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.     

Competition between stimulus-reinforcer contingencies and anticipatory contrast.

Procedures used to study anticipatory contrast are conceptually similar to those used to study autoshaping, in that two target stimuli signal either higher or lower rates of reinforcement in the following components of the schedule. Despite this signal contingency, anticipatory contrast entails response rates that are higher to the target stimulus followed by the lower rate of reinforcement. To determine the relation between such effects and autoshaping, different variations of the procedure were used in which the signal contingency was presented in the absence of reinforcement in the target components themselves and in which the reinforcement schedules in the different following components were signaled by the same stimulus. Autoshaping effects of this signal contingency were demonstrated when no reinforcement was available during the target-component signals themselves. Intermediate patterns of behavior occurred when reinforcement was available during the target-component signals and when their different following schedules were correlated with the same stimulus. Attempts to isolate these signal and contrast effects functionally by using the signal-key procedure were unsuccessful. The results demonstrate that Pavlovian stimulus contingencies are in competition with the dynamics of anticipatory contrast, thus reducing its occurrence under some circumstances.     

Associative interaction: joint control of key pecking by stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relationships

The joint control of rate of key pecking in pigeons by stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relationships was studied in the context of a two-component multiple schedule of reinforcement. Food presentation was always associated with one component and extinction with the other. The stimulus-reinforcer relationship was manipulated by varying the relative durations of the two components. In the food-presentation component, a fixed rate of reinforcement, independent of rate of responding, was generated by a schedule referred to as “T*”. One aspect of the response-reinforcer relationship, contiguity, was manipulated by varying the percentage of delayed reinforcers. With the multiple T* extinction schedule, stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relationships could be varied independently of one another. Rate of key pecking was sensitive to manipulations of both relationships. However, significant differential effects due to either the stimulus-reinforcer or response-reinforcer relationship were obtained only when the other relationship was weak: stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relationships interacted in the joint control of responding.     

Effects of d-amphetamine on responding under second-order schedules of reinforcement with paired and nonpaired brief stimuli.

Three pigeons were studied under a multiple schedule in which pecks in each component were reinforced according to a variable-interval 120-s second-order schedule with fixed-interval 60-s units. In the first component of the multiple schedule, the completion of a fixed interval produced either food or a 4-s change in key color plus houselight illumination. In the second component an identical schedule was in effect, but the stimulus was a 0.3-s change in key color. Both long and short brief stimuli were not paired with food presentations in Conditions 1 and 3 and were paired with food in Condition 2. There were no consistent differences in response patterns under paired and nonpaired brief-stimulus conditions when the stimulus was a 4-s change in key color accompanied by houselight illumination. However, pairing the 0.3-s key-color change with food presentations resulted in higher indices of curvature and lower response rates in the early segments of the fixed interval than when the stimulus was not paired with food presentations. Low doses of d-amphetamine (0.3 and 1 mg/kg) produced small and inconsistent increases in overall response rates, and higher doses (3 and 10 mg/kg) decreased overall response rates. d-Amphetamine altered response patterns within fixed intervals by decreasing the indices of curvature and increasing response rates in the early segments of the fixed interval. Response rates and patterns under paired and nonpaired brief-stimulus conditions were not differentially affected by d-amphetamine. Thus, evidence for the enhancement of the conditioned reinforcement effects of psychomotor stimulant drugs was not found with the second-order schedules used in the present study.     

Behavioral contrast: Pavlovian effects and anticipatory contrast.

Two sources of behavioral contrast have been identified previously: Pavlovian stimulus-reinforcer relations and component sequence effects (anticipatory contrast). This study sought to isolate these sources of control procedurally in a four-ply multiple schedule composed of two fixed two-component sequences. Different cues were associated with the first component of each sequence, and contrast effects were studied in these target components. In Experiment 1, differential cuing of Component 2 between sequences and availability of reinforcement during target components were varied across three groups of pigeons; the stimulus-reinforcer relation between target-component cues and schedule of reinforcement in Component 2 was varied within subjects. Control by the Pavlovian relation was demonstrated under all conditions, and anticipatory contrast was not observed. In Experiment 2, target-component duration was systematically varied in the three groups of Experiment 1. Control by the Pavlovian relation was reliably obtained only when target-component behavior was unreinforced, and diminished with increases in component duration. Anticipatory contrast emerged in the two groups for which target-component reinforcement was available. These and other data indicate that Pavlovian effects in multiple schedules may be obscured when the requisite conditions for anticipatory contrast are present.     

Discrimination of response-reinforcer and response-stimulus contingencies in pigeons

For three pigeons (Experiment 1), the presentation of a red response key ended with a food presentation either following two responses separated by at least 10 seconds (a DRL contingency) or following a 10-second response-free period (a DRO contingency). For three other birds (Experiment 2), a brief stimulus presentation terminated the DRL and DRO contingencies. A white side key was presented next and ended with response-dependent food following one contingency and a timeout following the other. Since the contingency on the red key was unsignaled, differential responding on the white side key could indicate that the two response-reinforcer relations had been discriminated. In Experiment 1, the red-key duration and number of responses influenced white-key responding following the contingency that predicted the timeout. A response-initiated DRO was instated, and the influence of red-key duration and response number on white-key responding was diminished. In both experiments, the 10-second time criterion in both contingencies was varied from 0.34 second to 10 seconds. Even at short time intervals the DRO and DRL contingencies were readily discriminated. Pigeons tended to class the two contingencies according to a rule that did not involve simply stimulus duration, numbers of responses, or even the time between a response and its consequence.     

Comparison of drug effects on fixed-ratio performance and chain performance maintained under a second-order fixed-ratio schedule.

In one component of a multiple schedule, pigeons were required to complete the same four-response chain each session by responding sequentially on three identically lighted keys in the presence of four successively presented colors (chain performance). Food presentation occurred after five completions of the chain (i.e., after 20 correct responses). Errors, such as responding on the center or right key when the left was designated correct, produced a brief timeout but did not reset the chain. In the other component, responding on a single key (lighted white) was maintained by food presentation under a fixed-ratio 20 schedule. In general, phencyclidine and d-amphetamine produced dose-dependent decreases in the overall response rates in both components. With pentobarbital, overall rate in each component generally increased at intermediate doses and decreased at higher doses. All three drugs produced dose-dependent disruptive effects on chain-performance accuracy. Phencyclidine and pentobarbital increased percent errors at doses that had little or no rate-decreasing effects, whereas d-amphetamine generally increased percent errors only at doses that substantially decreased overall rate. At high doses, all three drugs produced greater disruption of chain performance than of fixed-ratio performance, as indicated by a slower return to control responding, although the effects of d-amphetamine were less selective than those of phencyclidine or pentobarbital.     

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.     

Effects of reinforcement history on responding under progressive-ratio schedules of reinforcement.

The effects of experimental history on responding under a progressive-ratio schedule of reinforcement were examined. Sixteen pigeons were divided into four equal groups. Groups 1 to 3 were trained to peck a key for food under a fixed-ratio, variable-ratio, or differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule of reinforcement. After training, these pigeons were shifted to a progressive-ratio schedule, later were shifted back to their original schedule (with decreased rates of reinforcement), and finally were returned to the progressive-ratio schedule. Pigeons in Group 4 (control) were maintained on the progressive-ratio schedule for the entire experiment. To test for potential "latent history" effects, pigeons responding under the progressive-ratio schedule were injected with d-amphetamine and given behavioral-momentum tests of prefeeding and extinction. Experimental histories affected responding in the immediate transition to the progressive-ratio schedule; response rates of pigeons with variable-ratio and fixed-ratio histories were higher than rates of pigeons with differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate and progressive-ratio-only histories. Pigeons with differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate histories, and to a lesser degree pigeons with variable-ratio and fixed-ratio histories, also had shorter postreinforcement pauses than pigeons with only a progressive-ratio history. No consistent long-term effects of prior contingencies on responding under the progressive-ratio schedule were evident. d-Amphetamine and resistance-to-change tests failed to reveal consistent latent history effects. The data suggest that history effects are sometimes transitory and not susceptible to latent influences.     

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.     

The effects of the stimulus-reinforcer correlation in a discrete-trials IRT>t procedure

The correlation between a keylight and food in a discrete-trials, interresponse-time-greater-than 6-sec (IRT>6-sec) procedure was varied by manipulating the rate of response-independent food presentation in the intertrial interval. When the correlation was positive, the rates of pecking in the IRT>6-sec condition were high and food was obtained on only about 5% of the trials. Likewise, responding was maintained at a high rate in yoked birds that received the same presentations of the light and food as the birds in the IRT>6-sec condition. When the rate of reinforcement between trials was equated to or made greater than the rate of reinforcement within trials, the response rate decreased for all birds, and those decreases were considerably larger for the yoked birds. However, the percentage of trials in which reinforced responses occurred under the IRT>6-sec procedure did not increase substantially when the light and food were either uncorrelated or negatively correlated. The percentage of trials in which a reinforcer was obtained increased when the keylight was left on continuously and the discriminative stimulus was not presented on the key. The results show that the stimulus-reinforcer correlation affects responding in the discrete-trials IRT>6-sec procedure, but that the effects of the stimulus-reinforcer correlation vary as a function of whether reinforcement is response-dependent or response-independent. The differences between the effects of response-independent and response-dependent pairings and nonpairings of the light and food are best accounted for in terms of differences in the control of responding by background stimuli.     

Bias of phencyclidine discrimination by the schedule of reinforcement.

Pigeons, trained to discriminate phencyclidine from saline under a procedure requiring the bird to track the location of a color, received cumulative doses of phencyclidine, pentobarbital, or d-amphetamine with a variety of schedules of reinforcement in effect (across phases). When the same second-order schedules were used to reinforce responding after either saline or phencyclidine administration, stimulus control by phencyclidine did not depend on the schedule parameter. When different second-order schedules were used that biased responding toward the phencyclidine-correlated key color, pigeons responded on the phencyclidine-correlated key at lower doses of phencyclidine and pentobarbital than when the second-order schedule biased responding toward the saline key color. A similar but less marked effect was obtained with d-amphetamine. Attempts to produce bias by changing reinforcement magnitude (duration of food availability) were less successful. A signal-detection analysis of dose-effect curves for phencyclidine under two of the second-order schedules employed suggested that at low doses of phencyclidine, response bias is a major determinant of responding. As doses were increased, position preferences occurred and response bias decreased; at higher doses both response bias and position preference decreased and discriminability increased. With low doses of pentobarbital, responding again was biased but increasing doses produced position preference with only small increases in discriminability. At low doses of d-amphetamine responding also was biased, but bias did not decrease consistently with dose nor did discriminability increase. These experiments suggest that the schedule of reinforcement can be used to bias responding toward or away from making the drug-correlated response in drug discrimination experiments, and that signal-detection analysis and analysis of responding at a position can be used to separate the discriminability of the drug state from other effects of the drug on responding.     

Food-paired stimuli as conditioned reinforcers: effects of d-amphetamine.

Seven pigeons were studied in two experiments in which key pecks were reinforced under a second-order schedule wherein satisfaction of variable-interval schedule requirements produced food or a brief stimulus. In the second part of each session, responses produced only the brief stimulus according to a variable-interval schedule (food extinction). For the 4 pigeons in Experiment 1, the response key was red throughout the session. In separate phases, the brief stimulus was either paired with food, not paired with food, or not presented during extinction. d-Amphetamine (0.3 to 10.0 mg/kg) dose-dependently reduced food-maintained responding during the first part of the session and, at intermediate dosages, increased responding during the extinction portion of the session. The magnitude of these increases, however, did not consistently depend on whether the brief stimulus was paired, not paired, or not presented. It was also true that under nondrug conditions, response rates during extinction did not differ reliably depending on pairing operations for the brief stimulus. In Experiment 2, 3 different pigeons responded under a procedure wherein the key was red in the component with food presentations and blue in the extinction component (i.e., multiple schedule). Again, d-amphetamine produced dose-related decreases in responding during the first part of a session and increases in responding in the second part of the session. These increases, however, were related to the pairing operations; larger increases were observed when the brief stimulus was paired with food than when it was not or when it was not presented at all. Under nondrug conditions, the paired brief stimulus controlled higher response rates during extinction than did a nonpaired stimulus or no stimulus. These findings suggest that d-amphetamine can enhance the efficacy of conditioned reinforcers, and that this effect may be more robust if conditioned reinforcers occur in the context of a signaled period of extinction.     

Drug effects on repeated acquisition: comparison of cumulative and non-cumulative dosing

Pigeons acquired a different four-response chain each session by responding sequentially on three keys in the presence of a sequence of four colors. The response chain was maintained by food presentation under a fixed-ratio schedule. Errors produced a brief timeout but did not reset the chain. Each day there were four 15-minute sessions, with a 10-minute inter-session interval. Cumulative dose-effect curves for phencyclidine, pentobarbital, and d-amphetamine were obtained by giving an injection before each of the four sessions; successive injections increased the cumulative dose in equally spaced logarithmic steps. For comparison, non-cumulative doses of each drug (i.e., doses not preceded by other doses on the same day) were also tested. As the cumulative dose of each drug increased, the overall response rate decreased, the percent errors increased, and there was less within-session error reduction (acquisition). With phencyclidine and pentobarbital, the rate-decreasing and error-increasing effects tended to be greater with a non-cumulative dose than with the corresponding cumulative dose. In contrast, with d-amphetamine, the effects were considerably greater with the cumulative doses. The results indicate that although the cumulative-dosing procedure saved a substantial amount of time in determining dose-effect curves, there were quantitative differences in effects between cumulative and non-cumulative doses.     

Reinforcement contingencies and signal detection.

Pigeons were trained to discriminate temporal stimuli in a discrete-trial signal-detection procedure. Pecks to one side key were reinforced intermittently after exposure to one duration, and pecks to the other side key were reinforced intermittently after exposure to a different duration. In Experiment I, the allocation of reinforcers was varied systematically for correct responses and for errors, using a procedure that controlled the obtained numbers of reinforcers. When reinforcers were allocated symmetrically, the level of discrimination decreased as the proportion of reinforcers for errors increased. When reinforcers were allocated asymmetrically, the decrease in discrimination was less systematic. Bias toward one or the other side key roughly matched the ratio of reinforcers obtained by pecks at those keys, independent of the level of discrimination. In Experiment II, the overall rate of reinforcement for correct responses was varied both within and between experimental conditions. The level of discrimination was positively related to the overall rate of reinforcement. The discrimination data of both experiments were interpreted in relation to the contingencies of reinforcement and nonreinforcement, characterized by the average difference in reinforcement probability for correct responses and errors.     

Drug effects on fixed-interval responding with pause requirements for food presentation.

In pigeons performing under a multiple schedule of food presentation, low key-pecking rates (0.18 to 0.29 responses per second) were maintained during 3-min fixed-interval components by requiring a 4-, 5-, or 6-sec pause preceding the food-delivery response (tandem DRL), while higher rates (0.70 to 1.37 responses per second) were maintained in alternative fixed-interval components by requiring a pause of no more than 40 msec preceding the food-delivery response (tandem DRH). Thus, reinforcement density was equal but overall response rates markedly different in the two schedule components. Pentobarbital (3, 10 mg/kg) had effects on overall rates of responding consistent with a rate-dependency interpretation (low rates were increased while higher rates were decreased), but d-amphetamine (0.03 to 3 mg/kg) either failed to increase low overall rates in the tandem DRL components or increased them only slightly. Effects of both drugs on local responding within the fixed-intervals were always related in an orderly way to control response rate, but the extent of rate increases produced by d-amphetamine was modifed in some birds by pause requirements such that the drug increased comparable rates less when these occurred in the tandem DRL component than when they occurred in the tandem DRH components. Control rate is an important determinant of drug effects, independent DRH components. Control rate is an important determinant of drug effects, independent of reinforcement density maintaining rates, and independent of environmental influences, such as response-spacing requirements for food presentation, that can modify the extent of some drug-produced rate changes.     

The effects of delayed reinforcement on free-operant responding

In previous studies of delayed reinforcement, response rate has been found to vary inversely with the response-reinforcer interval. However, in all of these studies the independent variable, response-reinforcer time, was confounded with the number of reinforcers presented in a fixed period of time (reinforcer frequency). In the present study, the frequency of available reinforcers was held constant, while temporal separation between response and reinforcer was independently manipulated. A repeating time cycle, T, was divided into two alternating time periods, t^D and t^Δ. The first response in t^D was reinforced at the end of the prevailing T cycle and extinction prevailed in t^Δ. Two placements for t^D were defined, an early t^D placement in which t^D precedes t^Δ and a late t^D placement in which t^D follows t^Δ. The duration of the early and late t^D was systematically decreased from 30 seconds (i.e., t^D = T) to 0.1 second. Manipulation of t^D placement and duration controlled the temporal separation between response and reinforcement, but it did not affect the frequency of programmed reinforcers, which was 1/T. The results show that early and late t^D placements of equal duration have similar overall effects upon response rate, reinforcer frequency, responses per reinforcer, and obtained response-reinforcer temporal separation. A stepwise regression analysis using log response rate as the dependent variable showed that the obtained delay was a significant first-step variable for six of eight subjects, with obtained reinforcer frequency significant for the remaining two subjects.     

The effects of concurrent responding and reinforcement on behavioral output

Four birds key pecked on concurrent variable-interval one-minute variable-interval four-minute schedules with a two-second changeover delay. Response rates to the variable-interval one-minute key were then reduced by signaling its reinforcer availability and later by providing its reinforcers independently of responding. Each manipulation increased response rates to the variable-interval four-minute key even though relative reinforcement rates were unchanged. In a final phase, eliminating the variable-interval one-minute key and its schedule produced the highest rates of all to the variable-interval four-minute key. These results show that both reinforcement and response rates to one schedule influence response rates to another schedule. These results join those of Guilkey, Shull, & Brownstein (1975) in failing to replicate Catania (1963). Moreover, they violate the predictions of the equation for simple action (de Villiers & Herrnstein, 1976). In terms of a median-rate measure (reciprocal of the median interresponse time), rates to the variable-interval four-minute key were high when responding was not reduced to the variable-interval one-minute key and were low when it was reduced. This rate difference suggests a process difference between concurrent-schedule procedures that maintain high concurrent response rates versus those that do not. This process difference jeopardizes attempts to integrate single- and concurrent-operant performances within a single formulation.     

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.