Evidence for an addition to the reading scan hypothesis

Letters were tachistoscopically presented in pairs to the left or right of fixation for 40 msec. The pair consisted of a target letter (B, D, P, or T) and a noise letter (all other letters of the alphabet except I), with the noise letter appearing either to the inside or the outside of the stimulus letter. S’s task was to report verbally the target letter as fast as possible. Reaction times and number of errors indicated that there was more interference when the noise letter occurred further from the fixation point than the target letter for both the left and right visual field. Since a reading scan cannot account for the results in the right visual field, an outside-toward-fixation scan is proposed. An analysis of the different kinds of errors indicated that the outside to fixation scan is more primitive than the reading scan in that it produces less detailed information about the letters than does the reading scan.     

Successive vs simultaneous processing of superimposed visual stimuli

A visual analogue of Savin’s (1967) auditory task was used to examine preferred order of recall and order of recall accuracy for two pairs of visually superimposed digits. Savin (1967) and Rollins, Everson, and Schurman (1972) found that Ss preferred to recall simultaneous auditory information in successive order, even though the information was presented over a single channel. In the present experiments, Ss were found to prefer strongly to recall visual information in simultaneous order. On the other hand, the results of Rollins et al (1972), that Ss are equally accurate when forced to recall simultaneous auditory information in either the preferred or nonpreferred mode, were replicated for this visual task. The results of these experiments, together with the experiment reported by Rollins et al (1972), indicate that verbal information is processed differently by these two sensory systems.     

Aggression as a reinforcer: operant behavior in the mouse-killing rat

Two experiments examined mouse killing as a reinforcer of key pressing by rats that killed mice. In Experiment I, mouse-killing rats performed the key-pressing response when each press was reinforced with presentation of a mouse. Offered a choice between a key that yielded presentation of mice and one that did not, the rats preferred the key that yielded mice. When the contingency was reversed, the rats preferred the other key and continued to kill mice. In Experiment II, mouse-killing rats that did not kill rat pups performed a key-pressing response reinforced with presentation of mice on a variable-interval schedule. In tests for responding reinforced on that schedule with presentation of normal mice, anesthetized mice, dead mice, or rat pups, these rats that killed mice but not rat pups exhibited a decline in response rate when rat pups were the reinforcer. Altering the condition of the mice did not significantly affect performance.     

The development of stimulus control with and without a lighted key

In two experiments, the effect of an illuminated response key on the acquisition of stimulus control by an airflow stimulus was assessed. In the first experiment, pigeons were given nondifferential training with airflow emerging from behind the response key in one of three conditions of illumination: trained to peck a lighted key, trained to peck an unlighted key with a houselight present, trained to peck a key in total darkness. After 10 days of training on a variable-interval schedule of reinforcement, all subjects were given a generalization test on airflow velocity. The gradients for subjects trained in the dark were sharp, while those for subjects trained in lighted conditions were shallow. In the second experiment, the effect of an irrelevant keylight on the acquisition of an airflow velocity discrimination was assessed. Two groups of pigeons were trained to discriminate two airflow velocities. One group was trained with a lighted response key and the other was trained to peck the response key in total darkness. The dark-trained subjects acquired the discrimination more rapidly. The results demonstrate that the acquisition of stimulus control by airflow with either a differential or nondifferential training procedure can be overshadowed by keylight.     

Schedule control of the vocal behavior of Cebus monkeys

The vocal behavior of three Cebus monkeys was maintained by fixed-ratio schedules of response dependent reinforcement at values between fixed-ratio 1 and fixed-ratio 15. In one monkey that was exposed to variable-interval, fixed-interval, and conjunctive fixed-ratio fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement, vocal responding occurred at a low rate, but schedule-appropriate patterns were maintained. The rates and patterns of responding engendered indicated that the vocal operant can be brought under schedule control in the monkey by the use of response-dependent reinforcement.     

Positive interaction (induction) in multiple variable-interval, differential-reinforcement-of-high-rate schedules

The effect of increases in the rate of responding in one component of a multiple schedule upon the rate of responding in a second component was investigated. Pigeons were exposed to a multiple schedule where both components were initially variable-interval schedules having the same parameter value. After rate of key pecking stabilized, one component was changed to a schedule that differentially reinforced high rates of responding. Rate of reinforcement in this varied component was adjusted to remain equal to rate of reinforcement in the constant (variable-interval) component. Four of five pigeons showed a maintained increase in rate of responding during both the constant and varied components, even though rates of reinforcement did not change.     

Fixed-interval limited-hold avoidance with and without signalled reinforcement

Rats trained to lever press on a fixed-interval limited-hold avoidance schedule maintained a pattern of responding similar to that maintained by fixed-interval limited-hold schedules of positive reinforcement. But this positively accelerated pattern of behavior was maintained only when the occurrence of reinforcement was signalled by the presentation of a brief flash of light. This result suggests that the discriminative function of the reinforcer in avoidance is less pronounced than the discriminative function of the reinforcer in escape or positive reinforcement. It also suggests that the distinction between positive reinforcement and avoidance is not superfluous. Although the schedule of reinforcement is an important variable in determining the pattern of behavior, other variables, such as the nature (i.e., stimulus presentation, termination, or omission) of the reinforcer, are also potent determinants of behavior.