Delay and amount of reward in a concurrent chain

Eight pigeons responded under a concurrent-chain schedule for rewards differing in both delay and amount, the larger reward being associated with the longer delay. Preference was examined as the absolute durations of the terminal-link delays were increased at four different delay ratios. Difficulties with other experiments of this type were controlled for by the use of (a) a single-tape initial link to equalize terminal-link entries, (b) a blackout following the more immediate reward to equalize terminal-link length, and (c) a photocell to measure reinforcer duration more accurately. Preference for the larger reward changed systematically as delays increased in all conditions, decreasing for the 6:1, 3:1, and 3:2 ratios, and increasing for the 1:1 ratio. These results were similar to, but significantly different from, those of previous investigations. The implications of these results for various models of concurrent-chain behavior are discussed.     

Reinforcement of inhibition

A differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (DRO) schedule with trials and delayed reinforcement was investigated. Periodically a wheel was briefly available to rats, followed six seconds later by brief availability of a bar. Variable-ratio food reinforcement of wheel turns was adjusted to give 95% turns. After variable-ratio-five reinforcement of bar presses produced 100% pressing, then separate ratio schedules were used for presses following turns (turn presses) and presses following nonturns (nonturn presses). Increasing nonturn-press reinforcements decreased turns, even though total reinforcements increased. Reversal by decreasing nonturn-press reinforcements raised turns, though with hysteresis. Thus food reinforcement increased nonturns even though delayed six to ten seconds after nonturns, a delay that greatly reduces response reinforcement. Those and other results indicate that the turn decrease was not due to reinforcement of competing responses. Evidence against other alternatives, and the reduction of responding by increased reinforcement, indicate that the term inhibition is appropriate for the phenomenon reinforced. Response-specific inhibition appears appropriate for this particular kind, since its effects are more specific to particular responses than Pavlovian conditioned-inhibition. Response-specific inhibition seems best considered a behavioral output comparable to responses (e.g., both reinforcible) but with important properties different from responses (e.g., different reinforcement-delay gradients).     

Bias and sensitivity to reinforcement in a concurrent-chain schedule

Six pigeons were trained on concurrent-chain schedules in which the initial links were either dependent (Experiment 1) or independent (Experiment 2) concurrent variable-interval schedules and the terminal links were fixed-duration delays to reinforcement in blackout. A changeover delay of three seconds operated in the initial links. Both the initial- and terminal-link schedule values were varied over 61 experimental conditions. An analysis of the data using the generalized matching law showed that the sensitivity of initial-link response allocation to the frequency of terminal-link production was independent of both the duration of the terminal-link delays and, though less clearly, of the duration of the initial-link schedules. Sensitivity of initial-link response allocation to terminal-link reinforcer-rate ratios was a joint function of the terminal-link durations and the smaller average initial-link duration. The results showed that the generalized matching law is useful in analyzing concurrent-chain schedule performance and that a changeover delay in the initial links eliminates some terminal- to initial-link interactions that have made quantitative predictions for concurrent-chain performances difficult.     

Preference for signaled versus unsignaled reinforcement delay in concurrent-chain schedules

A concurrent-chain schedule was employed to examine pigeons' preferences for signaled versus unsignaled delay of reinforcement in which the delay durations ranged from zero to ten seconds. In general, pigeons preferred signaled delay over unsignaled delay especially when a variable-interval 30-second schedule operated in each initial link; when a variable-interval 90-second schedule operated in each initial link, these preferences tended toward indifference or were attenuated. In addition, prior training seemed to exert partial control over behavior. Responding in the terminal link was higher under signaled delay than unsignaled delay in a majority of the cases. Moreover, response rates under signaled delay remained fairly constant whereas responding under unsignaled delay was initially high, but decreased systematically with delay durations as short as 2.5 seconds. These results are consistent with a number of other studies demonstrating the significant role of a signal for impending positive stimuli.     

Choice and the dependability of stimuli that predict shock and safety

This study assessed whether choosing a signalled shock condition over an unsignalled one is controlled by a stimulus that predicts the presence of shock (Experiment I), or by a stimulus that predicts the absence of shock (Experiment II). The dependability of these stimuli as predictors of either the presence or the absence of shock was parametrically varied over a wide range, and subjects (rats) were given an option to change from an unsignalled to a signalled condition. In the first experiment, all shocks were preceded by signals; however, the probability of a signal being followed by shock varied from 1.0 to 0.02. The data obtained indicate that the dependability of the signal as a predictor of shock is unimportant. Rats changed to the signalled condition when the signal was completely dependable (all signals followed by shock) and when the dependability of the signal was systematically degraded. In the second experiment, all signals were followed by shock; however, some shocks were not preceded by a signal. The data show that the dependability of a stimulus predicting the absence of shock is important in that, as dependability decreases, changing to the signalled condition also decreases.     

The effects of unsignalled delayed reinforcement

Pigeons' pecks were reinforced according to a variable-interval schedule. A delay-of-reinforcement procedure was then added to the schedule, or a yoked-control procedure was arranged where the reinforcers occurred independently of responding according to the same variable-interval schedule. During the delay-of-reinforcement procedure, the first peck after a reinforcer was scheduled began a delay timer and the reinforcer was delivered at the end of the interval. No stimulus change signalled the delay interval and responses could occur during it, so that the obtained delays were often shorter than those scheduled. Responding under this procedure was highly variable but, in general, behavior was substantially reduced even with the shortest delay used, 3 sec. In addition, the rates maintained by delayed reinforcement were only slightly greater than those maintained by the yoked-control procedure, suggesting that adventitious pairings of response and reinforcer were responsible for some of the maintenance of behavior that did occur. The results challenge recent conceptions of reinforcement as involving response-reinforcer correlations and re-emphasize the role of temporal proximity between response and reinforcer.     

Conditional discrimination performance by pigeons on a response-independent procedure

Pigeons were trained on a differential autoshaping procedure in which both components of two-stimulus sequences predicted delivery or nondelivery of food. All birds acquired the conditional discrimination. When the subjects were exposed to an extinction procedure, the stimuli maintained conditional control as long as the birds continued to peck the key. When a delay interval was imposed between the two components of a stimulus sequence using a titration procedure, the stimuli maintained conditional control up to delay values of 7 to 10 sec. These data are consistent with the view that the controlling stimuli in conditional discrimination situations are compounds of stimulus elements.     

Matching under concurrent fixed-ratio variable-interval schedules of food presentation

Four pigeons were exposed to concurrent fixed-ratio, variable-interval schedules of food presentation. The fixed-ratio requirement was either 25, 50, 75, or 100 responses, with the variable-interval schedule parameter held constant at 4 minutes. A delay time was imposed between a changeover from one schedule to the other and subsequent food availability. The delay time was varied at each ratio requirement over four values; no delay, 0-second delay, 1.5-second delay, and 5.0-second delay. As the fixed-ratio requirement or the delay time increased, a greater proportion of the total responses and time spent responding occurred under the variable-interval schedule relative to the proportion of food deliveries under that schedule. Neither relative overall response rate nor relative time spent responding equalled the relative frequency of food presentation, as would be predicted by a linear “matching” model. Rather, these data were described by power functions with slopes of approximately 1.0 and intercepts greater than 1.0. In the terms of Baum's (1974) analysis, these deviations from linear matching represent bias in favor of responding under the interval schedule. Bias, as reflected in the intercept of the power function, was greater for the ratio of time than the ratio of responses.     

Self-control in male and female rats

Eight male and 8 female Wistar rats were exposed to a discrete-trial procedure in which they chose between the presentation of a small (one pellet) or a large (three pellets) reinforcer. The delay to the small and large reinforcer was 6.0 s in the first condition of Experiment 1. Subjects consistently chose the large reinforcer. When the delay to the small reinforcer was decreased to 0.1 s in the next experimental condition, all subjects continued to choose the large 6.0-s delayed reinforcer. When the contingencies correlated with the two levers were reversed in the next experimental condition, the majority of subjects (5 males and 6 females) still chose the large delayed reinforcer over the small immediately presented reinforcer. The delay to the small reinforcer was maintained at 6.0 s, but the delay to the large reinforcer was varied among 9.0, 15.0, 24.0, and 36.0 s in Experiment 2, in which 4 males and 4 females participated. Most subjects consistently chose the large increasingly delayed reinforcer, although choice for the small 6.0-s delayed reinforcer developed in some females when the large reinforcer was delayed for 24.0 or 36.0 s. These choice patterns were not predicted from a literal application of a model that says choice should favor the alternative correlated with the higher (amount/delay) ratio.