Pigeons (Columba livia) associate time intervals with symbols in a touch screen task: evidence for ordinality but not summation

The present experiments examined whether pigeons can sum symbols that are associated with various temporal consequences in a touch screen apparatus. Pigeons were trained to discriminate between two visual symbols that were associated with 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 s either of delay to 4 s of hopper access (delay group) or duration of hopper access (reward group). In Experiment 1, the pigeons in both groups learned to select the symbol associated with the more favorable outcome, and they successfully transferred this discrimination to novel symbol pairs. However, when tested with 2 pairs of symbols associated with different summed durations, they responded on the basis of a simple response rule rather than the sum of the symbol pair. In Experiment 2, the reward group was presented with four symbols at once and was allowed to successively choose one symbol at a time. All pigeons chose the symbols in order from largest to smallest. This indicates that pigeons formed an ordered representation of symbols associated with different time intervals, even though they did not sum the symbols.     

On the effects of component durations and component reinforcement rates in multiple schedules

Four experiments, each using the same six pigeons, investigated the effects of varying component durations and component reinforcement rates in multiple variable-interval schedules. Experiment 1 used unequal component durations in which one component was five times the duration of the other, and the shorter component was varied over conditions from 120 seconds to 5 seconds. The schedules were varied over five values for each pair of component durations. Sensitivity to reinforcement rate changes was the same at all component durations. In Experiment 2, both component durations were 5 seconds, and the schedules were again varied using both one and two response keys. Sensitivity to reinforcement was not different from the values found in Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, various manipulations, including body-weight changes, reinforcer duration changes, blackouts, hopper lights correlated with keylights, and overall reinforcement rate changes were carried out. No reliable increase in reinforcement sensitivity resulted from any manipulation. Finally, in Experiment 4, reinforcement rates in the two components were kept constant and unequal, and the component durations were varied. Shorter components produced significantly increased response rates normally in the higher reinforcement rate component, but schedule reversals at short component durations eliminated the response rate increases. The effects of component duration on multiple schedule performance cannot be interpreted as changing sensitivity to reinforcement nor to changing bias.     

Mechanisms underlying the effects of unsignaled delayed reinforcement on key pecking of pigeons under variable-interval schedules.

Three experiments were conducted to test an interpretation of the response-rate-reducing effects of unsignaled nonresetting delays to reinforcement in pigeons. According to this interpretation, rates of key pecking decrease under these conditions because key pecks alternate with hopper-observing behavior. In Experiment 1, 4 pigeons pecked a food key that raised the hopper provided that pecks on a different variable-interval-schedule key met the requirements of a variable-interval 60-s schedule. The stimuli associated with the availability of the hopper (i.e., houselight and keylight off, food key illuminated, feedback following food-key pecks) were gradually removed across phases while the dependent relation between hopper availability and variable-interval-schedule key pecks was maintained. Rates of pecking the variable-interval-schedule key decreased to low levels and rates of food-key pecks increased when variable-interval-schedule key pecks did not produce hopper-correlated stimuli. In Experiment 2, pigeons initially pecked a single key under a variable-interval 60-s schedule. Then the dependent relation between hopper presentation and key pecks was eliminated by arranging a variable-time 60-s schedule. When rates of pecking had decreased to low levels, conditions were changed so that pecks during the final 5 s of each interval changed the keylight color from green to amber. When pecking produced these hopper-correlated stimuli, pecking occurred at high rates, despite the absence of a peck-food dependency. When peck-produced changes in keylight color were uncorrelated with food, rates of pecking fell to low levels. In Experiment 3, details (obtained delays, interresponse-time distributions, eating times) of the transition from high to low response rates produced by the introduction of a 3-s unsignaled delay were tracked from session to session in 3 pigeons that had been initially trained to peck under a conventional variable-interval 60-s schedule. Decreases in response rates soon after the transition to delayed reinforcement were accompanied by decreases in eating times and alterations in interresponse-time distributions. As response rates decreased and became stable, eating times increased and their variability decreased. These findings support an interpretation of the effects of delayed reinforcement that emphasizes the importance of hopper-observing behavior.     

Income maximizing on concurrent ratio-interval schedules of reinforcement

Three experiments examined the effect of food availability on pigeons' choice behavior under concurrent schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, 3 pigeons earned their daily food ration by choosing, in 30-min sessions, between concurrent variable-ratio 30 variable-interval 40-s schedules. Food presentations during both schedules lasted 2 or 12 s, depending upon the condition. Relative variable-ratio response rate was inversely related to hopper duration. In Experiment 2, 4 pigeons received their daily feeding by responding on the same schedule pair as in Experiment 1 (with 4-s food presentations) in sessions that varied in length from 10 to 30 min, depending on the condition. The length of a vertical slit projected on a response key increased with time so that “passage of time” might be more easily discriminable. As session duration decreased, relative variable-ratio response rate increased. In Experiment 3, 4 pigeons chose between two variable-interval 40-s schedules. One schedule operated without regard to the schedule selected, whereas the other operated only when the subject responded in its presence (dependent). Although these schedules had the same feedback function, preference for the dependent variable interval increased as session duration decreased from 30 to 10 min. The preference changes in these studies reveal the operation of an income-maximizing process in choice.     

On the distinction between open and closed economies.

Open and closed economies have been assumed to produce opposite relations between responding and the programmed density of reward (the amount of reward divided by its cost). Experimental procedures that are treated as open economies typically dissociate responding and total reward by providing supplemental income outside the experimental session; procedures construed as closed economies do not. In an open economy responding is assumed to be directly related to reward density, whereas in a closed economy responding is assumed to be inversely related to reward density. In contrast to this predicted correlation between response-reward relations and type of economy, behavior regulation theory predicts both direct and inverse relations in both open and closed economies. Specifically, responding should be a bitonic function of reward density regardless of the type of economy and is dependent only on the ratio of the schedule terms rather than on their absolute size. These predictions were tested by four experiments in which pigeons' key pecking produced food on fixed-ratio and variable-interval schedules over a range of reward magnitudes and under several open- and closed-economy procedures. The results better supported the behavior regulation view by showing a general bitonic function between key pecking and food density in all conditions. In most cases, the absolute size of the schedule requirement and the magnitude of reward had no effect; equal ratios of these terms produced approximately equal responding.     

Timeout from concurrent schedules.

Response-contingent timeouts of equal duration and frequency were added to both alternatives of unequal concurrent schedules of reinforcement. For each of 4 pigeons in Experiment 1, relative response rates generally became less extreme as the frequency of timeout increased. In Experiment 2, relative response rates consistently approached indifference as the duration of timeout was increased. Variation in time allocation was less consistent in both experiments. Absolute response rates did not vary with the timeout contingency in either experiment. In a third experiment, neither measure of choice varied systematically when the duration of a postreinforcement blackout was varied. In contrast to the present results, preference has been shown to vary directly with the parameters of shock delivery in related procedures. The pattern of results in the first two experiments follows that obtained with other manipulations of the overall rate of reinforcement in concurrent schedules. The results of the third experiment suggest that an intertrial interval following reinforcement is not a critical feature of the overall rate of reinforcement.     

Discrimination of temporal relations by pigeons

In four experiments, pigeons were tested on a duration comparison task involving the successive presentation of two visual stimuli that varied in duration from trial to trial. Following presentation of the durations, two choice keys were lit, and reinforcement for choices was based on the temporal relation between duration of the pair. In Experiment 1, the range of durations was varied over conditions. Responding changed as an orderly function of the ratio of the two durations. There was a decrease in discrimination accuracy as average duration increased over condition but no difference in accuracy between shorter and longer problems within a duration range. There was no systematic response bias over conditions for all problems within a range, but there was a bias to report the second duration longer than the first for "long" problems within a range. In Experiment 2, the pigeons were transferred from a task involving spatially differentiated choices to one involving hue-differentiated choices. Performance was similar to that of the spatial procedure of Experiment 1. Additional analyses revealed that although information provided by a single duration of the pair was sometimes predictive of the temporal relation between pair members, responding was also based on the relation and comparison of both durations. In Experiment 3, the pigeons were exposed to a single duration range that included many durations from the four ranges of Experiment 1. Discrimination accuracy was comparable in the fourth and longest category. Manipulation of absolute reinforcement rate in Experiment 4 resulted in no chang in discrimination accuracy, suggesting that the decline in accuracy over conditions of Experiment 1 could not be attributed to decreases in reinforcement rate that accompanied lengthier durations. The results are discussed in terms of theories of animal timing, with Staddon's (1983, 1984) temporal perspective model providing the most systematic account of all aspects of performance.     

Variable-interval schedule performance in open and closed economies

In two experiments, pigeons obtained food according to variable-interval schedules. In the first experiment, equivalent variable-interval schedules with average interreinforcer intervals ranging between 10 and 80 s in different conditions were studied in both open and closed economies. Response rates increased as reinforcement frequency decreased in the closed economy. By contrast, in the open economy response rates decreased for 1 bird and were variable for the other as reinforcement frequency decreased. The second experiment showed that the differences in the functions between responding and reinforcement frequency in the two types of economies were not due to changes in deprivation level. These results suggest that open and closed economies yield different behavioral effects. This conclusion is supported further by a reconsideration of previous findings that appear counter to the conclusion.     

Visual Reinforcement Signals Interfere with the Effects of Reinforcer Magnitude Manipulations

Three experiments examined the effect of reinforcement magnitude on free-operant response rates. In Experiment 1, rats that received four food pellets responded faster than rats that received one pellet on a variable ratio 30 schedule. However, when the food hopper was illuminated during reinforcer delivery, there was no difference between the rates of response produced by the two magnitudes of reward. In Experiment 2, there was no difference in response rates emitted by rats receiving either one or four pellets of food as reward on a random interval (RI) 60-s schedule. In Experiment 3, rats responding on an RI 30-s schedule did so at a lower rate with four pellets as reinforcement than with one pellet. This effect was abolished by the illumination of the food hopper during reinforcement delivery. These results indicate that the influence of magnitude is obscured by manipulations which signal the delivery of reinforcement.     

On the form of the relation between response rates in a multiple schedule

Three pigeons received training on multiple variable-interval schedules with brief alternating components, concurrently with a fixed-interval schedule of food reinforcement on a second key. Fixed-interval performance exhibited typical increases in rate within the interval, and was independent of multiple-schedule responding. Responding on the multiple-schedule key decreased as a function of proximity to reinforcement on the fixed-interval key. The overall relative rate of responding in one component of the multiple schedule roughly matched the overall relative rate of reinforcement. Within the fixed interval, response rate during one multiple-schedule component was a monotonic, negatively accelerated function of response rate during the other component. To a first approximation, the data were described by a power function, where the exponent depended on the relative rate of reinforcement obtained in the two components. The relative rate of responding in one component of the multiple schedule increased as a function of proximity to fixed-interval reinforcement, and often exceeded the overall obtained relative rate of reinforcement. The form of the function relating response rates is discussed in relation to findings on rate-dependent effects of drugs, chaining, and the relation between response rate and reinforcement rate in single-schedule conditions.     

The effects of component duration on multiple-schedule performance in closed and open economies.

Pigeons responded on multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedules of reinforcement in an open and a closed economy. Equal duration components were increased in duration while the component rates of reinforcement were held constant, the component schedules were reversed, and component duration was decreased. In the open economy, daily sessions were limited to 1 hr, and subjects were maintained at 80% of their free-feeding weights through supplemental feeding when necessary in their home cages. In the closed economy, subjects were housed in their experimental chambers and no deprivation regimen was enforced. Relative response rate decreased as components were lengthened in the open economy, whereas in the closed economy relative rate increased as components were lengthened. Response proportions overmatched reinforcer proportions to a greater extent at long component durations in the closed economy, but there was no systematic effect of component duration on responding in the open economy.     

Class-consistent Differential Reinforcement And Stimulus Class Formation In Pigeons

Match-to-sample training clusters of A1 (sample): B1/B2 (comparisons), A2: B2/B1, B1: A1/A2, B2: A2/A1, B1: C1/C2, B2: C2/C1, C1: B1/B2, and C2: B2/B1 were presented to pigeons with class-consistent differential reinforcement using two dissimilar types of food reinforcers. Distinctive class-consistent response patterns occurred to the samples during the fixed-ratio 5 sample observing response requirement. Subsequent tests, modeled from the equivalence class paradigm demonstrated the emergence (80% class consistent) of the transitive-like A-C and C-A relations for 4 and 2 of 12 pigeons, respectively, and a strong trend (over 70%) for 7 and 6 others, respectively; the emergence of the reflexive-like identity relation when the nonidentical comparison was from the other class; and the disruption of the trained within-class relation with the addition of a reflexive comparison. After directional training of C1: D1/D2 and C2: D2/D1, tests indicated no emergence of the symmetric-like D-C relation or the composite D-B and D-A relations, but the B-D and A-D transitive-like relation occurred with some pigeons. Off-baseline training with class-consistent differential reinforcement contingent on responding to the D stimuli alone produced distinctive responding and, in turn, a trend to D-C symmetric-like control in 4 of 12 pigeons, as well as a shift toward class-consistent control on D-B and D-A test trials. Class-consistent differential reinforcement that produced distinctive sample behavior promoted stimulus control relations like those that circumscribe equivalence class formation. Respondent—operant interactions permit an analysis of the possible enrollment of stimulus values of distinctive responding to the discriminative stimuli forming the stimulus classes via processes corresponding to naming in humans.     

Reinforcement magnitude and the inhibiting effect of reinforcement

In a two-key concurrent variable-interval schedule (using pigeons), if the reinforcement frequency for one response is held constant while that for the other is increased, the rate of response on the constant key decreases. The immediate reinforcement for key pecking can usually be conceptualized as the change from a condition in which the key light is on and the food hopper light is off to one in which the key light is off and the hopper light is on. The prechange condition is associated with a delay to food of one-half the average interreinforcement interval in effect during this condition. The postchange condition is associated with a delay to food of about .5 seconds. The programming of additional reinforcement results in a decrease in the delay to food associated with the prechange stimulus condition, and thus a decrease in the value of the improvement that results from the change. This would appear to be analogous to a decrease in the amount of reinforcement, and thus sufficient explanation for the decrease in the rate of the response.     

Acquisition and maintenance of autoshaped key pecking as a function of food stimulus and key stimulus similarity.

The results of a number of recent studies suggest that acquisitions of autoshaped key pecking in pigeons is affected by the similarity of the grain-hopper stimulus and response-key stimulus. In Experiment 1 this hypothesis was tested by training independent groups of pigeons to key peck under six different hopper-stimulus and key-stimulus similarity conditions, and three procedures containing either immediate reinforcement, variable delay of reinforcement, or omission of reinforcement for key pecking. Number of trials to acquisition was found to be related to the similarity variable. Maintained responding was affected by the response-reinforcer contingency. This effect was found both within and between subjects. Under two of the contingencies (automaintenance and omission), maintained responding continued to be affected by the similarity of the hopper stimulus and key stimulus. In Experiment 2 pigeons were given omission training with a hopper light on or off. Both acquisition and maintenance of key pecking were facilitated by the presence of the hopper light. The present findings suggest that much of the responding reported in various automatic shaping and training procedures may reflect the effects of key stimulus/food stimulus similarity.     

Partial reinforcement in serial autoshaping: The role of attentional and associative factors

In Experiment 1, pigeons were autoshaped to two stimuli (A and B) each followed by delayed reinforcement on 50% of trials. A different stimulus (X) was presented in the interval between stimulus A and reinforcement (A-X-US) and not when stimulus A was nonreinforced (A---). The X stimulus was also presented following the stimulus B trials that were nonreinforced (B-X) and was absent when stimulus B was reinforced (B---US). Not only was the response rate to A higher, but so was the rate in the intervals immediately following A, whether or not these intervals contained X. This latter finding is inconsistent with the interpretation that pigeons discriminated between X when it followed A and when it followed B and leaves open the possibility that X acts as a “catalyst”. The same general design was employed in Experiment 2 as was used in Experiment 1 with the exception that the catalytic function of X was equated for A and B by presenting reinforcement on B-X trials. The A stimulus, however, still generated the higher response rate. A new interpretation is offered that suggests that variable reward magnitude will maintain attention to a stimulus and that attention will generate keypecking.     

Parametric manipulation of interresponse-time contingency independent of reinforcement rate

Pecking of pigeons was reinforced under a modified interval-percentile procedure that allowed independent manipulation of overall reinforcement rate and the degree to which reinforcement depended on interresponse-time duration. Increasing the contingency, as measured by the phi coefficient, between reinforcement and long interresponse times while controlling the overall rate of reinforcement systematically increased the frequency of those interresponse times and decreased response rate under both of the reinforcement rates studied. Increasing reinforcement rate also generally increased response rate, particularly under weaker interresponse-time contingencies. Random-interval schedules with comparable reinforcement rates generated response rates and interresponse-time distributions similar to those obtained with moderate-to-high interresponse-time reinforcement contingencies. These results suggest that interresponse-time reinforcement contingencies inherent in random-interval and constant-probability variable-interval schedules exercise substantial control over responding independent of overall reinforcement rate effects. The interresponse-time reinforcement contingencies inherent in these schedules may actually mask the effects of overall reinforcement rate; thus differences in response rate as a function of reinforcement rate when interresponse-time reinforcement is eliminated may be underestimated.     

Behavioral contrast and response independent reinforcement

Four pigeons received pre-training that included presentation of the reinforcer independently of behavior and then baseline training on a variable-interval schedule of reinforcement. With the introduction of a multiple schedule, in which the first stimulus was associated with a response contingent and a second stimulus with a response independent, 1-min variable-interval schedule, a reduction in response rate was obtained in the second component, which was not accompanied by a behavioral contrast effect in the first component. A further three pigeons were given the same pre-training and baseline training before the introduction of an otherwise identical multiple schedule, in which no reinforcement occured in the second component. Behavioral contrast was obtained from all three subjects. The results indicated that under conditions of constant reinforcement density a reduction in responding is not a sufficient condition for the occurrence of behavioral contrast.     

Short-component multiple schedules: effects of relative reinforcement duration

Pigeons were exposed to multiple variable-interval 2-min variable-interval 2-min schedules of food presentation in which relative duration of food presentation was manipulated. When components alternated every 5 sec and were scheduled on separate response keys, relative response rates closely matched relative reinforcement duration in three of four pigeons. On the other hand, relative response rates were insensitive to relative reinforcement duration when components scheduled on a single response key alternated every 5 sec, and when components scheduled on separate response keys alternated every 2 min. Thus, both rapid alternation and spatial separation of components were necessary to produce approximate matching of relative responding to relative reinforcement duration. This finding contrasts with previous findings that only rapid component alternation is necessary for matching when relative rate of reinforcement is manipulated.     

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.     

Contrast and autoshaping in multiple schedules varying reinforcer rate and duration

Thirteen master pigeons were exposed to multiple schedules in which reinforcement frequency (Experiment I) or duration (Experiment II) was varied. In Phases 1 and 3 of Experiment I, the values of the first and second components' random-interval schedules were 33 and 99 seconds, respectively. In Phase 2, these values were 99 seconds for both components. In Experiment II, a random-interval 33-second schedule was associated with each component. During Phases 1 and 3, the first and second components had hopper durations of 7.5 and 2.5 seconds respectively. During Phase 2, both components' hopper durations were 2.5 seconds. In each experiment, positive contrast obtained for about half the master subjects. The rest showed a rate increase in both components (positive induction). Each master subject's key colors and reinforcers were synchronously presented on a response-independent basis to a yoked control. Richer component key-pecking occurred during each experiment's Phases 1 and 3 among half these subjects. However, none responded during the contrast condition (unchanged component of each experiment's Phase 2). From this it is inferred that autoshaping did not contribute to the contrast and induction findings among master birds. Little evidence of local contrast (highest rate at beginning of richer component) was found in any subject. These data show that (a) contrast can occur independently from autoshaping, (b) contrast assays during equal-valued components may produce induction, (c) local contrast in multiple schedules often does not occur, and (d) differential hopper durations can produce autoshaping and contrast.