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.     

Effects of concurrent response-independent reinforcement on fixed-interval schedule performance

In three experiments, behavior maintained by fixed-interval schedules changed when response-independent reinforcement was delivered concurrently according to fixed- or variable-time schedules. In Experiment I, a pattern of positively accelerated responding during fixed interval was changed to a linear pattern when response-independent reinforcement occurred under a variable-time schedule. Overall response rates (total responses/total time) decreased as the frequency of response-independent reinforcement increased. Experiment II showed that the response-rate changes in the first experiment were controlled by the response-reinforcer relation, but the changes in patterns of responding were similar whether concurrently available reinforcement at varying times was response-dependent or response-independent. In the final experiment, the addition of response-independent reinforcement at fixed times to a fixed-interval schedule resulted in changes in both local and overall response rates and in the occurrence of positively accelerated responding between reinforcements. These results suggest that the temporal distribution of reinforcers determines response patterns and that both the response-reinforcement dependency and the schedule of reinforcement determine overall response rates during concurrently scheduled response-dependent and response-independent reinforcement.     

Multiple and concurrent schedule performance: independence from concurrent and successive schedule contexts

Six pigeons were trained on multiple variable-interval schedules and performance was measured in the presence or absence of another variable-interval schedule (the common schedule) arranged concurrently with both components. Manipulations included varying the rate of reinforcement on the common schedule, leaving the common schedule unchanged while the components of the multiple schedule were varied, varying the multiple schedule components in the absence of the common schedule, and varying one component of the multiple schedule while the other component and the common schedule were unchanged. The normal rate-increasing and rate-decreasing effects of reinforcement rate increase were found, except that changing one multiple schedule component did not affect the response rate in the successively available common schedule component. Both concurrent and multiple schedule performance undermatched obtained reinforcement-rate ratios, but the degree of undermatching in multiple schedules was reliably greater. Allocation of responses between multiple schedule components was unaffected by the concurrent availability of reinforcement, and allocation of responses between concurrent schedules was unaffected by the successive availability of different reinforcement rates.     

Duration and rate of reinforcement as determinants of concurrent responding

The duration and frequency of food presentation were varied in concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. In the first experiment, in which pigeons were exposed to a succession of eight different schedules, neither relative duration nor relative frequency of reinforcement had as great an effect on response distribution as they have when they are manipulated separately. These results supported those previously reported by Todorov (1973) and Schneider (1973). In a second experiment, each of seven pigeons was exposed to only one concurrent schedule in which the frequency and/or duration of reinforcement differed on the two keys. Under these conditions, each pigeon's relative rate of response closely matched the relative total access to food that each schedule provided. This result suggests that previous failures to obtain matching may be due to factors such as an insufficient length of exposure to each schedule or to the pigeons' repeated exposure to different concurrent schedules.     

Preference in concurrent variable-interval fixed-ratio schedules

Five pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval fixed-ratio schedules in three experiments. Experiment 1 used two variable-interval schedules and one fixed-ratio schedule, and the ratio requirement was varied. Using the generalized matching law, sensitivity to reinforcement was close to 1.0, but performance was biased toward the variable-interval schedule with the lower reinforcement rate. In Experiment 2, which used one variable-interval and one fixed-ratio schedule, the interval schedule was varied. All birds showed sensitivities to reinforcement of less than 1.0 and of less than the values obtained in Experiment 1. The performance was also biased toward the fixed-ratio schedule. Because the generalized matching law could not account for the differences in the data from Experiments 1 and 2, an extension of this law was suggested and successfully tested in Experiment 3. The proposed dual-sensitivity model was also shown to clarify some previously reported results.     

Undermatching: a reappraisal of performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

The extant data for pigeons' performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules were examined in detail. Least-squares lines relating relative pecks and time to the corresponding relative reinforcements were obtained for four studies. The between-study group slopes for time and pecks and five of seven within-study group slopes from individual studies were less than 1.00. This suggested the generality that pigeons respond less to the richer reinforcement schedule than predicted by matching. For pecks, a nonparametric test for distribution of points also supported this concept of undermatching (to the richer reinforcement schedule). In addition, using mean squared error as the criterion, a cubic curve fit the peck proportion data better than any line or other polynomial. This indicates that the relation between peck and reinforcement proportions may be nonlinear.     

Local response-rate constancy on concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

Concurrent variable-interval schedules were arranged with a main key that alternated in color and schedule assignment, along with a changeover key on which a small fixed ratio was required to changeover. Acceptable matching was observed with pigeons in two replications, but there was a tendency toward overmatching. Local response rates were found to differ for unequal schedules of a concurrent pair: local response rate was greater for the variable-interval schedule with the smaller average interreinforcement interval, but qualifications based on an interresponse-time analysis were discussed. In a second experiment, two 3-minute variable-interval schedules were arranged concurrently, and the experimental variable was the changeover procedure: either a changeover delay was incurred by each changeover or a small fixed ratio on a changeover key was required to complete a changeover. Changeover delays of 2 and 5 seconds were compared with a fixed-ratio changeover of five responses. The response output on the main key (associated with the variable-interval schedules) was greater when a changeover delay was arranged than when a fixed ratio was required to changeover. A detailed analysis of stripchart records showed that a 2-second delay generated an increased response rate for 3 seconds after a changeover, while the fixed-ratio requirement generated an increased rate during the first second only, followed by a depressed response rate for 2 seconds.     

Performance on variable-interval schedules arranged singly and concurrently

Extensive parametric data were obtained from pigeons responding on variable-interval schedules arranged on three, two, and one response keys. Number of responses on the keys, the time spent responding on the keys, and the number of reinforcements obtained on the keys were measured. Response rates on each key were an increasing function of the reinforcement rate on that key, and an inverse function of the reinforcement rate on the other keys. In terms of preference, both response and time-allocation ratios undermatched ratios of obtained reinforcements, and the degree of undermatching was consistent both within, and between, two- and three-schedule data. When absolute response-rate data were analyzed according to Herrnstein's (1970) quantitative account, obtained values of assumed constants were not consistent either within or between conditions. However, a power-function modification of Herrnstein's account fitted the data well and provided similar exponent values to those obtained for the undermatching of preference ratios.     

Matching with a trio of concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

A trio of concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement was arranged according to a changeover-key procedure, including a changeover delay of 1.5 sec. The three schedules provided a combined maximum reinforcement rate of 45 reinforcements per hour. With that restriction, the nine experimental conditions included several combinations of variable-interval schedules, sometimes including extinction. The pigeons matched relative response rate and relative time to relative reinforcement rate. Relative time appeared to match some-what better than relative response rate. Performance adjusted rapidly from one experimental condition to the next, whether the change involved two or all three schedules of the concurrent trio.     

Alternative reinforcement effects on fixed-interval performance

Pigeons' key pecks were reinforced with food on a fixed-interval schedule. Food also was available at variable time periods either independently of responding or for not key pecking (a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule). The latter condition arranged reinforcement following the first pause of t seconds after it became available according to a variable-time schedule. This schedule allowed separation of the effects of pause requirements ≤ five-seconds and reinforcement frequency. The time spent pausing increased as the duration of the pause required for reinforcement increased from 0 to 30 seconds and as the frequency of reinforcement for pausing increased from 0 to 2 reinforcers per minute. Key pecking was more evenly distributed within each fixed interval with shorter required pauses and with more frequent reinforcement for pausing. The results complement those obtained with other concurrent schedules in which the same operant response was reinforced in both components.     

Maximizing versus matching on concurrent variable-interval schedules

Maximization and matching predictions were examined for a time-based analogue of the concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio schedule. One alternative was a variable interval whose time base operated relatively independent of the schedule chosen, and the other was a discontinuous variable interval for which timing progressed only when selected. Pigeons switched between schedules by pecking a changeover key. The maximization hypothesis predicts that subjects will show a bias toward the discontinuous variable interval and undermatching; however the obtained results conformed closely to the predictions of the matching law. Finally, a quantitative comparison was made of the bias and sensitivity estimates obtained in published concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio analogue studies. Results indicated that only the ratio-based analogue of the concurrent variable interval variable ratio studied by Green, Rachlin, and Hanson (1983) produced significant bias toward the variable-ratio alternative and undermatching, as predicted by reinforcement maximization.     

Choice dynamics in concurrent ratio schedules of reinforcement

The generalized matching law predicts performance on concurrent schedules when variable-interval schedules are programmed but is trivially applicable when independent ratio schedules are used. Responding usually is exclusive to the schedule with the lowest response requirement. Determining a method to program concurrent ratio schedules such that matching analyses can be usefully employed would extend the generality of matching research and lead to new avenues of research. In the present experiments, ratio schedules were programmed dependently such that responses to either of the two options progressed the requirement on both schedules. Responding is not exclusive because the probability of reinforcement increases on both schedules as responses are allocated to either schedule. In Experiment 1, performance on concurrent variable-ratio schedules was assessed, and reinforcer ratios were varied across conditions to investigate changes in sensitivity. Additionally, the length of a changeover delay was manipulated. In Experiment 2, performance was compared under concurrently available, dependently programmed variable-ratio and fixed-ratio schedules. Performance was well described by the generalized matching law. Increases in the changeover delay decreased sensitivity, whereas sensitivity was higher when variable-ratio schedules were employed, compared with fixed-ratio schedules. Concurrent ratio schedules can be a viable approach to studying functional differences between ratio and interval schedules.     

Contrast and induction in multiple schedules of discrete-trial concurrent reinforcement

Three pigeons were exposed to two-key discrete-trial concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Red and white key colors alternated irregularly and the assignment of reinforcers depended on key color. The red-key schedules were held constant, with the scheduled relative frequency of reinforcement for left-key pecks set at 0.75, while the white-key schedules varied. When the location of white-key reinforcement was changed from one side to the other, while its overall frequency was constant, red-key choices shifted in the same direction as white-key choices, an induction effect. When the overall frequency of white-key reinforcement was changed while its location remained constant, red key choices shifted in a direction opposite to white-key choices, a contrast effect. Both induction and contrast effects were clearer when the overall frequency of red-key reinforcement was reduced. These data demonstrate that the allocation of responding may exhibit schedule interaction effects similar to those commonly reported for response rate.     

The effects of different component response requirements in multiple and concurrent schedules

Six pigeons were trained on multiple and concurrent schedules. The reinforcement rates were varied systematically (a) when lever pressing was required in one component and key pecking in the successive component; (b) when lever pressing was required in both multiple components; (c) when key pecking was required in both multiple components; and (d) when key pecking was required on one schedule and lever pressing was required on the concurrently-available schedule. Only the absolute level of responding was changed by different response requirements. Analyzed by the generalized matching law, performance under different response requirements resulted in a bias toward key pecking, and the measured response bias was the same in multiple and concurrent schedule arrangements. The bias in time measures obtained from concurrent schedule performance was reliably smaller than the obtained response biases. The sensitivity to reinforcement-rate changes was ordered: concurrent key-lever; multiple key-key; multiple lever-key; and, the least sensitive, multiple lever-lever. The results confirm that requirements of different topographical responses can be handled by the generalized matching law mainly in the bias parameter, but problems for this type of analysis may be caused by the changing sensitivity to reinforcement in multiple schedule performance as response requirements are changed.     

Choice performance in several concurrent key-peck treadle-press reinforcement schedules

Five pigeons were exposed to several concurrent variable-interval food reinforcement schedules. For three subjects, one component of the schedule required a key-pecking response, the other a treadle-pressing response. For the other two subjects, both schedule components required treadle-pressing responses. The relative probability of reinforcement associated with the manipulanda was varied from 0 to 1.0 in 13 experimental conditions for the Key-Treadle subjects and nine conditions for the Treadle-Treadle subjects. The results indicated that the logarithms of relative time spent responding, and the logarithms of relative number of responses emitted on a manipulandum, approximated direct linear functions of logarithms of the relative frequencies of reinforcement associated with that manipulandum. No systematic bias in favor of time spent key pecking over time spent treadle pressing was apparent for the Key-Treadle subjects. All subjects exhibited undermatching, in that the ratios of time and response allocation at the alternatives systematically differed from the ratios of reinforcers obtained from the alternatives in the direction of indifference. Key pecking appeared to have no special link to food beyond treadle pressing or what would be expected on the basis of the reinforcement dependencies alone.     

A comparison of the key-peck and treadle-press operants in the pigeon: differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule of reinforcement

Key pecking and treadle pressing in pigeons were compared under concurrent (key-treadle) and single-operant differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules of food reinforcement ranging from 5 to 60 sec (concurrent procedure) or 5 to 120 sec (single-operant procedure). Under both procedures, the two operants followed the same general law: decreasing response rate and reinforcement rate and increasing number of responses per reinforcement as a function of increasing schedule interval. High correlations were found between key pecking and treadle pressing for the measures of response rate, reinforcement rate, and responses per reinforcement. Regression equations allowed the prediction of treadle pressing from key pecking. More bursting occurred in responding to the key, and key pecking showed a more precise temporal discrimination than treadle pressing. A test for sequential dependencies between key and treadle responses showed significant dependencies not only under the concurrent procedure but also in data created artificially by merging key and treadle sequences from different pigeons under the concurrent procedure and from the same pigeon under the single-operant procedure. It seems likely that the sequential dependencies found were due to the independent action of the schedule on each operant and that behavioral dependencies did not occur with the concurrent training procedure. The key-peck operant does not appear to have any special qualities that preclude its use in discovering general laws of behavior, at least under the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule. The usefulness of the key peck in other situations requires direct experimental study.     

Independence of reinforcement delay and magnitude in concurrent chains

A three-component concurrent-chains procedure was used to investigate preference between terminal-link schedules that differed in delay and magnitude of reinforcement. Response and time allocation data were well described by a generalized matching model. Sensitivity to delay appeared to be lower when reinforcement magnitudes were unequal than when they were equal, but when obtained rather than programmed time spent responding in the initial links was used in the model, the difference vanished. The results support independence of delay and magnitude as separate dimensions of reinforcement value, as required by the matching law, and the assumption of the contextual choice model (Grace, 1994) that sensitivities to delay and magnitude are affected similarly by temporal context. Although there was statistical evidence for interaction between successive components, the effects were small and transient. The multiple-component concurrent-chains procedure should prove useful in future research on multidimensional preference, although it may be necessary to control obtained initial-link time more precisely.     

Stimulus effects on concurrent performance in transition

Six experimentally naive pigeons were exposed to concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules in a three-key procedure in which food reinforcement followed pecks on the side keys and pecks on the center key served as changeover responses. In Phase 1, 3 birds were exposed to 20 combinations of five variable-interval values, with each variable-interval value consistently associated with a different color on the side keys. Another 3 pigeons were exposed to the same 20 conditions, but with a more standard procedure that used a nondifferential discriminative stimulus on the two side keys throughout all conditions. In Phase 2, the differential and nondifferential stimulus conditions were reversed for each pigeon. Each condition lasted for one 5-hr session and one subsequent 1-hr session. In the last 14 conditions of each phase, the presence of differential discriminative stimuli decreased the time necessary for differential responding to develop and increased the sensitivity of behavior to reinforcement distribution in the 1st hr of training; during the last hours of training in each condition, however, the effects of the differential discriminative stimuli could not be distinguished from the effects of reinforcement distribution per se. These results show the importance of studying transitions in behavior as well as final performance. They may also be relevant to discrepancies in the results of previous experiments that have used nonhuman and human subjects.