Concurrent fixed-interval variable-ratio schedules and the matching relation

Five rats responded under concurrent fixed-interval variable-ratio schedules of food reinforcement. Fixed-interval values ranged from 50-seconds to 300-seconds and variable-ratio values ranged from 30 to 360; a five-second changeover delay was in effect throughout the experiment. The relations between reinforcement ratios obtained from the two schedules and the ratios of responses and time spent on the schedules were described by Baum's (1974) generalized matching equation. All subjects undermatched both response and time ratios to reinforcement ratios, and all subjects displayed systematic bias in favor of the variable-ratio schedules. Response ratios undermatched reinforcement ratios less than did time ratios, but response ratios produced greater bias than did time ratios for every subject and for the group as a whole. Local rates of responding were generally higher on the variable-ratio than on the fixed-interval schedules. When responding was maintained by both schedules, a period of no responding on either schedule immediately after fixed-interval reinforcement typically was followed by high-rate responding on the variable-ratio schedule. At short fixed-interval values, when a changeover to the fixed-interval schedule was made, responding usually continued until fixed-interval reinforcement was obtained; at longer values, a changeover back to the variable-ratio schedule usually occurred when fixed-interval reinforcement was not forthcoming within a few seconds, and responding then alternated between the two schedules every few seconds until fixed-interval reinforcement finally was obtained.     

Dynamic equilibrium on a cyclic-interval schedule with a ramp

Five human subjects pressed a panel for money on a cyclic-interval schedule that arranged recurring periods of linearly increasing reinforcement rates (ramps). Response rate versus time functions for all subjects showed recurring periods of linearly increasing response rates. The responding of four of the five subjects was in phase with the reinforcement input. The remaining subject showed a two-minute phase shift. These results suggest that organisms may act like simple amplifiers on cyclic-interval schedules, that is, the form of the input signal is not changed by the organism, but is returned with amplification. By analogy with the variable-interval case, the controlling variable on cyclic-interval schedules with rate ramps may be the constant reinforcement acceleration that is arranged by the schedule.     

Stimulus control of respondent and operant key pecking: A single key procedure

Pigeons' responses to a uniformly illuminated response key were either reinforced on a variable-interval one-minute schedule of reinforcement or extinguished for one-minute periods. When 1.5 second signals were presented at the beginning of each component, so as to differentially predict reinforcement, the pigeons pecked at the signals, at rates higher than rates during the remainder of the component. When the brief signals were not differentially predictive of reinforcement, pecking in their presence decreased to near zero levels. Similar results were obtained with signals based upon colors and upon line orientations. Changes in rates of (unreinforced) pecking occurred during the signal whether pigeons responded differentially during the remainder of the component or not. Experiment II demonstrated that the presence of the signal correlated with extinction was not necessary for pecking to develop at the signal which preceded the component in which responding was intermittently reinforced. The experiments demonstrated a clear dissociation of respondent control from operant control of a response. In addition, operant behavior was shown to be relatively insensitive to differing rates of reinforcement, as compared to the sensitivity of respondent behavior to differing rates of reinforcement produced by the very same operant behavior.     

A stochastic model for test-retest correlations

A simple stochastic model is formulated in order to determine the optimal time between the first test and the second test when the test-retest method of assessing reliability is used. A forgetting process and a change in true score process are postulated. The optimal time between tests is derived by maximizing the probability that the respondent has not remembered the response on the first test and has not had a change in true score. The resulting test-retest correlation is then found to be a linear function of the true reliability of the test, where the slope of this function is the key probability of not remembering and having no change in true score. Some numerical examples and suggestions for using the results in empirical studies are given. Specific recommendations are presented for improved design and analysis of intentions data.This research was made possible by a grant from the Center for Food Policy Research, Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, New York, New York, 10027.     

Timing the second response in two-response avoidance.

Rats were trained on a free-operant avoidance task requiring two lever presses within R seconds, with the opportunity for each response distinguished by differing stimuli. Response latencies at a variety of response-shock intervals were found to be proportional to the time available for the response. These results are shown to be consonant with a scalar expectancy model of timing behavior.     

Preference for mixed versus constant delays of reinforcement: Effect of probability of the short, mixed delay

Preference for mixed versus constant delays of reinforcement was studied with a concurrent-chain procedure. Lever pressing by rats in concurrently available variable-interval 60-second initial links occasionally produced mutually exclusive terminal-link reinforcement delays. A constant delay of reinforcement (either 15 seconds or 30 seconds) composed one terminal link and mixed delays (.2 second and twice the value of the constant delay) were arranged in the other terminal link. The proportion of .2-second delays in the mixed-delay terminal link took on values of 0, .1, .25, .5, .75, .9, and 1.0 over experimental conditions. Based on relative rates of responding in the initial links, preference for the mixed delays was a negatively accelerated function of the proportion of short, mixed delays. Three of five rats preferred the mixed delays to the constant delays when the proportion of short, mixed delays was .1 or higher, and all five rats preferred the mixed delays when the proportion of short, mixed delays was .25 or higher. Neither Squires and Fantino's (1971) delay-reduction model of choice nor a model based on the harmonic mean reinforcement delay provided a close estimate of choice proportions over the range of short-delay proportions studied. The delay-reduction model underestimated choice for the mixed delays at low and intermediate proportions of short delays, and the harmonic-mean-delay model overestimated choice for the mixed delays at intermediate and high proportions of short delays.     

Response rate, latency, and resistance to change

Pigeons were trained on a multiple variable-interval/variable-interval schedule with pacing contingencies that generated high response rates in one component and low response rates in the other. Timeout periods separated the schedule components. During resistance-to-change tests, response-independent food was presented during the timeout periods, and the duration of that food presentation was varied among test sessions. Response rates in the schedule components decreased and latencies to the first response increased as a function of the duration of food presentations during the timeout. Both dependent measures changed about the same amount relative to their own baseline levels. The conclusions are that baseline response rates controlled by pacing contingencies are equally resistant to change, given equal reinforcement densities, and latency is a sensitive measure of resistance to change.     

Hill-climbing by pigeons

Pigeons were exposed to two types of concurrent operant-reinforcement schedules in order to determine what choice rules determine behavior on these schedules. In the first set of experiments, concurrent variable-interval, variable-interval schedules, key-peck responses to either of two alternative schedules produced food reinforcement after a random time interval. The frequency of food-reinforcement availability for the two schedules was varied over different ranges for different birds. In the second series of experiments, concurrent variable-ratio, variable-interval schedules, key-peck responses to one schedule produced food reinforcement after a random time interval, whereas food reinforcement occurred for an alternative schedule only after a random number of responses. Results from both experiments showed that pigeons consistently follow a behavioral strategy in which the alternative schedule chosen at any time is the one which offers the highest momentary reinforcement probability (momentary maximizing). The quality of momentary maximizing was somewhat higher and more consistent when both alternative reinforcement schedules were time-based than when one schedule was time-based and the alternative response-count based. Previous attempts to provide evidence for the existence of momentary maximizing were shown to be based upon faulty assumptions about the behavior implied by momentary maximizing and resultant inappropriate measures of behavior.     

Concurrent schedules: Spatial separation of response alternatives

Four pigeons were exposed to independent concurrent variable-interval 20-second variable-interval 60-second schedules of reinforcement. A transparent partition was inserted midway between the two response keys. The length of the partition was systematically manipulated. Increasing partition length produced a decrease in changeover rate in Experiment 1. Over-matching was observed with a partition length of 20 centimeters. In Experiment 2 a four-second limited hold was added to the schedules. Increasing partition length produced a decrease in changeover rate that exceeded the decrease observed in Experiment 1. This manipulation produced nearly exclusive choice of the variable-interval 20-second component. The present results, together with results obtained in related research, suggest that deviation from matching is a function of procedural variables that determine the consequences of a changeover response.     

A simple BASIC program to generate values for variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

A BASIC program to generate values for variable-interval (VI) schedules of reinforcement is presented. A VI schedule should provide access to reinforcement with a constant probability over a time horizon. If the values in a VI schedule are calculated from an arithmetic progression, the probability of reinforcement is positively correlated with the time since the last reinforcer was delivered. Fleshler and Hoffman (1962) developed an iterative equation to calculate VI schedule values so that the probability of reinforcement remains constant. This easy-to-use program generates VI schedule values according to the Fleshler and Hoffman equation, randomizes the values, and saves the values in ASCII to a disk file.