Optimal choice

We present a classification and theoretical analysis of discrete-trial and free-operant choice procedures in which reinforcement is assigned to one alternative only, or independently to both, is either always available or conditionally available, and is either "held" or not from trial to trial. Momentary-maximizing and (globally) optimal choice sequences are defined in terms of initializing and marker events. Free-operant choice is analyzed in terms of a clock space whose axes are the times since the last A and B choices. The analysis shows that most molar matching data are derivable from momentary maximizing, and that the momentary-maximizing hypothesis has not been adequately tested in either discrete-trial or free-operant situations.     

SCHEDULE-INDUCED DRINKING: ELICITATION,ANTICIPATION, OR BEHAVIORAL INTERACTION?

We carried out five experiments with rats on fixed-time schedules in order to define the relation between drinking and individual food-pellet presentations. In Experiment 1, unsignaled extra food occurred at the end of occasional fixed intervals, and we compared subsequent drinking patterns with drinking before the extra food presentation. In Experiment 2 we presented signaled and unsignaled extra food and measured elicited and anticipatory drinking patterns. In Experiment 3, we observed the persistence of modified drinking patterns when several consecutive intervals ended with extra pellets. In Experiments 4 and 5, we varied the magnitude of food delivery across (rather than within) sessions to replicate published findings. Results show that schedule-induced drinking is neither elicited by food presentations nor induced by stimuli associated with a high food rate. All subjects seemed to follow a simple rule: during any stimulus signaling an increase in the local probability of food delivery within a session, engage in food-related behavior to the exclusion of drinking. Schedule-induced drinking appears to be the result of dynamic interactions among food-related behavior, drinking, and other motivated behavior, rather than a direct effect of the contingencies of food reinforcement.     

“TRANSITIVE INFERENCE” IN MULTIPLE CONDITIONAL DISCRIMINATIONS

We used multiple conditional discriminations to study the inferential abilities of pigeons. Using a five-term stimulus series, pigeons were trained to respond differentially to four overlapping pairs of concurrently presented stimuli: A+B?, B+C?, C+D?, and D+E?, where plus and minus indicate the stimulus associated with reinforcement and extinction, respectively. Transitive inference in such situations has been defined as a preference for Stimulus B over Stimulus D in a transfer test. We measured this and other untrained preferences (A vs. C, A vs. D, B vs. E, etc.) during nonreinforced test trials. In three experiments using a novel, rapid training procedure (termed autorun), we attempted to identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for transitive inference. We used two versions of autorun: response-based, in which the subject was repeatedly presented with the least well-discriminated stimulus pair; and time-based, in which the subject was repeatedly presented with the least-experienced stimulus pair. In Experiment 1, using response-based autorun, we showed that subjects learned the four stimulus pairs faster than, but at a level comparable to, a previous study on transitive inference in pigeons (Fersen, Wynne, Delius, & Staddon, 1991), but our animals failed to show transitive inference. Experiments 2 and 3 compared time- and response-based autorun. Discrimination performance was maintained, but transitive inference was observed only on the second exposure to the response-based procedure. These results show that inferential behavior in pigeons is not a reliable concomitant of good performance on a series of overlapping discriminations. The necessary and sufficient conditions for transitive inference in pigeons remain to be fully defined.     

A note on behavioural contrast and frustration

The suggestion has been made that positive contrast, the increase in response rate in one successively-presented stimulus following a change in conditions that decreases responding in the other, may not depend on differential stimulus control. Evidence is reviewed suggesting that contrast effects on most multiple interval schedules do depend upon discrimination, but that effects similar to contrast that result from the omission of reinforcement on fixed-interval schedules (the frustration/omission effect) reflect other factors. The link between contrast and the omission effect is the discrimination mechanism which allows animals to respond only at times or places correlated with food delivery. Contrast is a direct result of this mechanism; but the omission effect depends on the difference between the inhibitory discriminative after-effects acquired by food on fixed-interval schedules, and those acquired by a “neutral” stimulus presented in its place.