Response-rate differences in variable-interval and variable-ratio schedules: An old problem revisited

In Experiment 1, a variable-ratio 10 schedule became, successively, a variable-interval schedule with only the minimum interreinforcement intervals yoked to the variable ratio, or a variable-interval schedule with both interreinforcement intervals and reinforced interresponse times yoked to the variable ratio. Response rates in the variable-interval schedule with both interreinforcement interval and reinforced interresponse time yoking fell between the higher rates maintained by the variable-ratio schedule and the lower rates maintained by the variable-interval schedule with only interreinforcement interval yoking. In Experiment 2, a tandem variable-interval 15-s variable-ratio 5 schedule became a yoked tandem variable-ratio 5 variable-interval x-s schedule, and a tandem variable-interval 30-s variable-ratio 10 schedule became a yoked tandem variable-ratio 10 variable-interval x-s schedule. In the yoked tandem schedules, the minimum interreinforcement intervals in the variable-interval components were those that equated overall interreinforcement times in the two phases. Response rates did not decline in the yoked schedules even when the reinforced interresponse times became longer. Experiment 1 suggests that both reinforced interresponse times and response rate–reinforcement rate correlations determine response-rate differences in variable-ratio 10 and yoked variable-interval schedules in rats. Experiment 2 suggests a minimal role for the reinforced interresponse time in determining response rates on tandem variable-interval 30-s variable-ratio 10 and yoked tandem variable-ratio 10 variable-interval x-s schedules in rats.     

Interresponse-time shaping by variable-interval-like interresponse-time reinforcement contingencies

The interresponse-time reinforcement contingencies and distributions of interreinforcement intervals characteristic of certain variable-interval schedules were mimicked by reinforcing each key peck with a probability equal to the duration of the interresponse time it terminated, divided by the scheduled mean interreinforcement interval. The interresponse-time reinforcement contingency was then eliminated by basing the probability of reinforcement on the fifth interresponse time preceding the key peck. Even though distributions of interreinforcement intervals were unaffected by this manipulation, response rates consistently increased. A second experiment replicated this effect and showed it to combine additively with that of mean reinforcement rate. These results provide strong support for the contention that current analyses of variable-interval response rates that ignore the inherent interresponse-time reinforcement contingency may be seriously in error.     

Studies on responding under fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement: the effects on the pattern of responding of changes in requirements at reinforcement

In pigeons responding under a 180-sec fixed-interval schedule of reinforcement, the frequency distribution of the duration of the final interresponse time before the reinforcer was compared with the distribution of the preceding two interresponse times. The results confirmed qualitatively and quantitatively the expected preferential reinforcement of longer interreinforcement times under fixed-interval reinforcement. Requirements at reinforcement were then changed to eliminate the preferential reinforcement of longer interresponse times. Local patterns and mean rate of responding could change, without the characteristic fixed-interval pattern of increasing responding through the interval (scalloping) being much affected. It is concluded that this characteristic pattern of fixed-interval responding does not depend crucially on effects of the reinforcer at the moment of reinforcement, but rather to effects extending over much longer periods of time than just the last interresponse time.     

SINGLE‐SAMPLE DISCRIMINATION OF DIFFERENT SCHEDULES' REINFORCED INTERRESPONSE TIMES

Food‐deprived rats in Experiment 1 responded to one of two tandem schedules that were, with equal probability, associated with a sample lever. The tandem schedules' initial links were different random‐interval schedules. Their values were adjusted to approximate equality in time to completing each tandem schedule's response requirements. The tandem schedules differed in their terminal links: One reinforced short interresponse times; the other reinforced long ones. Tandem‐schedule completion presented two comparison levers, one of which was associated with each tandem schedule. Pressing the lever associated with the sample‐lever tandem schedule produced a food pellet. Pressing the other produced a blackout. The difference between terminal‐link reinforced interresponse times varied across 10‐trial blocks within a session. Conditional‐discrimination accuracy increased with the size of the temporal difference between terminal‐link reinforced interresponse times. In Experiment 2, one tandem schedule was replaced by a random ratio, while the comparison schedule was either a tandem schedule that only reinforced long interresponse times or a random‐interval schedule. Again, conditional‐discrimination accuracy increased with the temporal difference between the two schedules' reinforced interresponse times. Most rats mastered the discrimination between random ratio and random interval, showing that the interresponse times reinforced by these schedules can serve to discriminate between these schedules.     

Separating the effects of interreinforcement time and number of interreinforcement responses

The relative importance of interreinforcement time and interreinforcement responses was evaluated by varying each independently. To do this, a blackout was presented after each nonreinforced response under both fixed-ratio and fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement. Manipulating the blackout duration under the fixed-ratio schedule caused interreinforcement time to vary without affecting the number of interreinforcement responses. Pigeons' post-reinforcement and post-blackout response latencies were found to increase linearly with interreinforcement time. Under the fixed-interval schedule, the same blackout manipulations changed the number of interreinforcement responses without affecting interreinforcement time. Post-reinforcement and post-blackout response latencies under this condition were approximately constant. These results suggest that responding is controlled by interreinforcement time and is not influenced by the number of responses emitted between reinforcements.     

A mathematical model of learning under schedules of interresponse time reinforcement

A model is proposed for free responding under schedules of interresponse time reinforcement. Each response generates a pattern of stimuli that changes in an orderly way over time. At any time the changing pattern may be sampled, and the state of conditioning of the sampled pattern determines whether or not a response actually occurs. The prediction of this model for the asymptotic distribution of interresponse times is derived. The predictions are tested against data from ratio, interval, and DRL schedules of reinforcement. The fit of the model is sufficiently good to make it worth-while continuing investigation of the model.     

Free-operant performance on variable interval schedules with a linear feedback loop: no evidence for molar sensitivities in rats

Four experiments examined rats' sensitivity to molar and molecular factors on instrumental schedules of reinforcement. Rats were exposed to a variable interval schedule with a positive feedback loop (VI+), such that faster responding led to a shorter interreinforcement interval. In Experiments 1 and 2, rats responded faster on a variable response (VR) schedule than on either a VI schedule matched for reinforcement rate or a VI+ schedule matched for the feedback function. In Experiment 3, rats responded no differently on a VI schedule than they did on a VI+ schedule with equated rates of reinforcement. In Experiment 4, rats responded faster on a VI+ schedule with an interresponse time requirement yoked to that experienced on a VR schedule, than on a VI+ schedule with the same feedback function as the VR schedule. Taken together these results suggest that rats are more sensitive to the molecular than the molar properties of the schedules.     

Quantitative Analysis of IRT Variability During the First Training Stages of a Variable-Interval Schedule in Rats

Five rats were reinforced under variable-interval schedules with different average interreinforcement intervals (30 seC., 1 min, 2 min, and 4 min). Each animal was run only two sessions of each schedule. The interresponse times (IRTs) were recorded and analyzed. The autocorrelation function of the IRT series and of the IRT time series (number of responses per time interval) were calculated, and absence of periodicity in the subject’s behavior was demonstrated. Frequency distribution of IRTs showed in all cases a similar shape and could be fitted to a gamma probability density function in 60% of cases with a signification level of .01 (Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test). The frequency distributions of the IRT time series were distributed as a Poisson process with a .05 significance level. These results suggest that during variable-interval schedules the responses of the animal can be modeled as a random process characterized by a gamma distribution, as a first approximation.

     

The copyist model of response emission

The variety of different performances maintained by schedules of reinforcement complicates comprehensive model creation. The present account assumes the simpler goal of modeling the performances of only variable reinforcement schedules because they tend to maintain steady response rates over time. The model presented assumes that rate is determined by the mean of interresponse times (time between two responses) between successive reinforcers, averaged so that their contribution to that mean diminishes exponentially with distance from reinforcement. To respond, the model randomly selects an interresponse time from the last 300 of these mean interresponse times, the selection likelihood arranged so that the proportion of session time spent emitting each of these 300 interresponse times is the same. This interresponse time defines the mean of an exponential distribution from which one is randomly chosen for emission. The response rates obtained approximated those found on several variable schedules. Furthermore, the model reproduced three effects: (1) the variable ratio maintaining higher response rates than does the variable interval; (2) the finding for variable schedules that when the reinforcement rate varies from low to high, the response rate function has an ascending and then descending limb; and (3) matching on concurrent schedules. Because these results are due to an algorithm that reproduces reinforced interresponse times, responding to single and concurrent schedules is viewed as merely copying what was reinforced before.     

Changes in rate of schedule-induced behaviour in rats as a function of fixed-interval schedule

Two experiments were conducted to determine the way in which rate of adjunctive drinking and food-tray responding vary as a function of interreinforcement interval duration. In Experiment I rats were tested under fixed-interval schedules ranging from 1-60 s in duration, and in Experiment II under fixed-interval schedules ranging from 1-180 s in duration, with food as the reinforcer. The rate of drinking increased and then declined as interreinforcement interval increased, reaching a maximum under intervals of about 45 s. The rate of food-tray responding declined over the whole range of schedules. It is concluded that drinking can meaningfully be described as “schedule-induced”, in the sense of being directly facilitated by intermittent schedules of reinforcement; but this is less certain in the case of food-tray responding.     

Effects of cocaine on performance under fixed-interval schedules with a small tandem ratio requirement

Daily administration of cocaine often results in the development of tolerance to its effects on responding maintained by fixed-ratio schedules. Such effects have been observed to be greater when the ratio value is small, whereas less or no tolerance has been observed at large ratio values. Similar schedule-parameter-dependent tolerance, however, has not been observed with fixed-interval schedules arranging comparable interreinforcement intervals. This experiment examined the possibility that differences in rate and temporal patterning between the two types of schedule are responsible for the differences in observed patterns of tolerance. Five pigeons were trained to key peck on a three-component multiple (tandem fixed-interval fixed-ratio) schedule. The interval values were 10, 30, and 120 s; the tandem ratio was held constant at five responses. Performance appeared more like that observed under fixed-ratio schedules than fixed-interval schedules. Effects of various doses of cocaine given weekly were then determined for each pigeon. A dose that reduced responding was administered prior to each session for 50 days. A reassessment of effects of the range of doses revealed tolerance. The degree of tolerance was similar across components of the multiple schedule. Next, the saline vehicle was administered prior to each session for 50 days to assess the persistence of tolerance. Tolerance diminished in all subjects. Overall, the results suggested that schedule-parameter-dependent tolerance does not depend on the temporal pattern of responding engendered by fixed-ratio schedules.     

Latency and frequency of responding under discrete-trial fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement

Pigeons' key pecking was studied under a number of discrete-trial fixed-interval schedules of food reinforcement. Discrete trials were presented by briefly illuminating the keylight repetitively throughout the interreinforcement interval. A response latency counterpart to the fixed-interval scallop was found, latency showing a gradual, negatively accelerated decrease across the interval. This latency pattern was largely invariant across changes in fixed-interval length, number of trials per interval, and maximum trial duration. Frequency of responding during early trials in the intervals varied, however, with different schedule parameters, being directly related to fixed-interval length, inversely related to number of trials, and complexly affected by conjoint variations of fixed-interval length and number of trials. Response latency thus was found to be simply related to elapsed time during the interval while response frequency was complexly determined by other factors as well.     

Preference for unsegmented interreinforcement intervals in concurrent chains

Five pigeons were trained under concurrent-chain schedules in which a pair of independent, concurrent variable-interval 60-s schedules were presented in the initial link and either both variable-interval or both fixed-interval schedules were presented in the terminal link. Except for the baseline, one of the terminal-link schedules was always a two-component chained schedule and the other was either a simple or a tandem schedule of equal mean interreinforcement interval. The values of the fixed-interval schedules were either 15 s or 60 s; that of the variable-interval schedules was always 60 s. A 1.5-s changeover delay operated during the initial link in some conditions. The pigeons preferred a simple or a tandem schedule to a chain. For the fixed-interval schedules, this preference was greater when the fixed interval was 60 s than when it was 15 s. For the variable-interval schedules, the preferences were less pronounced and occurred only when the changeover delay was in effect. For a given type of schedule and interreinforcement interval, similar preferences were obtained whether the nonchained schedule was a tandem or simple schedule. The changeover delay generally inflated preference and lowered the changeover rate, especially when the terminal-link schedules were either short (15 s) or aperiodic (variable-interval). The results were consistent with the notion that segmenting the interreinforcement interval of a schedule into a chain lowers the preference for it.     

The effects of fixed‐interval schedules on variability of pigeons' pecking location

Many studies that have investigated performance under reinforcement schedules have measured response rate or interresponse time, which reflect the temporal dimension of responding; however, relatively few studies have examined other dimensions. The present study investigated the effects of fixed‐interval schedules on the location of pigeons' pecking response. A circular response area 22.4 cm in diameter was used so that the pecking responses were effective over a wide range. Pigeons were exposed to a fixed‐interval schedule whose requirement was systematically varied between conditions. Response location moved closer to the location of the last reinforced response as time elapsed in each trial. Additionally, as the fixed‐interval duration requirement increased, response locations shifted to the border of the response area and the variability of response locations increased. These results suggest that fixed‐interval schedules systematically control response location.     

Interval and ratio reinforcement of a complex sequential operant in pigeons

Pigeons were required to produce exactly four pecks on each of two keys in any order for reinforcement. Correct response sequences were reinforced on either fixed-interval two-minute or fixed-ratio four schedules, with each correct sequence treated as a single response. Each pigeon developed a particular dominant sequence that accounted for more than 80% of all sequences. Sequence stereotypy was relatively unaffected by the temporal properties of the fixed-interval and fixed-ratio schedules. Response time (time from the first response in each sequence to the last) was also relatively unaffected by the temporal properties of the schedules. In contrast, response latency (time from end of one sequence to the beginning of the next) was markedly affected by the schedules. Latencies were long early in the interreinforcement interval and got shorter as the interreinforcement interval progressed. These data suggest that stereotyped response sequences become functional behavioral units, resistant to disruption or alteration by reinforcement variables that ordinarily influence the temporal spacing of individual responses.     

A comparison of ratio and interval reinforcement schedules with comparable interreinforcement times

Pigeons were trained to peck keys on fixed-ratio and fixed-interval schedules of food reinforcement. Both schedules produced a pattern of behavior characterized as pause and run, but the relation of pausing to time between reinforcers differed for the two schedules even when mean time between reinforcers was the same. Pausing in the fixed ratio occupied less of the time between reinforcers for shorter interreinforcer times. For two of three birds, the relation was reversed at longer interreinforcer times. As an interreinforcer time elapsed, there was an increasing tendency to return to responding for the fixed interval, but a roughly constant tendency to return to responding for the fixed-ratio schedule. In Experiment 1 these observations were made for both single-reinforcement schedules and multiple schedules of fixed-ratio and fixed-interval reinforcement. In Experiment 2 the observations were extended to a comparison of fixed-ratio versus variable-interval reinforcement schedules, where the distribution of interreinforcement times in the variable interval approximated that for the fixed ratio.     

The role of reinforcement in controlling sequential IRT dependencies

Sequential dependencies were investigated with two rats in a mixed and in a tandem differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate-responding schedule. In each schedule, 5-sec and 15-sec components were presented in fixed alternation. In the mixed schedule, a 5-sec interresponse time followed a 15-sec interresponse time and a 15-sec interresponse time followed a 5-sec interresponse time in predictable sequence. The correlation between prior and subsequent interresponse times, however, existed only when the prior interresponse time resulted in reinforcement. In the tandem schedule, an interresponse time greater than 5 sec in the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 5-sec component was not associated directly with reinforcement. One subject demonstrated sequential response patterns similar to those noted in the mixed schedule, even though the prior 5-sec interresponse time was not reinforced in the tandem schedule. The results indicate that the prior interresponse time length alone is not sufficient to influence the subsequent interresponse time length. Implications are, however, that a temporal response pattern arises when an interresponse interacts with schedule contingencies to control the interreinforcement interval.     

The temporal organization of behavior on periodic food schedules.

Various theories of temporal control and schedule induction imply that periodic schedules temporally modulate an organism's motivational states within interreinforcement intervals. This speculation has been fueled by frequently observed multimodal activity distributions created by averaging across interreinforcement intervals. We tested this hypothesis by manipulating the cost associated with schedule-induced activities and the availability of other activities to determine the degree to which (a) the temporal distributions of activities within the interreinforcement interval are fixed or can be temporally displaced, (b) rats can reallocate activities across different interreinforcement intervals, and (c) noninduced activities can substitute for schedule-induced activities. Obtained multimodal activity distributions created by averaging across interreinforcement intervals were not representative of the transitions occurring within individual intervals, so the averaged multimodal distributions should not be assumed to represent changes in the subject's motivational states within the interval. Rather, the multimodal distributions often result from averaging across interreinforcement intervals in which only a single activity occurs. A direct influence of the periodic schedule on the motivational states implies that drinking and running should occur at different periods within the interval, but in three experiments the starting times of drinking and running within interreinforcement intervals were equal. Thus, the sequential pattern of drinking and running on periodic schedules does not result from temporal modulation of motivational states within interreinforcement intervals.     

Local patterns of responding maintained by concurrent and multiple schedules

Local patterns of responding were studied when pigeons pecked for food in concurrent variable-interval schedules (Experiment I) and in multiple variable-interval schedules (Experiment II). In Experiment I, similarities in the distribution of interresponse times on the two keys provided further evidence that responding on concurrent schedules is determined more by allocation of time than by changes in local pattern of responding. Relative responding in local intervals since a preceding reinforcement showed consistent deviations from matching between relative responding and relative reinforcement in various postreinforcement intervals. Response rates in local intervals since a preceding changeover showed that rate of responding is not the same on both keys in all postchangeover intervals. The relative amount of time consumed by interchangeover times of a given duration approximately matched relative frequency of reinforced interchangeover times of that duration. However, computer simulation showed that this matching was probably a necessary artifact of concurrent schedules. In Experiment II, when component durations were 180 sec, the relationship between distribution of interresponse times and rate of reinforcement in the component showed that responding was determined by local pattern of responding in the components. Since responding on concurrent schedules appears to be determined by time allocation, this result would establish a behavioral difference between multiple and concurrent schedules. However, when component durations were 5 sec, local pattern of responding in a component (defined by interresponse times) was less important in determining responding than was amount of time spent responding in a component (defined by latencies). In fact, with 5-sec component durations, the relative amount of time spent responding in a component approximately matched relative frequency of reinforcement in the component. Thus, as component durations in multiple schedules decrease, multiple schedules become more like concurrent schedules, in the sense that responding is affected by allocation of time rather than by local pattern of responding.     

Two-key concurrent paced variable-interval paced variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

Nine pigeons were used in two experiments in which a response was reinforced if a variable-interval schedule had assigned a reinforcement and if the response terminated an interresponse time within a certain interval, or class, of interresponse times. One such class was scheduled on one key, and a second class was scheduled on a second key. The procedure was, therefore, a two-key concurrent paced variable-interval paced variable-interval schedule. In Exp. I, the lengths of the two reinforced interresponse times were varied. The relative frequency of responding on a key approximately equalled the relative reciprocal of the length of the interresponse time reinforced on that key. In Exp. II, the relative frequency and relative magnitude of reinforcement were varied. The relative frequency of responding on the key for which the shorter interresponse time was reinforced was a monotonically increasing, negatively accelerated function of the relative frequency of reinforcement on that key. The relative frequency of responding depended on the relative magnitude of reinforcement in approximately the same way as it depended on the relative frequency of reinforcement. The relative frequency of responding on the key for which the shorter interresponse time was reinforced depended on the lengths of the two reinforced interresponse times and on the relative frequency and relative magnitude of reinforcement in the same way as the relative frequency of the shorter interresponse time depended on these variables in previous one-key concurrent schedules of reinforcement for two interresponse times.