Response-rate invariance in concurrent schedules: effects of different changeover contingencies

In a two-key chamber, one key (the food key) was either red or green with different variable-interval schedules operating concurrently in each color and a second key (the changeover key) served to change the food-key color. Three pigeons were trained with either a 2-sec changeover delay or a 0-sec changeover delay and three birds with a fixed-ratio 2 on the changeover key instead of a changeover delay. The proportion of time spent in red approximated the proportion of reinforcers delivered in red for all birds. When the procedure was changed so that reinforcers were signalled in the green schedule, rates of reinforcement were unaltered, but the pigeons spent virtually the whole session in red. Changeovers to green were allowed only when a reinforcer was assigned by the schedule associated with green. For all pigeons with the fixed–ratio requirement on the changeover key or with a 0-sec changeover delay, the overall rate of red-key responses was higher during the signalling condition than during unsignalled, or baseline, condition. The present data question the generality of previous reports that the rate of one response is independent of the amount of time allocated to the alternative response.     

Reinforcing staying and switching while using a changeover delay

Performance on concurrent schedules can be decomposed to run lengths (the number of responses before switching alternatives), or visit durations (time at an alternative before switching alternatives), that are a function of the ratio of the rates of reinforcement for staying and switching. From this analysis, a model of concurrent performance was developed and examined in two experiments. The first exposed rats to variable-interval schedules for staying and for switching, which included a changeover delay for reinforcers following a switch. With the changeover delay, run lengths and visit durations were functions of the ratios of the rates of reinforcement for staying and for switching, as found by previous research not using a changeover delay. The second directly assessed the effect of a changeover delay on run lengths and visit durations. Each component of a multiple schedule consisted of equivalent stay and switch schedules but only one component included a changeover delay. Run lengths and visit durations were longer when a changeover delay was used. Because visit duration is the reciprocal of changeover rate, these results are consistent with the established finding that a changeover delay reduces the frequency of switching. Together these results support the local model of concurrent performance as an alternative to the generalized matching law as a model of concurrent performance. The local model may be preferred when accounting for more molecular aspects of concurrent performance.     

Concurrent schedules of reinforcement: effects of gradual and abrupt increases in changeover delay

Pigeons' pecks were maintained on concurrent variable-interval 1-min variable-interval 3-min schedules of reinforcement, with a changeover delay of 2 sec. When changeover delay was increased successively to 5.0, 7.5, and 12.5 sec (Exp. I) the actual relative rate of reinforcement for the variable-interval 3-min key decreased progressively for two birds, abruptly for two other birds, and the subjects devoted proportionately less of their time and responding to that key. However, the relative performance measures (relative time and relative responding) approximated the actual relative rate of reinforcement, with a maximum discrepancy of 11%, over all changeover delay values investigated. Experiment II attempted to lengthen response-run durations on the variable-interval 3-min key so that they were long enough to meet the changeover delay requirement at each new changeover delay value, by progressively increasing the changeover delay by 0.5-sec increments. With this procedure the actual relative rate of reinforcement approximated more closely the scheduled relative rate as changeover delay increased. As in Exp. I, relative performance measures approximated the actual relative reinforcement rate (maximum discrepancy 17%).     

IS THERE A DECISIVE TEST BETWEEN MATCHING AND MAXIMIZING?

Reinforcers under typical concurrent variable-interval, variable-ratio schedules may be (a) earned and obtained during the variable-interval component, (b) earned and obtained during the variable-ratio component, or (c) earned during the variable-ratio component and obtained during the variable-interval component. Categories a and b, which have no bearing on matching versus maximizing accounts of choice, were set at zero. The rate of Category c reinforcers and the duration of a changeover delay were varied. Simple matching, which predicts exclusive choice of the variable-interval component, and strict maximizing of overall reinforcement rate, which predicts a bias towards the variable-ratio component, were both disconfirmed: Subjects spent approximately 25% of their time in the variable-ratio component, contrary to the matching prediction, but earned only about one third of the reinforcers predicted by strict maximizing. However, maximizing describes the findings functionally in terms of discounting of delayed reinforcers; matching may describe the data in terms of a restructuring of the alternatives. Matching and maximizing are not competing theories about the fundamental nature of choice, but compatible points of view that may reveal environmental function and behavioral structure.     

A yoked-chamber comparison of concurrent and multiple schedules

Pigeons were exposed to alternative pairs of variable-interval schedules correlated with red and green lights on one key (the food key). In one experimental chamber, responses on a white key (the changeover key) changed the color of the food key and initiated a 2-sec changeover delay. Pigeons in a second chamber obtained food by pecking on a colored key whenever the pigeons in the first (concurrent) chamber had obtained food for a peck on that key color. There was no changeover key in the second (multiple) chamber: changeover responses in the first chamber alternated the schedules and colors in both chambers. The pigeons in both chambers emitted the same proportion of responses on each of the variable-interval schedules, and mastered discrimination reversals at the same rate. The pigeons differed only in their absolute response rates, which were greater under the concurrent schedules. In a second experiment, changes in key color occurred automatically, with different proportions of time allocated to the two variable-interval schedules. Matching of relative response frequency to relative reinforcement frequency was affected by the relative amounts of time in each component, by rate of changeovers, and by manipulations of the variable-interval scheduling.     

Choice, rate of reinforcement, and the changeover delay

Pigeons distribute their responses on concurrently available variable-interval schedules in the same proportion as reinforcements are distributed on the two schedules only when a changeover delay is used. The present study shows that this equality between proportions of responses and proportions of reinforcements (“matching”) is obtained when the value of the changeover delay is varied. When responses are partitioned into the set of rapid response bursts occurring during the delay interval and the set of responses occurring subsequently, the proportion of neither set of responses matches the proportion of reinforcements. Instead, each set deviates from matching but in opposite directions. Matching on the gross level results from the interaction of two patterns evident in the local response rates: (I) the lengthening of the changeover delay response burst is accompanied by a commensurate decrease in the number of changeovers; (2) the changeover delay response burst is longer than the scheduled delay duration. When delay responses are eliminated by introducing a blackout during the delay interval, response matching is eliminated; the pigeon, however, continues to match the proportion of time spent responding on a key to the proportion of reinforcements obtained on that key.     

Choice, changeover, and travel

Since foraging in nature can be viewed as instrumental behavior, choice between sources of food, known as “patches,” can be viewed as choice between instrumental response alternatives. Whereas the travel required to change alternatives deters changeover in nature, the changeover delay (COD) usually deters changeover in the laboratory. In this experiment, pigeons were exposed to laboratory choice situations, concurrent variable-interval schedules, that were standard except for the introduction of a travel requirement for changeover. As the travel requirement increased, rate of changeover decreased and preference for a favored alternative strengthened. When the travel requirement was small, the relations between choice and relative reinforcement revealed the usual tendencies toward matching and undermatching. When the travel requirement was large, strong overmatching occurred. These results, together with those from experiments in which changeover was deterred by punishment or a fixed-ratio requirement, deviate from the matching law, even when a correction is made for cost of changeover. If one accepted an argument that the COD is analogous to travel, the results suggest that the norm in choice relations would be overmatching. This overmatching, however, might only be the sign of an underlying strategy approximating optimization.     

Hill-climbing by pigeons

Pigeons were exposed to two types of concurrent operant-reinforcement schedules in order to determine what choice rules determine behavior on these schedules. In the first set of experiments, concurrent variable-interval, variable-interval schedules, key-peck responses to either of two alternative schedules produced food reinforcement after a random time interval. The frequency of food-reinforcement availability for the two schedules was varied over different ranges for different birds. In the second series of experiments, concurrent variable-ratio, variable-interval schedules, key-peck responses to one schedule produced food reinforcement after a random time interval, whereas food reinforcement occurred for an alternative schedule only after a random number of responses. Results from both experiments showed that pigeons consistently follow a behavioral strategy in which the alternative schedule chosen at any time is the one which offers the highest momentary reinforcement probability (momentary maximizing). The quality of momentary maximizing was somewhat higher and more consistent when both alternative reinforcement schedules were time-based than when one schedule was time-based and the alternative response-count based. Previous attempts to provide evidence for the existence of momentary maximizing were shown to be based upon faulty assumptions about the behavior implied by momentary maximizing and resultant inappropriate measures of behavior.     

Concurrent schedules: Maximization versus reinforcement of changeover behaviour

Pigeons responded on concurrent variable-interval 180-sec variable-interval 36-sec schedules during Conditions 1 and 3 of Experiment 1. Condition 2 arranged variable-interval 60-sec schedules for both response alternatives. The schedule assigned to the alternative that was associated with the variable-interval 36-sec schedule in Conditions 1 and 3 operated only when the subject responded on that alternative. The proportion of time spent responding on the alternative with the conventional variable-interval 60-sec schedule increased during Condition 2, but exclusive choice of that alternative did not develop. This result is inconsistent with maximization of the overall reinforcement rate and with maximization of the momentary probability of reinforcement (momentary maximizing). Increasing time proportions were also found in Experiment 2, which arranged similar conditions, except that reinforcement was provided on a variable-time basis. The time proportions were close to the momentary maximizing prediction in Experiment 2. The results of both experiments can be explained if it is assumed that time allocation is controlled by delayed reinforcement of changeovers between alternatives.     

Changeover ratio effects on concurrent variable-interval performance

Rats' bar-pressing was maintained by concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. A fixed-ratio of pulls on a chain (the changeover ratio) was required for switching between schedules. The first experiment employed equal variable-interval schedules and symmetrical changeover ratios. Increasing these ratios resulted in a decrease in the rate of switching between schedules and an increase in local response rate. In the second experiment, a range of asymmetrical changeover ratios was used with equal variable-interval schedules, and a preference was found for the schedule associated with the larger switching-into ratio. Both the distributions of responses and time between the two schedules deviated from those expected on the basis of obtained reinforcers. In the third experiment, the switching-out-of ratio was dependent on the amount of time spent in a variable-interval 2-minute schedule; a constant ratio permitted switching out of the alternative variable-interval 1-minute schedule. A strong preference was shown for the variable-interval 2-minute schedule. The fourth experiment used equal variable-interval schedules; one changeover ratio was varied while the second remained constant. The results failed to show systematic differences in local response rates immediately after a changeover.     

Choice among two and three alternatives

Although choice between two alternatives has been widely researched, fewer studies have examined choice across multiple (more than two) alternatives. Past models of choice behavior predict that the number of alternatives should not affect relative response allocation, but more recent research has found violations of this principle. Five pigeons were presented with three concurrently scheduled alternatives. Relative reinforcement rates across these alternatives were assigned 9:3:1. In some conditions three keys were available; in others, only two keys were available. The number of available alternatives did not affect relative response rates for pairs of alternatives; there were no significant differences in behavior between the two and three key conditions. For two birds in the three‐alternative conditions and three birds in the two‐alternative conditions, preference was more extreme for the pair of alternatives with the lower overall pairwise reinforcer rate (3:1) than the pair with higher overall reinforcer rate (9:3). However, when responding during the changeover was removed three birds showed the opposite pattern in the three‐alternative conditions; preference was more extreme for the pair of alternatives with the higher overall reinforcer rate. These findings differ from past research and do not support established theories of choice behavior.     

Choice behavior and the accessibility of the reinforcer

In Experiment 1, matching of relative response rates to relative rates of reinforcement was obtained in concurrent variable-interval schedules when the absolute values of the two concurrent variable-interval schedules varied from 6 sec and 12 sec to 600 sec and 1200 sec. Increases in the duration of the changeover delay, however, produced decreases in the relative response rates and, consequently, some deviation from matching. In Experiment 2, matching of relative response rates to the relative duration of the reinforcer failed to occur when the equal variable-interval schedules arranging access to the two different reinforcer durations (1.5 and 6 sec) were varied in size from concurrent variable-interval 10-sec schedules to concurrent variable-interval 600-sec schedules.     

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.     

Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate of reinforcement

Responding by pigeons on one key of a two-key chamber alternated the color of the second key, on which responding produced food according to a variable-interval schedule of reinforcement. From time to time, reinforcement would be available for a response, but in the presence of a particular stimulus, either red or green light on the key. Red or green was chosen irregularly from reinforcement to reinforcement, so that a proportion of the total number of reinforcements could be specified for each color. Experimental manipulations involved variations of (1) the proportions for each color, (2) changeover delay, or, alternatively, (3) a fixed-ratio changeover requirement. The main findings were: (1) relative overall rates of responding and relative times in the presence of a key color approximated the proportions of reinforcements obtained in the presence of that color, while relative local rates of responding changed little; (2) changeover rate decreased as the proportions diverged from 0.50; (3) relative overall rate of responding and relative time remained constant as the changeover delay was increased from 2 to 32 sec, with reinforcement proportions for red and green of 0.75 and 0.25, but they increased above 0.90 when a fixed-ratio changeover of 20 responses replaced the changeover delay; (4) changeover rate decreased as the delay or fixed-ratio was increased.     

Alan Baron: A pioneer in translational science

Primates take longer to choose between alternatives with smaller differences in value. This effect—a particular instance of the distance effect in symbolic comparisons—has not been replicated in birds. Instead, birds appear to respond independently to each alternative, such that the latency to choose depends primarily on the alternative of highest value. Three experiments tested for the distance effect in pigeons under conditions not previously considered. Experiment 1 presented pigeons with forced‐ and binary free‐choice trials, where each alternative was one of three possible delays to reinforcement (4, 8, and 16 s). Pigeons were exposed to the choice stimuli for different amounts of time and with different sample response requirements prior to the choice response. Experiment 2 added a fourth (0‐s delay) alternative. Experiment 3 substituted the 16‐s delay with a second 4‐s delay. In all experiments, pigeons systematically chose the shortest delay to reinforcement. Latency to choose the 4‐s delay did not vary when choosing against the 8‐s or 16‐s delay, regardless of whether choice stimuli were exposed for the duration of nine pecks (Experiment 1), or whether a 0‐s delay alternative was sometimes present (Experiment 2). Latency to choose the preferred of two identical alternatives (4‐s vs. 4‐s) was shorter than the latency to choose between different alternatives (4‐s vs. 8‐s; Experiment 3); this is the opposite of a distance effect. These results show no evidence of a distance effect in pigeon choice, consistent with the hypothesis that pigeons respond independently to each choice alternative.     

Momentary maximizing in concurrent schedules with a minimum interchangeover interval

Eight pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules with a minimum interchangeover time programmed as a consequence of changeovers. In Experiment 1 the reinforcement schedules remained constant while the minimum interchangeover time varied from 0 to 200 s. Relative response rates and relative time deviated from relative reinforcement rates toward indifference with long minimum interchangeover times. In Experiment 2 different reinforcement ratios were scheduled in successive experimental conditions with the minimum interchangeover time constant at 0, 2, 10, or 120 s. The exponent of the generalized matching equation was close to 1.0 when the minimum interchangeover time was 0 s (the typical procedure for concurrent schedules without a changeover delay) and decreased as that duration was increased. The data support the momentary maximizing theory and contradict molar maximizing theories and the melioration theory.     

Response rate and changeover performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules

Six pigeons were exposed to variable-interval schedules arranged on one, two, three, and four response keys. The reinforcement rate was also varied across conditions. Numbers of responses, the time spent responding, the number of reinforcements, and the number of changeovers between keys were recorded. Response rates on each key were an increasing function of reinforcement rate on that key and a decreasing function of the reinforcement rate on other keys. Response and time-allocation ratios under-matched ratios of obtained reinforcements. Three sets of equations were developed to express changeover rate as a function of response rate, time allocation, and reinforcement rate respectively. These functions were then applied to a broad range of experiments in the literature in order to test their generality. Further expressions were developed to account for changeover rates reported in experiments where changeover delays were varied.     

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.     

On the functions of the changeover delay

The function of changeover delays in producing matching was examined with pigeons responding on concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules. In Experiment 1, no changeover delay was compared to two different types of changeover delay. One type, designated generically as response-response but in the present example as peck-peck, was timed from the first response on the switched-to key; the other, designated generically as pause-response but in the present example as pause-peck, was timed from the last response on the switched-from key. High changeover rates occurred with no changeover delay. Peck-peck and pause-peck changeover delays produced low and intermediate changeover rates, respectively. In Experiment 2, pause-peck and peck-peck changeover delays were compared across a range of relative reinforcement rates. Similar matching relations developed despite differences in the changeover rates and local response patterns as a function of the type of changeover delay. In Experiment 3, both types of changeover delay yielded similar changeover rates when their obtained durations were equal via yoking. The results suggest that changeover delays function to separate responses on one key from reinforcers on the other or to delay reinforcement for changing over. In addition, the distribution of responding during and after the changeover delay may vary considerably without affecting matching.     

Independence of stimulus discriminability from absolute rate of reinforcement in a signal-detection procedure.

Three experiments are reported in which two pigeons were trained to detect differences in stimulus duration under varying levels of absolute rate of reinforcement. Two red stimuli, differing in duration, were arranged probabilistically on the center key of a three-key chamber. On completion of the center-key duration, the center keylight was extinguished and the two side keys were illuminated white. Correct responses were left-key pecks following the shorter duration and right-key pecks following the longer duration. In Experiment 1, relative rate of reinforcement for correct responses was held constant and absolute rate of reinforcement was varied in seven conditions from continuous reinforcement to a variable-interval 90-second schedule. In Experiment 2, relative rate of reinforcement was manipulated across three different absolute rates of reinforcement (continuous reinforcement, variable-interval 15-second, and variable-interval 45-second). Stimulus discriminability was unaffected by changes in absolute or relative rates of reinforcement. Experiment 3 showed that discriminability was also unaffected by arranging the same consequences (three-second blackout) for unreinforced correct responses and errors.