Bayesian estimation of a multilevel IRT model using gibbs sampling

In this article, a two-level regression model is imposed on the ability parameters in an item response theory (IRT) model. The advantage of using latent rather than observed scores as dependent variables of a multilevel model is that it offers the possibility of separating the influence of item difficulty and ability level and modeling response variation and measurement error. Another advantage is that, contrary to observed scores, latent scores are test-independent, which offers the possibility of using results from different tests in one analysis where the parameters of the IRT model and the multilevel model can be concurrently estimated. The two-parameter normal ogive model is used for the IRT measurement model. It will be shown that the parameters of the two-parameter normal ogive model and the multilevel model can be estimated in a Bayesian framework using Gibbs sampling. Examples using simulated and real data are given.     

The reductive effects of noncontingent reinforcement fixed-time versus variable-time schedules.

The effects of fixed‐time (FT) and variable‐time (VT) schedules on responding were evaluated with 2 adults with mental retardation. Multielement and reversal designs were used to compare the effects of FT and VT schedules in reducing responses previously maintained on variable‐ratio reinforcement schedules. The schedules were equally effective in reducing the target behavior.     

二级强化程序在药物成瘾研究中的应用

二级强化程序是一种以物质的强化效应为基础,评价药物的精神依赖性潜力的方法,将其应用到自身给药实验中,即为二级强化自身给药模型。在这个模型中,动物在条件性刺激的影响下按压杠杆以寻求药物的行为反映了其对成瘾性药物的渴求。使用二级强化程序,人们发现：条件性刺激既能够影响觅药行为的获得和保持,也能够影响这种行为的消退;伏隔核的核区、杏仁核基底外侧部和内侧前额皮层等部位在药物相关的条件性刺激诱导动物产生觅药行为的过程中起重要作用。二级强化程序的应用为开发治疗药物成瘾的物质提供了一条新思路     

Travel time and concurrent-schedule choice: retrospective versus prospective control

Six pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules in which two different travel times between alternatives, 4.5 and 0.5 s, were randomly arranged. In Part 1, the next travel time was signaled while the subjects were responding on each alternative. Generalized matching analyses of performance in the presence of the two travel-time signals showed significantly higher response and time sensitivity when the longer travel time was signaled compared to when the shorter time was signaled. When the data were analyzed as a function of the previous travel time, there were no differences in sensitivity. Dwell times on the alternatives were consistently longer in the presence of the stimulus that signaled the longer travel time than they were in the presence of the stimulus that signaled the shorter travel time. These results are in accord with a recent quantitative account of the effects of travel time. In Part 2, no signals indicating the next travel time were given. When these data were analyzed as a function of the previous travel time, time-allocation sensitivity after the 4.5-s travel time was significantly greater than that after the 0.5-s travel time, but no such difference was found for response allocation. Dwell times were also longer when the previous travel time had been longer.     

Pigeons may not remember the stimuli that reinforced their recent behavior

In two experiments the conditioned reinforcing and delayed discriminative stimulus functions of stimuli that signal delays to reinforcement were studied. Pigeons' pecks to a center key produced delayed-matching-to-sample trials according to a variable-interval 60-s (or 30-s in 1 pigeon) schedule (Experiment 1) or a multiple variable-interval 20-s variable-interval 120-s schedule (Experiment 2). The trials consisted of a 2-s illumination of one of two sample key colors followed by delays ranging across phases from 0.1 to 27.0 s followed in turn by the presentation of matching and nonmatching comparison stimuli on the side keys. Pecks to the key color that matched the sample were reinforced with 4-s access to grain. Under some conditions of Experiment 1, pecks to nonmatching comparison stimuli produced a 4-s blackout and the start of the next interval. Under other conditions of Experiment 1 and each condition of Experiment 2, pecks to nonmatching stimuli had no effect and trials ended only when pigeons pecked the other, matching stimulus and received food. The functions relating pretrial response rates to delays differed markedly from those relating matching-to-sample accuracy to delays. Specifically, response rates remained relatively high until the longest delays (15.0 to 27.0 s) were arranged, at which point they fell to low levels. Matching accuracy was high at short delays, but fell to chance at delays between 3.0 and 9.0 s. In Experiment 2, both matching accuracy and response rates remained high over a wider range of delays in the variable-interval 120-s component relative to the variable-interval 20-s component. The difference in matching accuracy between the components was not due to an increased tendency in the variable-interval 20-s component toward proactive interference following short intervals. Thus, under these experimental conditions the conditioned reinforcing and the delayed discriminative functions of the sample stimulus depended on the same variables (delay and variable-interval value), but were nevertheless dissociated.     

The spatial distribution of behavior under varying frequencies of temporally scheduled water delivery

Two studies evaluated the effects of response-independent water deliveries on the location (on the floor of the experimental chamber) and position (height) of rats' behavior. In both experiments, fixed-time schedules delivered water in two dispensers that were located at opposite ends of the chamber. In Experiment 1, the two schedules provided complementary frequencies of water deliveries while the overall number of deliveries stayed constant. In Experiment 2, one of the schedules delivered water twice as frequently as the other; this proportion was kept constant while the overall density of water deliveries changed systematically. In both experiments, a single position (height) of behavior was dominant. Also, the percentage of time allocated to each dispenser was roughly proportional to the percentage of water deliveries associated with the dispensers. These data and additional considerations support the importance of examining the spatial properties and patterning of behavior.     

Choice in a variable environment: every reinforcer counts

Six pigeons were trained in sessions composed of seven components, each arranged with a different concurrent-schedule reinforcer ratio. These components occurred in an irregular order with equal frequency, separated by 10-s blackouts. No signals differentiated the different reinforcer ratios. Conditions lasted 50 sessions, and data were collected from the last 35 sessions. In Part 1, the arranged overall reinforcer rate was 2.22 reinforcers per minute. Over conditions, number of reinforcers per component was varied from 4 to 12. In Part 2, the overall reinforcer rate was six per minute, with both 4 and 12 reinforcers per component. Within components, log response-allocation ratios adjusted rapidly as more reinforcers were delivered in the component, and the slope of the choice relation (sensitivity) leveled off at moderately high levels after only about eight reinforcers. When the carryover from previous components was taken into account, the number of reinforcers in the components appeared to have no systematic effect on the speed at which behavior changed after a component started. Consequently, sensitivity values at each reinforcer delivery were superimposable. However, adjustment to changing reinforcer ratios was faster, and reached greater sensitivity values, when overall reinforcer rate was higher. Within a component, each successive reinforcer from the same alternative ("confirming") had a smaller effect than the one before, but single reinforcers from the other alternative ("disconfirming") always had a large effect. Choice in the prior component carried over into the next component, and its effects could be discerned even after five or six reinforcement and nonreinforcement is suggested.     

THE BASIS OF SUPERSTITIOUS BEHAVIOR: CHANCE CONTINGENCY,STIMULUS SUBSTITUTION,OR APPETITIVE BEHAVIOR?

This research examined three explanations for the "superstitious" behavior of pigeons under frequent fixed-time delivery of food: accidental response-reward contingency, stimulus substitution, and elicited species-typical appetitive behavior. The behavior observed in these studies consisted of occasional postfood locomotion away from the food hopper, and a predominant pattern of activity directed toward the hopper wall (wall-directed behavior), including approaching, stepping side to side, scratching with the feet, bumping with the breast, pendulum movements of the extended neck, and head bobbing, though not pecking. The consistency of these behavior patterns argued against explanation by accidental response contingencies, and the complexity of behavior was incompatible with the classic stimulus-substitution account. These studies also showed that: (1) response contingencies and prior stimulus experience can modify wall-directed behavior, but within definable limits; (2) pecking sometimes can be obtained in birds of specific strains, and by providing extended training; (3) placing the hopper in the floor at the center of a large chamber replaces wall-directed behavior with circling in a manner that resembles ground foraging for food. We conclude that superstitious behavior under periodic delivery of food probably develops from components of species-typical patterns of appetitive behavior related to feeding. These patterns are elicited by a combination of frequent food presentations and the supporting stimuli present in the environment.     

Incentive theory: IV. Magnitude of reward

Incentive theory is successfully applied to data from experiments in which the amount of food reward is varied. This is accomplished by assuming that incentive value is a negatively accelerated function of reward duration. The interaction of the magnitude of a reward with its delay is confirmed, and the causes and implications of this interaction are discussed.