Steps and pips in the history of the cumulative recorder

From its inception in the 1930s until very recent times, the cumulative recorder was the most widely used measurement instrument in the experimental analysis of behavior. It was an essential instrument in the discovery and analysis of schedules of reinforcement, providing the first real-time analysis of operant response rates and patterns. This review traces the evolution of the cumulative recorder from Skinner's early modified kymographs through various models developed by Skinner and his colleagues to its perfection in the 1950s, and then into the 1960s when it proliferated as different scientific instrument companies began marketing their own models of the cumulative recorder. With the rise of digital computers, the demise of the cumulative recorder as a scientific instrument was inevitable; however, the value of the cumulative record as a monitoring device to assess schedule control of behavior continues. The cumulative recorder remains, along with the operant conditioning chamber, an icon of Skinner's approach to psychology.     

Within-session delay-of-reinforcement gradients

Within-session delay-of-reinforcement gradients were generated with pigeons by progressively increasing delays to reinforcement within each session. In Experiment 1, the effects of imposing progressive delays on variable-interval and fixed-interval schedules were investigated while controlling for simultaneous decreases in reinforcer rate across the session via a within-subject yoked-control procedure. Rate of key pecking decreased as a negatively decelerated function of delay of reinforcement within a session. These rate decreases were greater than those during a yoked-interval session in which the rate of immediate reinforcement decreased at the same rate as it did under the progressive-delay procedure. In Experiment 2, delay-of-reinforcement gradients were shallower when the progressive delay intervals were signaled by a blackout than when they were unsignaled. The delay gradients obtained in each experiment were similar to those generated under conditions in which different delays of reinforcement are imposed across blocks of sessions. The present procedure offers a technique for rapidly generating delay-of-reinforcement gradients that might serve as baselines for assessing the effects of other behavioral and pharmacological variables.     

Resistance to change of operant variation and repetition

A multiple chained schedule was used to compare the relative resistance to change of variable and fixed four-peck response sequences in pigeons. In one terminal link, a response sequence produced food only if it occurred infrequently relative to 15 other response sequences (vary). In the other terminal link, a single response sequence produced food (repeat). Identical variable-interval schedules operated in the initial links. During baseline, lower response rates generally occurred in the vary initial link, and similar response and reinforcement rates occurred in each terminal link. Resistance of responding to prefeeding and three rates of response-independent food delivered during the intercomponent intervals then was compared between components. During each disruption condition, initial- and terminal-link response rates generally were more resistant in the vary component than in the repeat component. During the response-independent food conditions, terminal-link response rates were more resistant than initial-link response rates in each component, but this did not occur during prefeeding. Variation (in vary) and repetition (in repeat) both decreased during the response-independent food conditions in the respective components, but with relatively greater disruption in repeat. These results extend earlier findings demonstrating that operant variation is more resistant to disruption than is operant repetition and suggest that theories of response strength, such as behavioral momentum theory, must consider factors other than reinforcement rate. The implications of the results for understanding operant response classes are discussed.     

The role of the response-reinforcer relation in delay-of-reinforcement effects

The role of the response-reinforcer relation in maintaining operant behavior under conditions of delayed reinforcement was investigated by using a two-operandum (i.e., two-key) procedure with pigeons. Responding on one key was reinforced under a tandem variable-interval differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (tandem VI DRO) schedule. The schedule defined a resetting unsignaled delay-of-reinforcement procedure in that a response was required when the interfood interval of the VI schedule lapsed, but further responding during the DRO component on either key reset the time interval. This ensured a fixed delay duration between any response and reinforcement. Responding on another key, physically identical to the first one except for spatial location, otherwise was without consequence. The location of the key correlated with the delay-of-reinforcement procedure varied between sessions according to a semirandom sequence. Differences in response rates between the two keys were greater, with proportionally higher rates on the key correlated with the delay-of-reinforcement procedure, the longer the delay-of-reinforcement procedure remained correlated with the same key. Differences in responding on the two keys also increased within individual sessions. These results suggest that the response-reinforcer relation is the primary determinant of responding when responding is acquired and maintained with delayed reinforcement.     

Some determinants of remote behavioral history effects in humans

Undergraduates were exposed to a series of reinforcement schedules: first, to a fixed-ratio (FR) schedule in the presence of one stimulus and to a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule in the presence of another (multiple FR DRL training), then to a fixed-interval (FI) schedule in the presence of a third stimulus (FI baseline), next to the FI schedule under the stimuli previously correlated with the FR and DRL schedules (multiple FI FI testing), and, finally, to a single session of the multiple FR DRL schedule again (multiple FR DRL testing). Response rates during the multiple FI FI schedule were higher under the former FR stimulus than under the former DRL stimulus. This effect of remote histories was prolonged when either the number of FI-baseline sessions was small or zero, or the time interval between the multiple FR DRL training and the multiple FI FI testing was short. Response rates under these two stimuli converged with continued exposure to the multiple FI FI schedule in most cases, but quickly differentiated when the schedule returned to the multiple FR DRL.     

Why pigeons say what they do: reinforcer magnitude and response requirement effects on say responding in say-do correspondence

The effects of reinforcer magnitude and response requirement on pigeons' say choices in an experimental homologue of human say-do correspondence were assessed in two experiments. The procedure was similar to a conditional discrimination procedure except the pigeons chose both a sample stimulus (the say component) and a comparison stimulus that corresponded to it (the do component). Correspondence was trained on red, green, and white key colors before the duration of food presentations following correspondence on each key color (Experiment 1) and the number of key pecks required as the say response on each key color (Experiment 2) were manipulated in an attempt to influence the initial say response. The frequency of say responses on each key color coincided with programmed changes in the duration of food presentations and the key-peck requirements assigned to each key color. Correspondence accuracy remained stable in all conditions, even those in which the say responding occurred primarily on two of the three key colors. Implications for human behavior are discussed.     

DELAYED REINFORCEMENT OF OPERANT BEHAVIOR

The experimental analysis of delay of reinforcement is considered from the perspective of three questions that seem basic not only to understanding delay of reinforcement, but, also, by implication, the contributions of temporal relations between events to operant behavior. The first question is whether effects of the temporal relation between responses and reinforcers can be isolated from other features of the environment that often accompany delays, such as stimuli or changes in the temporal distribution or rate of reinforcement. The second question is that of the effects of delays on operant behavior. Beyond the common denominator of a temporal separation between reinforcers and the responses that produce them, delay of reinforcement procedures differ from one another along several dimensions, making delay effects circumstance dependent. The final question is one of interpreting delay of reinforcement effects. It centers on the role of the response—reinforcer temporal relation in the context of other, concurrently operating behavioral processes.     

Response persistence under ratio and interval reinforcement schedules

In Experiment 1, rats were exposed to progressive-ratio schedules of food reinforcement while other rats were exposed simultaneously to yoked-interval schedules that arranged equivalent interreinforcer intervals but required only a single response at the end of the interval for food delivery. In Experiment 2, a within-subject yoked-control procedure was employed in which pigeons were exposed to alternating sessions (one per day) of progressive-ratio schedules and yoked-interval schedules as described above. In both experiments, responding under the yoked-interval schedule persisted beyond the point at which responding under the progressive-ratio schedule had ceased. The progressive-ratio schedules controlled break-and-run distributions, and the yoked-interval schedules controlled more even distributions of responses in time. Response rates decreased and postreinforcement pauses increased over time within individual sessions under both schedules. The results suggest that responding maintained by interval schedules is more persistent than that maintained by ratio schedules. The limitations and implications of this conclusion are discussed in the context of other investigations of response strength and behavioral momentum.     

Observing ben wyckoff: from basic research to programmed instruction and social issues

L. Benjamin Wyckoff's seminal contributions to both psychological theory and application are the subject of this review. Wyckoff started his academic career as a graduate student at Indiana University, where he developed the observing-response procedure under the guidance of B. F. Skinner and C. J. Burke. At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wyckoff refined his mathematical theory of secondary reinforcement. This theory was the impetus for his creation of an electronic simulation of a rat running a T maze, one of the first "computer models" of learning. Wyckoff next went to Emory University, leaving there to help create two of the most successful companies dedicated to the advancement of programmed instruction and teaching machines: Teaching Machines, Inc. and the Human Development Institute. Wyckoff's involvement in these companies epitomizes the application of basic behavior-analytic principles in the development of technology to improve education and human relationships. The emergent picture of Wyckoff is that of a man who, through his research, professional work in educational applications of behavioral principles, and active involvement in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, was strongly committed to applying behavioral science to positively influence human behavior change.     

CONCURRENT RESURGENCE AND BEHAVIORAL HISTORY

The contribution of past experiences to concurrent resurgence was investigated in three experiments. In Experiment 1, resurgence was related to the length of reinforcement history as well as the reinforcement schedule that previously maintained responding. Specifically, more resurgence occurred when key pecks had been reinforced on a variable-interval 1-min schedule than a variable-interval 6-min schedule, but this effect may have been due either to the differential reinforcement rates or differential response rates under the two schedules. When reinforcement rates were similar (Experiment 2), there was more resurgence of high-rate than low-rate responding. When response rates were similar (Experiment 3), resurgence was not related systematically to prior reinforcement rates. Taken together, these three experimental tests of concurrent resurgence illustrate that prior response rates are better predictors of resurgence than are prior reinforcement rates.