Preprocessing on the basis of frequency of occurrence

The release from PI methodology was used to test Oldfield's (1966) suggestion that human memory is organized in part on the basis of frequency of occurrence. An observed release from PI identified frequency of occurrence as an encoding category and provided support for the underlying assumptions of Oldfield's model.     

Book reviews

Encyclopaedia of Linguistics, Information and Control. Edited by A. R. Meetham with the assistance of R. A. Hudson. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 1969. Pp. xiv + 718. 300s.

The Biological Basis of Personality. By H. J. Eysenck. Springfield: Thomas. 1968. Pp. xv + 399. $18.50.

Scientific Basis of Dvug Dependence. Biological Council Symposium. Edited by H. Steinberg. London: Churchill. 1969. Pp. 429. 100s.

Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, Vol. 2. Edited by John P. Hill. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1969. Pp. viii + 172.

Memory and Attention: an introduction to human information processes. By Donald A. Norman. Chichester, Sussex: John Wiley. 1969. Pp. ix + 201. 84s. (cloth); 44s. (paper). Verbal Learning and Memory: selected readings. By Leo Postman and Geoffrey Keppel. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 1969. Pp. 501. 12s.

Handbuch der Kinderheilkunde. Edited by H. Opitz and F. Schmidt. Rand VIII/I: Neurologie-Psychologic-Psychiatrie. Redigiert von F. Schmidt und H. Asperger. Berlin: Springer Verlag. Pp. 1060. Price DM385, S96.25.

Digital Computing. By R. S. Lehman and D. E. Bailey. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1969. Pp. xxiv + 303. 79s.

Real-Time Computers. By W. R. Uttal. New York: Harper & Row. 1968. Pp. xiv + 338. 93s.     

The response-reinforcement dependency in fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement

Pigeons were exposed to four different schedules of food reinforcement that arranged a fixed minimum time interval between reinforcements (60 sec or 300 sec). The first was a standard fixed-interval schedule. The second was a schedule in which food was presented automatically at the end of the fixed time interval as long as a response had occurred earlier. The third and fourth schedules were identical to the first two except that the first response after reinforcement changed the color on the key. When the schedule required a peck after the interval elapsed, the response pattern consisted of a pause after reinforcement followed by responding at a high rate until reinforcement. When a response was not required after the termination of the interval, the pattern consisted of a pause after reinforcement, followed by responses and then by a subsequent pause until reinforcement. Having the first response after reinforcement change the color on the key had little effect on performance. Post-reinforcement pause duration varied with the minimum interreinforcement interval but was unaffected by whether or not a response was required after the interval elapsed.     

Effects of rate of reinforcement-time upon concurrent operant performance

Three experiments were conducted to investigate the theoretical reduction of rate and duration of reinforcement to their product, rate of reinforcement-time, under concurrent chain schedules. In Exp. I, rate of reinforcement-time was varied by varying rate of reinforcement delivery, holding duration of reinforcement availability constant; in Exp. II, rate of reinforcement-time was varied by holding rate of reinforcement delivery constant and varying duration of reinforcement availability; in Exp. III, rate of reinforcement-time was held constant by varying both rate and duration of reinforcement simultaneously and inversely. For all three experiments, both relative rate of responding and relative time spent in the initial link were found to match approximately the relative rate of reinforcement-time arranged in the terminal link. These data were interpreted as support for the notion that rate and duration of reinforcement may be functionally equivalent and reducible to a single variable, rate of reinforcement-time.     

Some punishing effects of response-force

The present experiment explored the punishing effect of different response-force requirements by means of a two-operant design analogous to a two-component chain schedule. The first component of the chain required a lever pull through 0.25 in. (0.64 cm) at 1 lb (4.45 N) of force. The second component required a lever pull through an additional 0.75 in. (1.90 cm) with the force varied between sessions from 1 lb to 50 lb (4.45 N to 223 N). Completion of the second component of the chain was reinforced after variable intervals averaging 1 min. The average rate of first-component response decreased as the force requirement for second-component responses was increased. This rate reduction did not appear to be due to increased response duration, “fatigue”, or differing rates of reinforcement. If the force requirement for the second-component response is viewed as a consequence for the first-component response, then the results of the experiment show that a high force requirement is a punisher.