Antecedent reinforcement contingencies in the stimulus control of an auditory discrimination

In order to assess possible confounding of discriminative stimulus effects with those produced by the reinforcing stimulus, three groups of four rats each were trained for 45 hr on a variable-interval 1-min reinforcement program. Two groups were run on a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule in which the reinforcement stimulus (S^D) and the nonreinforcement stimulus (S^Δ) were two intensities of a 4-kHz (cps) tone separated by 40 or 10 db. The third group was run on a mixed schedule with a single intensity constantly present. The mixed-schedule animals showed no discrimination of the reinforcement program. Under the multiple schedule, the highest S^Δ rates were obtained after S^D intervals, regardless of the reinforcement availability in the S^D interval. These local rate variations in S^Δ were small in proportion to those produced by the S^D versus S^Δ intensities.     

Punishment by SD associated with fixed-ratio reinforcement

Two pigeons were trained with positive reinforcement on a multiple FR VI 2 schedule. The VI 2 component was held constant while the FR component was changed from ratios of 1 to 300. After responding had stabilized at each FR value, VI responses produced briefly either the fixed-ratio S^D or a stimulus uncorrelated with either schedule component. Compared to the effects of the uncorrelated stimulus change, the fixed-ratio S^D produced a decrease in VI responding proportional to the size of the FR requirement. It is concluded that stimuli associated with high FR schedules served as punishment for the ongoing behavior.     

Discriminative functions based on a delay in the reinforcement relation

Pigeons were shown to come under discrimination control when the S^D and S^Δ were temporally separated from reinforcement and non-reinforcement. S^D and S^Δ consisted of distinctive key illuminations presented separately. Responding on an FR 5 in the presence of S^D or S^Δ produced a third stimulus containing a schedule requirement. If this third (or interpolated) stimulus was preceded by S^D, responding in its presence produced reinforcement followed by a time-out (TO). If, on the other hand, the third stimulus was preceded by S^Δ, responding produced TO alone. In this fashion, the same stimulus and the same response requirement were imposed between S^D and the reinforcement as between S^Δ and the TO. In Experiment I, the schedule employed during the interpolated stimulus was FR; in Experiment II, FI. Discrimination reversal was accomplished in both experiments.     

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.     

The effects of unavoidable shocks on a multiple schedule having an avoidance component

Two dogs were maintained on a multiple schedule having both a food reinforced and an avoidance component (Mult VI 1′ S^Δ Avoid_{SS20 RS20} S^Δ). The effects of superimposing an Estes-Skinner procedure for delivering unavoidable shocks on all components of the multiple schedule were observed. The buzzer-shock pairing of the Estes-Skinner procedure produced an increased rate of responding on the avoidance component of the schedule and also on the S^Δ components. No persistent change in rate was observed on the food component during the pre-shock stimulus. Control performances on all components could be regained by either extinguishing or eliminating the buzzer-shock pairing. Extinction of the avoidance responding had little effect on the increased rates of responding produced by the Estes-Skinner procedure on the S^Δ and avoidance extinction components and did not lead to a conditioned suppression of the food reinforced responding. Rate of responding during the pre-shock stimulus was observed to be relatively independent of changes in the maintaining schedules. Responding during the pre-shock stimulus could be conditioned and maintained after an extensive history of avoidance extinction.     

Fixed-interval limited-hold avoidance with and without signalled reinforcement

Rats trained to lever press on a fixed-interval limited-hold avoidance schedule maintained a pattern of responding similar to that maintained by fixed-interval limited-hold schedules of positive reinforcement. But this positively accelerated pattern of behavior was maintained only when the occurrence of reinforcement was signalled by the presentation of a brief flash of light. This result suggests that the discriminative function of the reinforcer in avoidance is less pronounced than the discriminative function of the reinforcer in escape or positive reinforcement. It also suggests that the distinction between positive reinforcement and avoidance is not superfluous. Although the schedule of reinforcement is an important variable in determining the pattern of behavior, other variables, such as the nature (i.e., stimulus presentation, termination, or omission) of the reinforcer, are also potent determinants of behavior.     

The role of discriminative stimuli in concurrent performances

Key pecking in pigeons was examined under concurrent and parallel arrangements of two independent and simultaneously available variable-interval schedules. Pecks on the changeover key alternated the schedule of reinforcement for responses on the main key. Under concurrent schedules, discriminative stimuli were paired with the reinforcement schedule arranged in each component and changeover responses also alternated these stimuli. Under parallel schedules, changeover responses alternated the effective reinforcement schedule, but did not change the discriminative stimulus. On concurrent procedures, changeover response rate was inversely related to the difference in reinforcement rate between the two components, whereas on parallel schedules no consistent relationship was found. With both schedules, absolute response and reinforcement rates were positively related, although for a given set of reinforcement frequencies, rates were often higher on the concurrent schedules. On concurrent schedules, relative response rates and relative times were equal to relative reinforcement rates. On parallel schedules these ratios were positively related, but response and time ratios were much smaller than were obtained with comparable concurrent schedules. This inequality was most pronounced when absolute reinforcement frequencies were lowest.     

Stress-induced breakdown of an appetitive discrimination

Rats trained to discriminate between S^D and S^Δ for food reinforcement showed marked impairments in this discrimination when strong, unavoidable shocks occurred at the termination of a third stimulus. The predominant feature of this impairment was a supernormal rate of unreinforced (S^Δ) behavior. Shocks delivered without exteroceptive warning also led to a discriminative breakdown. The effect was a direct function of shock intensity. When behavior was strongly suppressed in the third stimulus by response-correlated shock (“punishment”), instead of unavoidable shock, breakdowns were only temporary; as soon as responding recovered from its overall suppression, discriminative performance returned to normal. The discriminative deterioration may be interpreted as an emotional by-product of frequent aversive stimulation, but accidental contingencies could also have played a role.     

Contrast and reallocation of extraneous reinforcers as a function of component duration and baseline rate of reinforcement

Four pigeons responded on multiple schedules arranged on a “main” key in a two-key experimental chamber. A constant schedule component was alternated with another component that was varied over conditions. On an extra response key, conjoint schedules of reinforcement that operated in both components were arranged concurrently with the multiple schedule on the main key. On the main key, changes in reinforcement rate in the varied component were inversely related to changes in response rates in the constant component (behavioral contrast). On the extra key, some reinforcers were reallocated between components, depending on the schedules in effect on the main key in the varied component. In the varied component, the obtained rates of reinforcement on the extra key were inversely related to main-key reinforcement rate. In the constant component, extra-key reinforcer rates were positively related to main-key reinforcer rates obtained in the varied component, and were not a function of response rates on the extra key. In two comparisons, the rate at which components alternated and the value of the main-key schedule in the constant component were varied. Consistent with earlier work, long components reduced the extent of contrast. Reductions in contrast as a function of component duration were accompanied by similar reductions in the extent of reinforcer reallocation on the extra key. In the second comparison, lowering the rate of reinforcement in the constant component increased the rate at which extra-key reinforcers were obtained, reduced the extent of reinforcer reallocation, and reduced contrast. Overall, the results are consistent with the suggestion that some contrast effects are due to the changes in extraneous reinforcement during the constant component, and that manipulations of component duration, and manipulations of the rate of reinforcement in the constant component, affect contrast because they influence the extent of extraneous reinforcer real-location.     

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.     

Effects of cycle length on performance on a temporally defined avoidance schedule

Three rats were trained on a temporally defined avoidance schedule logically similar to a fixed-interval, limited-hold positive reinforcement schedule. This avoidance schedule was composed of time periods during which responses had no scheduled consequences alternating with time periods during which a response precluded shock. As with fixed-interval length and response rate on positive reinforcement schedules, an inverse relationship was obtained between the length of the no-consequence interval and response rate during the no-consequence interval. An inverse relationship was also obtained between the length of the no-consequence interval and the per cent of shocks avoided. A rate increase within the no-consequence interval, similar to that typically produced by fixed-interval positive reinforcement procedures, was displayed by one of the rats where the no-consequence interval was at intermediate values and frequency of shock was relatively high. The introduction of a discriminative stimulus correlated with the avoidance interval produced typical discriminated avoidance behavior as well as alterations in temporal patterning of responses during the no-consequence interval in the two rats exposed to this procedure. These alterations in temporal patterning disappeared when the discriminative stimulus was removed. The results were consonant with those reported in the literature involving food reinforcement and fixed-interval, limited-hold schedules.     

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.     

Pavlovian contingencies and resistance to change in a multiple schedule

According to theoretical accounts of behavioral momentum, the Pavlovian stimulus—reinforcer contingency determines resistance to change. To assess this prediction, 8 pigeons were exposed to an unsignaled delay-of-reinforcement schedule (a tandem variable-interval fixed-time schedule), a signaled delay-of-reinforcement schedule (a chain variable-interval fixed-time schedule), and an immediate, zero-delay schedule of reinforcement in a three-component multiple schedule. The unsignaled delay and signaled delay schedules employed equal fixed-time delays, with the only difference being a stimulus change in the signaled delay schedule. Overall rates of reinforcement were equated for the three schedules. The Pavlovian contingency was identical for the unsignaled and immediate schedules, and response—reinforcer contiguity was degraded for the unsignaled schedule. Results from two disruption procedures (prefeeding subjects prior to experimental sessions and adding a variable-time schedule to timeout periods separating baseline components) demonstrated that response—reinforcer contiguity does play a role in determining resistance to change. The results from the extinction manipulation were not as clear. Responding in the unsignaled delay component was consistently less resistant to change than was responding in both the immediate and presignaled segments of the signaled delay components, contrary to the view that Pavlovian contingencies determine resistance to change. Probe tests further supported the resistance-to-change results, indicating consistency between resistance to change and preference, both of which are putative measures of response strength.     

Mitigating resurgence of destructive behavior using the discriminative stimuli of a multiple schedule

Results of several recent translational studies have suggested that correlating contextual or discriminative stimuli with the delivery and withholding of reinforcement for the functional communication response (FCR) may mitigate resurgence of destructive behavior, but few, if any, have isolated the effects of those stimuli. In the present study, we first trained the FCR, brought it under stimulus control of a multiple schedule, and thinned its reinforcement schedule in one stimulus context. Next, we conducted resurgence evaluations (i.e., baseline, functional communication training [FCT], extinction challenge) in two novel contexts to test the effects of the discriminative stimuli on resurgence. We programmed one context to include the (a) S^D during the FCT phase to signal the availability of reinforcement for the FCR and (b) S^Δ during a subsequent extinction challenge to signal the unavailability of reinforcement for the FCR. The other context did not include the S^D during the FCT phase, nor the S^Δ during the extinction challenge. We expected to see greater persistence of the FCR in the context that included the S^D during FCT and less persistence of the FCR and less resurgence of destructive behavior in the context that included the S^Δ during the extinction challenge. Obtained results confirmed this latter prediction, but we observed no reliable difference when the S^D was present or absent during the FCT phase. Our results have relevance for practitioners in that they provide further empirical support for the use of discriminative stimuli when treating destructive behavior.     

Operant control of vocal behavior in the cat

Evidence of operant control of vocal behavior in the cat is presented: (1) On mult FR 12 S^Δ schedule, cats miaowed rapidly during periods of S^D and much less or not at all during S^Δ. (2) This control was re-established following reversal of stimuli. (3) The frequency distribution of response durations was shifted to both shorter and longer values by the differential reinforcement of shorter or longer response durations respectively. Since both the frequency and duration of vocal responses were shown to be under the control of the schedule of reinforcement, it is concluded that at least some of the vocal behavior of the cat is susceptible to operant control.     

Solution of the intermediate size problem by pigeons

Pigeons learned to respond to the middle-sized member (S^D) of a set of three simultaneously presented stimuli with responses to the S^D reinforced on a VI 1 schedule. They were then tested for several days with other sets of three stimuli. One procedure presented reinforcements on a VI 1 schedule during the test independent of the stimulus chosen when a reinforcement was programmed. The tests were also given under extinction conditions. With the testing carried out with extinction, preference consistently was for the test stimulus most similar in physical size to the S^D. However, when the tests were with reinforcement, random responding resulted. Another effect of testing with reinforcement was an increase in incorrect responding with the training set. Such a test procedure was unsatisfactory for determining the effective aspect of the S^D. The conclusion, based on the data of the extinction series, was that pigeons learned the intermediate size problem on the basis of the discrimination of absolute stimulus properties.     

Discrimination learning as a function of stimulus location along an auditory intensity continuum

Eight groups of rats were trained on an auditory intensity discrimination in which the discriminative stimuli were separated by 10 decibels (db). Four pairs of stimuli were selected from different regions along a 60–100 db (SPL) intensity continuum. Counterpart groups were trained on each stimulus pair, with the relative intensity positions of the reinforced stimulus (S^D) and the non-reinforced stimulus (S^Δ) reversed for the two groups. Discrimination acquisition curves were compared to determine whether stimuli separated by equal logarithmic units were of comparable “difficulty”, and to determine the relative effectiveness of an S^D serving as the more versus less intense member of a stimulus pair. It was concluded that: (1) When S^D is the more intense, auditory intensities of constant logarithmic separation are graded in “difficulty” along the intensity continuum; high intensity discriminative stimuli are most readily discriminated. When S^Δ is the more intense, this graded effect is not evident. (2) For a given continuum location, discrimination is inferior when S^Δ is the more intense. This effect is most pronounced at the high intensity end of the continuum and is chiefly attributable to differences in the rate of S^Δ responding.     

Effects of varying cycle length in a tau reinforcement schedule

A temporally defined reinforcement schedule within the tau system of classification was studied, with pigeons as subjects and with cycle length as the independent variable. As cycle length decreased, response rates increased, responses-per-reinforcement went through a maximum, while the number of reinforcements-per-session increased. The first two functions are attributed to changes in the discriminability of the τ^D and τ^Δ components of the cycle, while the latter seems to result from changes in the relative durations of reinforcement time and τ^Δ time.     

Interactions between the discriminative and aversive properties of punishment

Punishment acquires a discriminative property when it is selectively paired with either reinforcement or extinction. At the milder punishment intensities, the discriminative control exerted by punishment is similar to the discriminative control exerted by a response-produced neutral (nonaversive) stimulus. However, the effect of the aversive property is apparent as the intensity of the punishment is increased. The aversive property of the punishment acts to enhance the discriminative control when the punishment is selectively applied during extinction periods, and to attenuate the discriminative control when the punishment is selectively applied during reinforcement periods. One major difference was found between the control exerted by the punishment and the response-produced neutral simulus: Responding greatly increased after the S^Δ punishment but not after the S^Δ neutral stimulus; this increase in responding was independent of the punishment intensities studied.     

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.