Self-control in mentally retarded adolescents: choice as a function of amount and delay of reinforcement.

Three severely mentally retarded adolescents were studied under discrete-trial procedures in which a choice was arranged between edible reinforcers that differed in magnitude and, in some conditions, delay. In the absence of delays the larger reinforcer was consistently chosen. Under conditions in which the smaller reinforcer was not delayed, increasing the delay to delivery of the larger reinforcer decreased the percentage of trials in which that reinforcer was chosen. All subjects directed the majority of choice responses to the smaller reinforcer when the larger reinforcer was sufficiently delayed, although the value at which this occurred differed across subjects. Under conditions in which the larger reinforcer initially was sufficiently delayed to result in preference for the smaller one, progressively increasing in 5-s increments the delay to both reinforcers increased percentage of trials with the larger reinforcer chosen. At sufficiently long delays, 2 of the subjects consistently chose the larger, but more delayed, reinforcer, and the 3rd subject chose that reinforcer on half of the trials. These results are consistent with the findings of prior studies in which adult humans responded to terminate noise and pigeons responded to produce food.     

Changes in functional response units with briefly delayed reinforcement

In two experiments, key-peck responding of pigeons was compared under variable-interval schedules that arranged immediate reinforcement and ones that arranged unsignaled delays of reinforcement. Responses during the nominal unsignaled delay periods had no effect on the reinforcer presentations. In Experiment 1, the unsignaled delays were studied using variable-interval schedules as baselines. Relative to the immediate reinforcement condition, 0.5-s unsignaled delays decreased the duration of the reinforced interresponse times and increased the overall frequency of short (<0.5-s) interresponse times. Longer, 5.0-s unsignaled delays increased the duration of the reinforced interresponse times and decreased the overall frequency of the short interresponse times. In Experiment 2, similar effects to those of Experiment 1 were obtained when the 0.5-s unsignaled delays were imposed upon a baseline schedule that explicitly arranged reinforcement of short interresponse times and therefore already generated a large number of short interresponse times. The results support earlier suggestions that the unsignaled 0.5-s delays change the functional response unit from a single key peck to a multiple key-peck unit. These findings are discussed in terms of the mechanisms by which contingencies control response structure in the absence of specific structural requirements.     

Effects of alternative reinforcement sources: A reevaluation

The effects of two alternative sources of food delivery on the key-peck responding of pigeons were examined. Pecking was maintained by a variable-interval 3-min schedule. In the presence of this schedule in different conditions, either a variable-time 3-min schedule delivering food independently of responding or an equivalent schedule that required a minimum 2-s pause between a key peck and food delivery (a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule) was added. The differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule reduced response rates more than did the variable-time schedule in most instances. The delay between a key peck and the next reinforcer consistently was longer under the differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule than under the variable-time schedule. Response rates and median delay between responses and reinforcers were negatively correlated. These results contradict earlier conclusions about the behavioral effects of alternative reinforcement. They suggest that an interpretation in terms of response–reinforcer contiguity is consistent with the data.     

Reconsideration of measurement of error in human motor learning

Human motor learning is often measured by error scores. The convention of using mean absolute error, mean constant error, and variable error shows lack of desirable parsimony and interpretability. This paper provides the background of error measurement and states criticisms of conventional methodology. A parsimonious model of error analysis is provided, along with operationalized interpretations and implications for motor learning. Teaching, interpreting, and using error scores in research may be simplified and facilitated with the model.