Predicting and scaling hens' preferences for topographically different responses

Six hens were exposed to several concurrent (second-order) variable-interval schedules in which the response requirements on the alternatives were varied. The response requirements were one key peck versus five key pecks, one key peck versus one door push, and five key pecks versus one door push. Response- and time-allocation ratios undermatched the obtained reinforcement ratios but were well described by the generalized matching law. Time and response bias estimates from two pairs of response requirements were used to predict bias in the third pairing. The predicted values were close to those obtained; this result supports the notion that both numerically and topographically different responses act as constant sources of bias within the generalized matching law. The differences between the response and time biases could be accounted for by the different times needed to complete each response requirement. The results also suggest that the door push is a useful operant for research with domestic hens.     

Infants' sensitivity to arbitrary object-odor pairings

The ability of 4-month-old infants to learn the arbitrary relationship between an object and a distinctive odor was assessed. Infants were familiarized with two objects while one of them was paired with a cherry odor. Results indicated that only female subjects showed evidence of matching. They increased their looking to the target object in the presence of the odor but not in the absence of the odor, relative to baseline levels.     

Formation of transitivity in conditional matching to sample by pigeons

Four homing pigeons were trained over 5 months in a zero-delay, “arbitrary” matching-to-sample procedure with sample and comparison stimuli presented on any of three response keys. Birds were also required to complete a fixed-ratio 10 requirement on both sample and comparison stimuli to terminate their presentation. The procedure resulted in the establishment of relations that were not specifically trained and that can be characterized by the property of transitivity in a stimulus equivalence context. This result was in contrast with the findings obtained from most previous research with nonhuman subjects.     

Human choice in concurrent ratio-interval schedules of reinforcement.

Seven undergraduates participated in a concurrent-choice experiment with monetary reinforcers. Response-independent analogues of variable-interval and variable-ratio schedules were used to assess whether subjects would maximize reinforcement rate. The optimal pattern of behavior, in terms of maximizing reinforcement rate, involved a large bias toward the ratio alternative, with only occasional sampling of the interval schedule. Most experiments with pigeons, however, demonstrate matching of response rates to reinforcement rates, with only slight biases for the ratio schedule. Although subjects in the present experiment allocated more time to the ratio alternative than required by matching, the magnitude of the bias did not approximate that predicted by a maximizing account. After exposure to clock stimuli correlated with the operation of each schedule, 1 subject's behavior did show a substantial level of bias, increasing the total number of reinforcers obtained, and lay at a point between the predictions of matching and maximizing. The other subjects, however, continued to respond less optimally. The present results can be accounted for by a view of matching that incorporates the effects of delayed reinforcement.     

Detecting a nonevent: Delayed presence-versus-absence discrimination in pigeons

Eight pigeons were trained on a delayed presence-versus-absence discrimination paradigm in which a sample stimulus was presented on some trials but not on others. If a sample was presented, then a response to one choice key produced food. If no sample was presented, a response to the other choice key produced food. The basic finding was that performance remained constant and well above 50% correct on no-sample trials as the retention interval increased, whereas performance dropped precipitously (to below 50% correct) on sample trials. In the second phase of the experiment, all of the trials were no-sample trials, and reinforcers were delivered probabilistically for one group of pigeons and according to time-based schedules for the other group. The exact reinforcement probabilities used in Phase 2 were those calculated to be in effect on no-sample trials in Phase 1 (according to a discrete-state model of performance). Subjects did not show exclusive preference for the richer alternative on no-sample trials in the first phase, but those in the probabilistic group developed near-exclusive preference for the richer alternative during the second phase. These data are inconsistent with the predictions of the discrete-state model, but are easily accommodated by an account based on signal detection theory, which also can be applied effectively to discrimination of event duration and the “subjective shortening” effect.     

Residence time and choice in concurrent foraging schedules

Five pigeons were trained on a concurrent-schedule analogue of the “some patches are empty” procedure. Two concurrently available alternatives were arranged on a single response key and were signaled by red and green keylights. A subject could travel between these alternatives by responding on a second yellow “switching” key. Following a changeover to a patch, there was a probability (p) that a single reinforcer would be available on that alternative for a response after a time determined by the value of λ, a probability of reinforcement per second. The overall scheduling of reinforcers on the two alternatives was arranged nonindependently, and the available alternative was switched after each reinforcer. In Part 1 of the experiment, the probabilities of reinforcement, ρ_red and ρ_green, were equal on the two alternatives, and the arranged arrival rates of reinforcers, λ_red and λ_green, were varied across conditions. In Part 2, the reinforcer arrival times were arranged to be equal, and the reinforcer probabilities were varied across conditions. In Part 3, both parameters were varied. The results replicated those seen in studies that have investigated time allocation in a single patch: Both response and time allocation to an alternative increased with decreasing values of λ and with increasing values of ρ, and residence times were consistently greater than those that would maximize obtained reinforcer rates. Furthermore, both response- and time-allocation ratios undermatched mean reinforcer-arrival time and reinforcer-frequency ratios.     

Changeover behavior and preference in concurrent schedules

Pigeons were trained on a multiple schedule of reinforcement in which separate concurrent schedules occurred in each of two components. Key pecking was reinforced with milo. During one component, a variable-interval 40-s schedule was concurrent with a variable-interval 20-s schedule; during the other component, a variable-interval 40-s schedule was concurrent with a variable-interval 80-s schedule. During probe tests, the stimuli correlated with the two variable-interval 40-s schedules were presented simultaneously to assess preference, measured by the relative response rates to the two stimuli. In Experiment 1, the concurrently available variable-interval 20-s schedule operated normally; that is, reinforcer availability was not signaled. Following this baseline training, relative response rate during the probes favored the variable-interval 40-s alternative that had been paired with the lower valued schedule (i.e., with the variable-interval 80-s schedule). In Experiment 2, a signal for reinforcer availability was added to the high-value alternative (i.e., to the variable-interval 20-s schedule), thus reducing the rate of key pecking maintained by that schedule but leaving the reinforcement rate unchanged. Following that baseline training, relative response rates during probes favored the variable-interval 40-s alternative that had been paired with the higher valued schedule. The reversal in the pattern of preference implies that the pattern of changeover behavior established during training, and not reinforcement rate, determined the preference patterns obtained on the probe tests.     

Beyond the relational principle of reinforcement

Behavior under baseline conditions in which the contingency is absent can shed some light on the individual's performance under a schedule, but is insufficient as a basis for prediction of performance. This insufficiency of the baseline data runs counter to a recent formalization of the relational principle of reinforcement (Donahoe, 1977). A more satisfactory predictive model must incorporate not only the baseline level of the instrumental response and that of the contingent response, but also the schedule requirements, the character of each response in relation to the other, and the behavior required in simply switching from each to the other.     

On the discriminability of stimulus duration.

The performance of pigeons trained to detect differences in the duration of stimuli was analysed using a matching model of signal detection. Two white stimuli, S1 and S2, differing in duration, were arranged with equal probability on the center key of a three-key chamber. S1 was systematically varied from 5 seconds to 25 seconds while S2 remained constant at 30 seconds. On completion of the center-key stimulus, a peck on the center key turned on the two red side keys. A left-key response was "correct" when S1 had been in effect on the center key and a right-key response was "correct" on S2 trials. A correct response produced a 3-second magazine light accompanied intermittently by food. Incorrect responses produced 3-second blackouts. Detection performance was measured under two procedures. In the first, the obtained reinforcement ratio was uncontrolled by allowing the number of food reinforcements obtained for correct left- and right-key responses to vary as the stimuli were changed. In the second procedure, the presentation of food reinforcement was controlled by holding the obtained reinforcement ratio constant. Discriminability changed as a function of stimulus differences under both procedures. No such trend was found in response bias.