The effects of brief-stimulus presentations in fixed-ratio second-order schedules

Pigeons' responses were reinforced according to a three-component multiple schedule. In Component 1, key pecks produced food according to a fixed-ratio second-order schedule with fixed-ratio units. Here, a fixed number of fixed-ratio units produced food, and the brief stimulus terminating each unit also accompanied food. Responses in Component 2 produced food on an identical schedule except that the brief stimulus was not paired with food. Component 3 contained a simple fixed-ratio schedule whose response requirement equaled that of Components 1 and 2. Across conditions the size of the fixed-ratio unit (five, ten, twenty, forty, and eighty responses) and the total number of responses per reinforcement were parametrically manipulated. The highest response rates and shortest preratio pauses were observed in Component 3 (no brief stimulus). The lowest rates and longest pauses were found in the component with paired brief-stimulus presentations, indicating that the food-paired brief stimulus suppressed responding. The suppressive effects were greatest when the fixed-ratio units were small (e.g., fixed-ratio 5) and the total fixed-ratio requirement was large (e.g., fixed-ratio 160). Under no conditions did the paired brief stimulus facilitate responding. The nonpaired brief stimulus also suppressed responding but to a lesser extent. The suppressive effects of nonpaired brief stimuli were greatest when the fixed-ratio units were small and the total response requirement was large. These data suggest that the suppressive effects of the brief stimuli may have masked the conditioned-reinforcing effects reported in other studies, and that conditions that maximize suppression in second-order schedules involve the use of fixed-ratio schedule units and the presentation of many brief stimuli per reinforcer.     

Effects of fixed-time shocks and brief stimuli on food-maintained behavior of rats

When a fixed-time schedule of shocks was presented to rats lever pressing for food on a random-interval schedule, a pattern of behavior developed with a high rate of pressing after shock declining to near zero before the next shock was delivered. Once this pattern had stabilized, one-quarter of the shocks were replaced with brief auditory stimuli (tones) in a random sequence. Tone maintained behavior similar to shock, although tone was never paired with shock. Both tone and shocks elicited responding when presented at various times as probe stimuli, and responding was usually totally suppressed if neither stimulus occurred at the beginning of the fixed-time interval. When other stimuli were paired with tone and shock, only those paired with tone gained discriminative control and elicited responding. These findings suggest that stimuli that signal a shock-free, or safe, period will maintain the pattern of behavior generated by shock on a fixed-time schedule. There is a parallel between this phenomenon and the control of behavior on second-order schedules of positive reinforcement with nonpaired brief stimuli.     

The role of discriminative stimuli in concurrent performances

Key pecking in pigeons was examined under concurrent and parallel arrangements of two independent and simultaneously available variable-interval schedules. Pecks on the changeover key alternated the schedule of reinforcement for responses on the main key. Under concurrent schedules, discriminative stimuli were paired with the reinforcement schedule arranged in each component and changeover responses also alternated these stimuli. Under parallel schedules, changeover responses alternated the effective reinforcement schedule, but did not change the discriminative stimulus. On concurrent procedures, changeover response rate was inversely related to the difference in reinforcement rate between the two components, whereas on parallel schedules no consistent relationship was found. With both schedules, absolute response and reinforcement rates were positively related, although for a given set of reinforcement frequencies, rates were often higher on the concurrent schedules. On concurrent schedules, relative response rates and relative times were equal to relative reinforcement rates. On parallel schedules these ratios were positively related, but response and time ratios were much smaller than were obtained with comparable concurrent schedules. This inequality was most pronounced when absolute reinforcement frequencies were lowest.     

Interlocking schedules: the relationship between response and time requirements.

Rats were exposed to an interlocking fixed-ratio 150 fixed-interval 5-minute schedule of food reinforcement and then to yoked variable-ratio schedules in which individual ratios corresponded exactly to the ratios of responses to reinforcement obtained on the interlocking schedule. After additional training with the interlocking schedule, the rats were exposed to yoked variable-interval schedules in which intervals corresponded to the intervals between successive reinforcements obtained on the second interlocking schedule. Response rates were highest in the yoked VR condition and lowest in the yoked VI, while intermediate rates characterized the interlocking schedule. Break-run patterns of responding were generated by the interlocking schedule for all subjects, while both the yoked VR and VI schedules produced comparatively stable local rates of responding. These results indicate that responding is sensitive to the interlocking schedule's inverse relationship between reinforcement frequency and responses per reinforcement.     

Response and time allocation in concurrent second-order schedules

Six pigeons were trained on two-key concurrent variable-interval schedules in which the required response was the completion of a fixed number of key pecks. When the required number of pecks was equal on the two keys, response- and time-allocation ratios under-matched obtained reinforcement rate ratios. A similar result was found when the required number of pecks was unequal, except that performance, measured in response terms, was biased to the shorter required number of pecks and was less sensitive to reinforcement-rate changes. No such differences were found in the data on time spent responding. When the variable-interval schedules were kept constant and the required numbers of pecks were systematically varied, response ratios changed inversely with the ratio of the required number of pecks, but time-allocation ratios varied directly with the same independent variable. Thus, on response measures, pigeons “prefer” the schedule with the smaller peck requirement, but on time measures they “prefer” the schedule with the larger peck requirement. This finding is inconsistent with a commonsense notion of choice, which sees response and time-allocation measures as equivalent.     

RESEARCH ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENERALIZATION AND MAINTENANCE IN EXTRA-THERAPY RESPONDING1

Many authors have reported that the development of programs for producing durable extra-therapy responding lags behind the development of programs for producing initial behavior change. In Experiment I, responding was recorded continuously in both the therapy and extra-therapy settings. The results showed that one child did not generalize to the extra-therapy setting, but that other children did. However, for the children who generalized, extra-therapy responding was not maintained. Therefore, in Experiment II two variables affecting the durability of extra-therapy responding were assessed and found to be influential: (a) the use of partial reinforcement schedules in the original treatment environment; and (b) the presence of noncontingent reinforcers in the extra-therapy environment. The results suggest that there are two distinct parameters of extra-therapy responding: generalization and maintenance. A technology for producing durable extra-therapy responding is discussed in terms of different treatment procedures required for different deficits in extra-therapy responding.     

On the effects of component durations and component reinforcement rates in multiple schedules

Four experiments, each using the same six pigeons, investigated the effects of varying component durations and component reinforcement rates in multiple variable-interval schedules. Experiment 1 used unequal component durations in which one component was five times the duration of the other, and the shorter component was varied over conditions from 120 seconds to 5 seconds. The schedules were varied over five values for each pair of component durations. Sensitivity to reinforcement rate changes was the same at all component durations. In Experiment 2, both component durations were 5 seconds, and the schedules were again varied using both one and two response keys. Sensitivity to reinforcement was not different from the values found in Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, various manipulations, including body-weight changes, reinforcer duration changes, blackouts, hopper lights correlated with keylights, and overall reinforcement rate changes were carried out. No reliable increase in reinforcement sensitivity resulted from any manipulation. Finally, in Experiment 4, reinforcement rates in the two components were kept constant and unequal, and the component durations were varied. Shorter components produced significantly increased response rates normally in the higher reinforcement rate component, but schedule reversals at short component durations eliminated the response rate increases. The effects of component duration on multiple schedule performance cannot be interpreted as changing sensitivity to reinforcement nor to changing bias.     

Choice and foraging

In Experiment 1, six naive pigeons were trained on a foraging schedule characterized by different states beginning with a search state in which completion of a fixed-interval on a white key led to a choice state. In the choice state the subject could, by appropriate responding on a fixed ratio of three, either accept or reject the schedule of reinforcement that was offered (either a variable-interval five-second or a variable-interval 20-second). If the subject accepted the schedule, it entered a “handling state” in which the appropriate variable-interval schedule was presented. Completion of the variable-interval schedule produced food. The independent variable was the fixed-interval value in the search state, and the dependent variable was the rate of acceptance of the long variable-interval in the choice state. Experiment 2 was identical except that the search state required completion of a variable-interval, instead of a fixed-interval, schedule. The rate of acceptance of the long variable-interval schedule in both experiments was a direct function of the length of the search state, in accordance with both optimality theory and the delay-reduction hypothesis.     

Preference in concurrent variable-interval fixed-ratio schedules

Five pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval fixed-ratio schedules in three experiments. Experiment 1 used two variable-interval schedules and one fixed-ratio schedule, and the ratio requirement was varied. Using the generalized matching law, sensitivity to reinforcement was close to 1.0, but performance was biased toward the variable-interval schedule with the lower reinforcement rate. In Experiment 2, which used one variable-interval and one fixed-ratio schedule, the interval schedule was varied. All birds showed sensitivities to reinforcement of less than 1.0 and of less than the values obtained in Experiment 1. The performance was also biased toward the fixed-ratio schedule. Because the generalized matching law could not account for the differences in the data from Experiments 1 and 2, an extension of this law was suggested and successfully tested in Experiment 3. The proposed dual-sensitivity model was also shown to clarify some previously reported results.     

Responses and pauses: discrimination and a choice catastrophe.

Pigeons produced a stimulus change either by responding or by not responding for a specified time period (by pausing). They then had to choose between two responses to obtain food. One choice was correct if the first component had been completed by a response; the other was correct if the component had been completed by a pause. The pigeons usually chose correctly, thereby indicating that they used their own prior behavior as a discriminative stimulus. Fixed pause requirements did not produce equal first component completions by a response and by a pause. To obtain equality, the pause requirement was titrated as a function of current performance. Titration resulted in equal completions and also produced accurate discrimination. In addition to showing that pigeons discriminated whether they had responded or paused, the data displayed and discontinuous functions predicted by catastrophe theory. Another procedure used forced choice rather than titration to produce equal completions by pausing and responding and also showed accurate discrimination of behavior.