The development of stimulus control with and without a lighted key

In two experiments, the effect of an illuminated response key on the acquisition of stimulus control by an airflow stimulus was assessed. In the first experiment, pigeons were given nondifferential training with airflow emerging from behind the response key in one of three conditions of illumination: trained to peck a lighted key, trained to peck an unlighted key with a houselight present, trained to peck a key in total darkness. After 10 days of training on a variable-interval schedule of reinforcement, all subjects were given a generalization test on airflow velocity. The gradients for subjects trained in the dark were sharp, while those for subjects trained in lighted conditions were shallow. In the second experiment, the effect of an irrelevant keylight on the acquisition of an airflow velocity discrimination was assessed. Two groups of pigeons were trained to discriminate two airflow velocities. One group was trained with a lighted response key and the other was trained to peck the response key in total darkness. The dark-trained subjects acquired the discrimination more rapidly. The results demonstrate that the acquisition of stimulus control by airflow with either a differential or nondifferential training procedure can be overshadowed by keylight.     

Lever attacking by rats during free-operant avoidance

Rats pressed a lever to avoid shock on a free-operant avoidance schedule. Some subjects were also exposed to extinction in which the response-shock contingency was eliminated while the shock-shock contingency remained in effect. A specially constructed lever was used that registered not only presses, but also biting attacks on the lever. Throughout various phases of the study, shocks often elicited lever biting as well as post-shock responding. The results suggested that shock-elicited attacks that are forceful enough to activate the operandum might account for some of the responding that occurs in experiments on free-operant avoidance behavior. In particular, shock-elicited operandum attacking might account for post-shock response bursting during free-operant avoidance and the extreme persistence of responding sometimes noted when shocks are delivered during the extinction of avoidance behavior. To the extent that this is true, these phenomena should not be characterized as operant behavior in interpreting the results of experiments on free operant avoidance.     

Changing the response unit from a single peck to a fixed number of pecks in fixed-interval schedules

Each of three pigeons was studied first under a standard fixed-interval schedule. With the fixed interval held constant, the schedule was changed to a second-order schedule in which the response unit was the behavior on a small fixed-ratio schedule (first a fixed-ratio 10 and then a fixed-ratio 20 schedule). That is, every completion of the fixed-ratio schedule produced a 0.7-sec darkening of the key and reset the response count to zero for the next ratio. The first fixed-ratio completed after the fixed-interval schedule elapsed produced the 0.7-sec blackout followed immediately by food. These manipulations were carried out under two different fixed-interval durations for each bird ranging from 3 min to 12 min. The standard fixed-interval schedules produced the typical pause after reinforcement followed by responding at a moderate rate until the next reinforcement. The second-order schedules also engendered a pause after reinforcement, but responding occurred in bursts separated by brief pauses after each blackout. For a particular fixed-interval duration, post-reinforcement pauses increased slightly as the number of pecks in the response unit increased despite large differences in the rate and pattern of key pecking. Post-reinforcement pause increased with the fixed-interval duration under all response units. These data confirm that the allocation of time between pausing and responding is relatively independent of the rate and topography of responding after the pause.     

Schedule control of the vocal behavior of Cebus monkeys

The vocal behavior of three Cebus monkeys was maintained by fixed-ratio schedules of response dependent reinforcement at values between fixed-ratio 1 and fixed-ratio 15. In one monkey that was exposed to variable-interval, fixed-interval, and conjunctive fixed-ratio fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement, vocal responding occurred at a low rate, but schedule-appropriate patterns were maintained. The rates and patterns of responding engendered indicated that the vocal operant can be brought under schedule control in the monkey by the use of response-dependent reinforcement.     

Positive interaction (induction) in multiple variable-interval, differential-reinforcement-of-high-rate schedules

The effect of increases in the rate of responding in one component of a multiple schedule upon the rate of responding in a second component was investigated. Pigeons were exposed to a multiple schedule where both components were initially variable-interval schedules having the same parameter value. After rate of key pecking stabilized, one component was changed to a schedule that differentially reinforced high rates of responding. Rate of reinforcement in this varied component was adjusted to remain equal to rate of reinforcement in the constant (variable-interval) component. Four of five pigeons showed a maintained increase in rate of responding during both the constant and varied components, even though rates of reinforcement did not change.     

Fixed-interval limited-hold avoidance with and without signalled reinforcement

Rats trained to lever press on a fixed-interval limited-hold avoidance schedule maintained a pattern of responding similar to that maintained by fixed-interval limited-hold schedules of positive reinforcement. But this positively accelerated pattern of behavior was maintained only when the occurrence of reinforcement was signalled by the presentation of a brief flash of light. This result suggests that the discriminative function of the reinforcer in avoidance is less pronounced than the discriminative function of the reinforcer in escape or positive reinforcement. It also suggests that the distinction between positive reinforcement and avoidance is not superfluous. Although the schedule of reinforcement is an important variable in determining the pattern of behavior, other variables, such as the nature (i.e., stimulus presentation, termination, or omission) of the reinforcer, are also potent determinants of behavior.     

Signalled and unsignalled free-operant avoidance in the pigeon

Pigeons were trained to depress a lever to avoid electric shock under free-operant avoidance schedules without a warning signal, or with a warning signal that could be terminated only by a response. Most birds in the signalled avoidance procedure terminated more than 50% of the warning signals before shock. In the unsignalled avoidance procedure, several birds formed a temporal discrimination and received relatively few shocks; other birds responded only in post-shock bursts, and received many more shocks.     

Effects of a conditioned reinforcer upon accuracy of match-to-sample behavior in pigeons

Three pigeons were trained to perform a two-key sequential match-to-sample task. During baseline conditions, food reinforcement was contingent upon the first match response to occur following 8-min periods, and orange illumination of both keys preceded the delivery of food by 0.5 sec. The baseline schedule of food reinforcement was in effect throughout the study. In some conditions, a 0.5-sec flash of orange keylight alone was presented contingent upon mismatch responses that followed variable time periods averaging 1 min. Rate of mismatch responses increased and accuracy of matching performances decreased as compared with baseline conditions. The ability of the 0.5-sec orange flash to reinforce mismatch responses was markedly reduced when it no longer immediately preceded the delivery of food.