The effect of two schedules of primary and conditioned reinforcement

Of 23 pigeons, 11 received continuous reinforcement for key pecking, and 12 received an FR 10 schedule of reinforcement. The birds were then tested without food, but with potential conditioned reinforcers presented either on the same schedule as in training, on the other schedule, or not at all. Each bird in the subgroup trained on CRF and tested with S^r's at FR 10 not only gave more responses in testing than did each bird in both subgroups receiving no S^r's, but also gave more responses than did each bird in the S^r subgroup receiving CRF training and S^r's at CRF. Cumulative records are presented to show the effects of different schedules of conditioned reinforcers.     

Simulation of human problem-solving behavior

In the simulation of human behavior on a digital computer, one first attempts to discover the manner in which subjects (Ss) internally represent the environment and the rules that they employ for acting upon this representation. The interaction between the rules and the environmental representation over a period of time constitutes a set of processes. Processes can be expressed as flow charts which, in turn, are stated formally in terms of a computer program. The program serves as a theory which is tested by executing the program on a computer and comparing the machine's performance with S's behavior.     

Schedules using noxious stimuli. II: low intensity electric shock as a discriminative stimulus

The presence or absence of pulses of low intensity electric shock was used as a discriminative stimulus to control responding under fixed ratio reinforcement in the squirrel monkey. Initially brief periods of nonreinforcement were lengthened only when discriminative control was evident. Discriminative control was studied by (1) varying the duration of nonreinforcement periods; (2) reversing the stimulus conditions correlated with reinforcement and nonreinforcement periods; and (3) determining the minimum shock intensity necessary to maintain discriminative control. Stimulus control was not reliably affected by d-amphetamine, chlorpromazine, or morphine. The discriminative control by pulses of low intensity electric shock was similar to that by other discriminative stimuli, except that the control developed slowly and was better when the pulsing shock was correlated with reinforcement than when correlated with nonreinforcement.