On the validity of scalp recordings of the auditory evoked potential

Simultaneous recording from scalp and cortical electrodes in unanesthetized and unrestrained cats revealed essentially no differences between the superficial and deep recordings of the auditory evoked responses. Human recordings taken under two conditions of muscular contraction contained no major differences from 30 to 300 msec after stimulus onset.     

The effect of two schedules of primary and conditioned reinforcement

Of 23 pigeons, 11 received continuous reinforcement for key pecking, and 12 received an FR 10 schedule of reinforcement. The birds were then tested without food, but with potential conditioned reinforcers presented either on the same schedule as in training, on the other schedule, or not at all. Each bird in the subgroup trained on CRF and tested with S^r's at FR 10 not only gave more responses in testing than did each bird in both subgroups receiving no S^r's, but also gave more responses than did each bird in the S^r subgroup receiving CRF training and S^r's at CRF. Cumulative records are presented to show the effects of different schedules of conditioned reinforcers.     

A note on the derivation of the general latent class model

A general formulation of the latent structure principle is suggested, from which it is possible to derive Lazarsfeld's accounting equations in their most general form. The basic equations of Gibson's latent profile model can thence be derived in a single step.     

Reinforcement of least-frequent sequences of choices

When a pigeon's choices between two keys are probabilistically reinforced, as in discrete trial probability learning procedures and in concurrent variable-interval schedules, the bird tends to maximize, or to choose the alternative with the higher probability of reinforcement. In concurrent variable-interval schedules, steady-state matching, which is an approximate equality between the relative frequency of a response and the relative frequency of reinforcement of that response, has previously been obtained only as a consequence of maximizing. In the present experiment, maximizing was impossible. A choice of one of two keys was reinforced only if it formed, together with the three preceding choices, the sequence of four successive choices that had occurred least often. This sequence was determined by a Bernoulli-trials process with parameter p. Each of three pigeons matched when p was ½ or ¼. Therefore, steady-state matching by individual birds is not always a consequence of maximizing. Choice probability varied between successive reinforcements, and sequential statistics revealed dependencies which were adequately described by a Bernoulli-trials process with p depending on the time since the preceding reinforcement.     

The reinforcement of short interresponse times

Five contingencies were superimposed successively on a variable-interval schedule of reinforcement. In each of the resulting conditions, a different short, interresponse time was reinforced and an interresponse-time distribution was obtained from each of three pigeons. The lower bound of the reinforced interresponse times ranged from 0.3 to 2.4 sec. The resulting distributions were combined, according to a rationale based upon concurrent operants, induction, and a property of variable-interval schedules, to describe the interresponse-time distributions from a variable-interval schedule.