of one bird acquired discriminative control of the behavior of a second bird. The schedule-controlled behaviors of the “stimulus” bird were differentially correlated with the components of a multiple schedule according to which the pecking of an “experimental” bird produced food. In Experiment 1, three pairs of pigeons acquired a successive discrimination and two reversals with the conspecific stimuli. Experiment 2 included a control condition in which no systematic relationship existed between the conspecific stimuli and the component schedules. While differential responding during the components of the multiple schedule was again found when the conspecific stimuli were available, differential responding did not occur in the control condition. Test conditions included in the experiments indicated that (a) the differential responding was not dependent on the discriminative properties of reinforcement, (b) the pecking of the stimulus and experimental birds was temporally interrelated, (c) the visual conspecific stimuli were critical to the maintenance of the discrimination, and (d) the observed stimulus control immediately generalized to an unfamiliar conspecific.     

Concurrent performances: synthesizing rate constancies by manipulating contingencies for a single response

An earlier experiment scheduled variable-interval reinforcement for pigeons' pecks on one key, and variable-interval reinforcement alternating with extinction, in a multiple schedule, for pecks on a second key. During the second key's extinction component, first-key pecking was relatively slow and continuous, rarely interrupted by second-key pecking; during the variable-interval component, first-key pecking was frequently interrupted by second-key pecking. When changeover delays operated, so that reinforced pecks on one key could not follow closely upon changeovers from the other key, rapid first-key pecking between interruptions compensated sufficiently for the time lost in second-key pecking that the overall rate of first-key pecking remained roughly constant across the alternating multiple-schedule components. The present experiments duplicated, on a single key, the temporal pattern of first-key pecking generated in the earlier experiments: components of continuous key availability were alternated with components of interrupted key availability. Approximately constant overall rates of responding were observed with a single-key equivalent of a changeover delay scheduled after interruptions and with manipulations of the on-off durations of the interruption cycle. Rate constancies in the original concurrent situation presumably depended on analogous contingencies that operated upon the concurrent responses, rather than on any constant “reserve” of responses.     

Stimulus-reinforcer contingencies and local behavioral contrast

Four pigeons were exposed to a series of multiple schedules of variable-interval reinforcement in which pecks were required on one key (operant key) and components were signalled on a second key (signal key). Four additional pigeons experienced identical conditions, except that a yoking procedure delivered food on variable-time schedules, with no key pecks required. One of the components of the multiple schedule was constant throughout the experiment as a variable-interval (or variable-time) 30-second schedule. Operant-key responding during the constant component was uniform throughout the component, uninfluenced by changes in the duration of the variable component, and only slightly influenced by changes in reinforcement frequency correlated with the variable component. By comparison, signal-key response rate during the constant component was highest at the onset of the component, was higher when the variable component was 60-sec long than when it was 1-sec long, and was higher when no reinforcement occurred in the variable component than when reinforcement was scheduled in the variable component. These characteristics of signal-key pecking matched characteristics of local positive behavioral contrast. These data are taken to support the “additivity theory” of behavioral contrast and to suggest that Pavlovian stimulus-reinforcer relations contribute primarily to the phenomenon of local positive contrast.     

Drug effects on responding maintained by stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer contingencies.

The effects of pentobarbital and d-amphetamine were assessed on key pecking by pigeons under conventional single-key multiple schedules and under two-key multiple schedules in which discriminative stimuli appeared on one key (stimulus key) while pecks on a second key (constant key) produced food. Pecks on the stimulus key had no scheduled consequences. A 60-second variable-interval schedule operated in one component of each multiple schedule: either extinction or a 60-second variable-time schedule operated in the alternate component. When the alternate-component schedule was extinction, a high rate of responding was maintained in the variable-interval component of the single-key schedule; responding on both keys was maintained in the variable-interval component of the two-key schedule. Pentobarbital increased responding in the variable-interval component of the single-key schedule and increased stimulus-key, but not constant-key responding in that component of the two-key schedule. When the alternate-component schedule was changed to variable time, responding declined in the variable-interval component of the single-key schedule; stimulus-key responding was no longer maintained under the two-key schedule. Pentobarbital decreased responding in the variable-interval component of both schedules. With an exception, d-amphetamine only decreased responding in the variable-interval component of the single- and two-key schedules both when the alternate-component schedule was extinction and when it was variable time. The results suggest that the effects of pentobarbital, but not d-amphetamine, depend on the nature of the contingency (stimulus-reinforcer, response-reinforcer) that maintains responding.     

Rate and temporal pattern of key pecking under autoshaping and omission schedules of reinforcement

The role of response-reinforcer contiguity on autoshaped key pecking in pigeons was studied by scheduling response-dependent nonreinforcement at the beginning or the end of brief (8-sec) discrete trials. Schedules that permitted chance conjunctions of key pecking and food sustained high rates of responding, whereas those that prevented the occurrence of key peck-food intervals shorter than 4 sec sustained low response rates. In addition, selective reinforcement schedules supported accelerating or decelerating rates of responding within individual trials. These effects were traceable to response-reinforcer (operant), but not stimulus-reinforcer (respondent) factors.     

The role of the response-reinforcer contingency in negative automaintenance

When a response key is briefly illuminated before a grain reinforcer is presented, key pecking is reliably developed and maintained in pigeons, even if pecking prevents reinforcement (negative automaintenance). This experiment demonstrated that pigeons are sensitive to a negative response-reinforcer contingency, even though it does not eliminate responding. Within individual pigeons, two kinds of trials were compared: red key trials, in which reinforcement was negatively contingent on responding, and white key trials, in which reinforcement was unrelated to responding. Reinforcement frequency in non-contingent trials was yoked to the obtained reinforcement frequency in negatively contingent trials. All eight pigeons pecked substantially more on the non-contingent key than on the negative key, and preferred the non-contingent key to the negative key on occasional “choice” trials where both were presented together. When the stimuli correlated with the two conditions were reversed, the pigeons' behavior also shifted. These response differences are taken as evidence that pigeons are sensitive to the negative response-reinforcer contingency.     

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.     

The influence of positive and negative reinforcement on selective attention in the rat

In Experiments 1 and 2 rats were trained under two multiple schedules of reinforcement. In one, bar pressing during a tone-light compound stimulus was reinforced under a variable-interval food reinforcement schedule. In the other multiple schedule, bar pressing avoided grid shock on a free-operant schedule. In both multiple schedules, a discrimination was maintained by an extinction schedule that was operative during the absence of the tone-light compound. In Experiments 1 and 2 the intensity of the tone-light compound was manipulated over three levels. Subsequent extinction tests revealed that light was attended to, almost exclusively of the tone, when food reinforcement had maintained bar pressing. On the other hand, the tone gained considerable attentional control under the shock avoidance schedule. This stimulus-reinforcer interaction was maintained for all three levels of the compound intensity. In Experiment 3 it was investigated whether this interaction was associative by presenting shock during the absence of the tone-light compound when food reinforcement maintained responding, and food during the absence of the compound when shock avoidance maintained responding. Since both food and shock were presented during a single session for both schedules, nonassociative effects of the reinforcing stimuli were equivalent across the schedules. Nevertheless, the stimulus-reinforcer interaction was maintained, indicating that the interaction was an associative effect.     

Auto-maintenance in the pigeon: sustained pecking despite contingent non-reinforcement

If a response key is regularly illuminated for several seconds before food is presented, pigeons will peck it after a moderate number of pairings; this “auto-shaping” procedure of Brown and Jenkins (1968) was explored further in the present series of four experiments. The first showed that pecking was maintained even when pecks turned off the key and prevented reinforcement (auto-maintenance); the second controlled for possible effects of generalization and stimulus change. Two other experiments explored procedures that manipulated the tendency to peck the negatively correlated key by introducing alternative response keys which had no scheduled consequences. The results indicate that pecking can be established and maintained by certain stimulus-reinforcer relationships, independent of explicit or adventitious contingencies between response and reinforcer.     

Multiple schedules,off‐baseline reinforcement shifts,and resistance to extinction

Resistance to extinction in a target multiple‐schedule component varies inversely with the rate of reinforcement arranged in an alternative component during baseline. The present experiment asked whether changing the reinforcer rate in an alternative component would impact extinction of target component responding if those changes occurred in an off‐baseline phase during which the target component was never experienced. Pigeons' key pecking was studied in three types of conditions, and each condition consisted of three phases. In Phase 1, pecking produced food in the target and alternative components of a multiple schedule according to variable‐interval 60‐s schedules. In Phase 2, the alternative‐component stimulus was presented alone in a single schedule. Pecking during this phase produced the same reinforcer rate as in baseline in the Control condition, a higher rate of food (variable‐interval 15 s) in the High‐Rate condition, or was extinguished in the Extinction condition. Extinction of target‐ and alternative‐component key pecking then was assessed in a multiple schedule during the final phase of each condition. Resistance to extinction of target‐component key pecking was the same between the Control and High‐Rate conditions but lower in the Extinction condition. These findings are discussed in terms of discrimination and generalization processes.     

Control rate of response or reinforcement and amphetamine's effect on behavior.

The roles of control response rate and reinforcement frequency in producing amphetamine's effect on operant behavior were evaluated independently in rats. Two multiple schedules were arranged in which one variable, either response rate or reinforcement frequency, was held constant and the other variable manipulated. A multiple differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate seven-second yoked variable-interval schedule was used to equate reinforcement frequencies at different control response rates between multiple-schedule components. Amphetamine increased responding under the variable-interval component. In contrast, amphetamine decreased responding equivalently between components of a multiple random-ratio schedule that produced similar control response rates at different reinforcement frequencies. The results provide experimental support to the rate-dependency principle that control rate of responding is an important determinant of amphetamine's effect on operant behavior.     

Response additivity: effects of superimposed free reinforcement on a variable-interval baseline

Three experiments examined the effects of superimposing free reinforcement (Free VI 30-sec) on behavior maintained by a response dependent mult VI 2-min VI 2-min schedule of reinforcement. Experiment I used pigeons as subjects, key pecking as the response, and colors of response key as the stimuli associated with the multiple-schedule components. When free reinforcement was added during only one component (Differential condition) a large and highly significant increase in response rate developed in this component. Adding free reinforcement during both components (Nondifferential condition) produced smaller and far less-consistent effects. An entirely different pattern of results was obtained in two subsequent experiments, where similar procedures and reinforcement conditions were used with rats as subjects and bar pressing as the response. In both Experiments II and III, response rates decreased to the stimulus associated with added free reinforcement in the Differential condition. These findings are interpreted as the result of interactions between behavior maintained by response-reinforcer contingencies and behavior maintained by stimulus-reinforcer contingencies. As such, they support the main assumption of an autoshaping theory of behavioral contrast, that additivity of responding generated by the two kinds of contingency can occur only in situations favorable to autoshaping.     

Response persistence under variable-time schedules following immediate and unsignalled delayed reinforcement

Key pecking of three pigeons was maintained in separate components of a multiple schedule by either immediate reinforcement (i.e., tandem variable-time fixed-interval schedule) or unsignalled delayed reinforcement (i.e., tandem variable-interval fixed-time schedule). The relative rate of food delivery was equal across components, and this absolute rate differed across conditions. Immediate reinforcement always generated higher response rates than did unsignalled delayed reinforcement. Then, variable-time schedules of food delivery replaced the contingencies just described such that food was delivered at the same rate but independently of responding. In most cases, response rates decreased to near-zero levels. In addition, response persistence was not systematically different between multiple-schedule components across pigeons. The implications of the results for the concepts of response strength and the response-reinforcer relation are noted.     

Positive interaction (induction) in multiple variable-interval, differential-reinforcement-of-high-rate schedules

The effect of increases in the rate of responding in one component of a multiple schedule upon the rate of responding in a second component was investigated. Pigeons were exposed to a multiple schedule where both components were initially variable-interval schedules having the same parameter value. After rate of key pecking stabilized, one component was changed to a schedule that differentially reinforced high rates of responding. Rate of reinforcement in this varied component was adjusted to remain equal to rate of reinforcement in the constant (variable-interval) component. Four of five pigeons showed a maintained increase in rate of responding during both the constant and varied components, even though rates of reinforcement did not change.     

Matching, contrast, and equalizing in the concurrent lever-press responding of rats

Five rats pressed levers for food reinforces delivered by several concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules. The rate of reinforcement available for responding on one component schedule was held constant at 60 reinforcers per hour. The rate of reinforcement available for responding on the other schedule varied from 30 to 240 reinforcers per hour. The behavior of the rats resembled the behavior of pigeons pecking keys for food reinforcers. The ratio of the overall rates of responding emitted under, and the ratio of the time spent responding under, the two components of each concurrent schedule were approximately equal to the ratio of the overall rates of reinforcement obtained from the components. The overall rate of responding emitted under, and the time spent responding under, the variable component schedule varied directly with the overall rate of reinforcement from that schedule. The overall rate of responding emitted under, and the time spent responding under, the constant component schedule varied inversely with the overall rate of reinforcement obtained from the variable component. The local rates of responding emitted under, and the local rates of reinforcement obtained from, the two components did not differ consistently across subjects. But they were not exactly equal either.     

Average uncertainty as a determinant of observing behavior

After discrimination training on a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule of food reinforcement, pigeons were placed on the uncued or mixed version of the same schedule and allowed to make an optional “observing response” that converted the uncued schedule to the corresponding cued schedule by providing a 20-sec exposure to the appropriate discriminative stimulus. The schedule consisted of one hundred 40-sec components, and the probability that any one of them would be a variable-interval component was systematically varied between 0.00 and 1.00. The results showed that the amount of observing behavior was an inverted “U” function of the probability of the variable-interval component. Few observing responses occurred at probabilities of 0.00 or 1.00, and maximum responding occurred at a value less than 0.50.