Delayed reinforcement of fixed-ratio performance without mediating exteroceptive conditioned reinforcement

The performance of pigeons was studied under conditions in which the completion of a fixed-ratio requirement was not contiguous with the presentation of a reinforcer. Timein and timeout periods alternated throughout the experimental sessions. Responses made by an experimental bird during the timein period were accumulated, and when a fixed-ratio requirement had been met, grain was presented to the experimental bird and a yoked control following their first response in the next timein period. Across most manipulations of the fixed-ratio requirement and of the duration of the timeout period, the response rates of the experimental birds were considerably higher than those of their controls, suggesting that the response-reinforcer dependency controlled the behavior of the experimental bird in the absence of a close temporal association between responding on the ratio schedule and reinforcer presentations.     

Extinction of a runway response following runway or goal box partial reinforcement

Rats were trained on a consistent reinforcement schedule in a straight runway. They were then switched to one of two partial reinforcement procedures. One group continued to run the full length of the runway, another was placed directly in the goal box. When extinguished in the full length of the runway both groups were more resistant to extinction than groups trained only on consistent reinforcement. An attempt was made to delineate the conditions for a demonstration of the partial reinforcement extinction effect. The results were discussed in relation to frustration theory.     

Delayed reinforcement versus reinforcement after a fixed interval

When interreinforcement intervals were equated, pigeons demonstrated little or no preference between reinforcement after a delay interval and reinforcement presented on a fixed-interval schedule. The small preferences sometimes found for the fixed interval (a) were considerably smaller than when the delay and fixed intervals differed in duration, and (b) were caused by the absence of light during the delay. These results suggest that the effects of delayed reinforcement on prior responding can be reproduced by imposing a temporally equal fixed-interval schedule in place of the delay; and, therefore, that the time between a response and reinforcement controls the probability of that response, whether other responses intervene or not.     

Delayed reinforcement in a multiple schedule

Three rats and a pigeon were first trained on a two-component multiple schedule in which reinforcement in the two components occurred immediately after a response. Later, reinforcement in one component was delayed by a few seconds. During both stages of the experiment, reinforcement was scheduled by equal variable- (pigeon) or random-interval (rats) schedules in the two components. The main effect of the delayed reinforcement was to increase the rate of responding in the unchanged (non-delay) component. This behavioral contrast effect did not appear in all cases to be dependent upon a reduction in the rate of responding or the frequency of reinforcement in the delay component. This finding suggests that a reduction in response rate and/or reinforcement frequency in one component of a multiple schedule may not be a necessary prerequisite for the occurrence of behavioral contrast. This finding is, however, consistent with an explanation that suggests that behavioral contrast results from the introduction of a less-preferred condition in one component of a multiple schedule, since it is known that animals “prefer” immediate to delayed reinforcement.     

Delayed reinforcement,selective learning and habit reversal

The Psychological Record - Three groups of hungry rats were trained in a T maze position response under conditions of 20-sec. delay of food reinforcement on 0, 50, and 100 per cent of the correct...     

Conditioned reinforcement and discrimination performance

Pigeons were trained in a three-key chamber to peck one side key in the presence of a vertical line on the center key and to peck the other side key in the presence of a horizontal line. Correct choice responses were reinforced with food according to fixed- and variable-ratio, fixed-interval, and differential-reinforcement-of-long-latency schedules of reinforcement. For each schedule, the birds performed under each of two conditions: (1) each correct choice response produced a brief presentation of stimuli intermittently paired with food, then the next trial; (2) each correct choice response produced an intertrial interval only. For all schedules except one long latency schedule, response rates were higher under the condition of brief stimulus presentation than under the comparable control condition. Presentation of brief magazine stimuli increased choice accuracy. The amount of change in accuracy was correlated with the rate of food presentation. Performance under the schedules with highest food reinforcement rates showed no enhancement; performance under the schedules with the lowest reinforcement rates showed the greatest enhancement.     

Effects of anxiolytic drugs on the partial reinforcement extinction effect in runway and skinner box

The partial reinforcement extinction effect (PREE) in the runway is reduced by anxiolytics in a non-state-dependent manner when a 24 h inter-trial interval is used, but there is some doubt as to the nature of the drug effects when shorter intervals are used. Experiment 1 repeated a study by Gray (1969), in which ambiguous results were obtained using eight trials/day. It demonstrated that the anxiolytic barbiturate, sodium amylobarbitone, given both in acquisition and extinction does not reduce the PREE. It confirmed Gray's observation that the PREE is abolished if the drug is given in acquisition but not in extinction. This suggests that a 24 h inter-trial interval is one critical factor in non-state-dependent reduction of the PREE. Experiments 2 and 3 tested the effects of the anxiolytic benzodiazepine, chlordiazepoxide, on the PREE with a 24 h inter-trial interval in the Skinner box. The basic task was a single FR5 sequence terminating in delivery of 10 (Experiment 2) or 20 (Experiment 3) reward pellets each day. There were 10 acquisition trials and partially reinforced rats received either three (Experiment 2) or four (Experiment 3) non-rewarded trials. The drug abolished the PREE in Experiment 2 and effectively reversed it in Experiment 3. These results confirm previous work with this drug in the runway (Feldon and Gray, 1981) and extend them to a very different experimental situation. These results support the idea that the PREE depends on different processes with different acquisition parameters; and that when a 24 h inter-trial interval is used the PREE is largely produced by some general process, probably the counterconditioning of conditioned frustration, which is sensitive to anxiolytic drugs. They also demonstrate very clearly the paradoxical effects of the anxiolytic drugs when given in both acquisition and extinction: they generally increase resistance to extinction in continuously reinforced animals, but block the increase in resistance (the PREE) produced by behavioural schedules.     

Internal-external control of reinforcement and embedded-figures performance

Male and female Ss were tested in an extended series of 68 embedded figures. Rate of decrease in discovery time was related to Ss’ attitudes about locus of control of reinforcing outcomes. Results confirmed those of an earlier study, showing that practice dissipated sex-related performance differences observable in early trials.     

Differential runway performance using goal box placement and running trials as discriminative stimuli

Two experiments compared the effects of reinforced, partially reinforced and nonreinforced intertrial goal box placements (ITR, ITP, and ITN respectively) on runway performance. In Experiment I differential responding (animals running slower on nonreinforced (N) trials than on reinforced (R) trials) was observed during acquisition for subjects receiving ITP preceding N trials or subjects receiving ITP before R trials, and also for subjects receiving ITR preceding N trials. No differential responding was observed in subjects receiving ITP prior to both N and R trials or ITN prior to N trials. In extinction, the subjects which had responded differentially during acquisition demonstrated reduced resistance to extinction in comparison to the subjects which had not. In Experiment II, a 2 × 2 factorial design was utilized with placement schedule (ITN and ITP) and type of trial predicted by placement (N and R) serving as the factors. Differential responding was observed in all four groups. The apparent contradiction between the results and the discrimination hypothesis proposed by Capaldi and Olivier (1967) to explain the attenuation of ITR and ITN effects on resistance to extinction is discussed.