Stimulus control: part II

The second part of my tutorial stresses the systematic importance of two parameters of discrimination training: (a) the magnitude of the physical difference between the positive and the negative stimulus (disparity) and (b) the magnitude of the difference between the positive stimulus, in particular, and the background stimulation (salience). It then examines the role these variables play in such complex phenomena as blocking and overshadowing, progressive discrimination training, and the transfer of control by fading. It concludes by considering concept formation and imitation, which are important forms of application, and recent work on equivalence relations.     

Still No Evidence For Temporally Extended Shock-frequency Reduction As A Reinforcer.

There is no consensus and very little overlap in the criticisms of my target article. Because the primary consequences of avoidance behavior are by definition alterations in the distribution of shocks in time, any theory about the reinforcement of such behavior necessarily must begin with that dimension. However, the safety‐signal version of two‐process theory calls on positively and negatively correlated stimuli, including the responses themselves serving as stimuli, to transmit the effects of those alterations to the relevant behavior. Meanwhile, the Herrnstein—Hineline single‐process theory hypothesizes an additional source of reinforcement: a direct effect of reduction in the density of shock over some extended period of time. I can find no data that selectively support that hypothesis.     

Wyckoff's observing response: Pigeons learn to observe stimuli for free food but not stimuli for extinction

Four pigeons received periods of free food delivery alternating with periods of extinction. The experimental chamber was divided in half. Initially the subjects could produce stimuli selectively associated with these schedules by standing on the right side of the chamber and later by standing on the left side. In both phases, subjects produced the free food stimulus most of the time it was available but did not increase above baseline the time spent producing the extinction stimulus. Thus, when alternative stimuli are available, the pigeon prefers the stimulus associated with the greater frequency of reinforcement although the choice results in no biological advantage.     

Separating the effects of salience and disparity on the rate of observing

Pigeons producing deliveries of grain on a mixed variable-interval, extinction schedule by pecking a center key could also produce discriminative stimuli on concurrent variable-interval schedules by pecking the left or right observing key. The stimuli produced by each observing key were varied independently. In the first experiment, the negative discriminative stimulus was at the far end of the spectrum from the key illumination accompanying the mixed schedule and from the positive discriminative stimulus. When the magnitude of the difference between the latter two stimuli (salience) was varied, more pecks occurred on the observing key producing the larger of the two differences than on the key producing the smaller difference. In the second experiment, the stimulus accompanying the mixed schedule was at the far end of the spectrum, and the magnitude of the difference between the two discriminative stimuli (disparity) was varied. The proportion of pecks occurring on each observing key shifted systematically in the direction of the key producing the larger difference. The salience of the discriminative stimuli and their disparity each has an independent influence on the frequency of observing when the other is controlled, but the effect of the salience appears to be the more substantial.