Contrast, induction, facilitation, suppression, and conservation

Ten rats received all of their water in daily 1-hr sessions. Following a baseline phase in which lever and water spout were freely available throughout each session, subjects were trained to press the lever for water on mixed schedules composed of two alternating components. Each component gave access to water for a fixed cumulation of drinking time every time the rat cumulated a fixed amount of lever-pressing time. Changes in one component produced contrast and induction effects, both positive and negative, with respect to both lever pressing and drinking in the unchanged component. All schedules facilitated lever pressing relative to baseline. All schedules suppressed drinking relative to baseline, even though contingency sessions allowed ample time to perform the baseline amount of drinking. The entire pattern of results was predicted in quantitative detail by assuming that the total amount of a dimension apportioned to lever pressing and drinking is conserved between baseline and contingency sessions. Conservation theory was shown to predict several effects produced by simple fixed-ratio schedules, and was compared favorably with probability-differential (Premack, 1971) and response-deprivation (Timberlake and Allison, 1974) theory.     

Local contrast and Pavlovian induction

Two experiments examined the effects of number and similarity of stimuli on local contrast. In the first experiment, local contrast effects differed in magnitude as a function of the similarity among stimuli; greater positive local contrast appeared when stimuli were less similar, though this effect sometimes reversed for very dissimilar stimuli. In the second experiment, both positive and negative local contrast appeared transiently during the course of training a discrimination including two quite dissimilar stimuli. When two new stimuli were added, both effects reappeared in several cases. The effects remained when the discrimination was rendered more difficult by substituting a new stimulus very similar to one of the original pair. These and other data suggest that local contrast depends on the same factors that produce Pavlovian induction; in the absence of an alternative account, Pavlov's interpretation may be useful in suggesting further research that will help identify the mechanisms involved in both classical and operant discrimination learning.     

The conditioned reinforcement of repeated acquisition

Three monkeys were trained to emit a chain of three responses on three separate levers in a set of six levers to obtain food. The chain producing food (correct chain) was changed each day. During a trial, a press on any lever produced a feedback stimulus; a press on a correct lever produced an additional distinctive stimulus; the third correct press produced a food pellet. Test sessions in which either the food or the distinctive stimuli were removed were interspersed with baseline sessions. In tests without food presentations, the subjects acquired the correct chain rapidly, with a level of accuracy comparable to baseline. Removing the distintive stimuli for either the first or second member of the correct chain greatly retarded acquisition of that member of the chain. Removing all distinctive stimuli often reduced accuracy throughout the chain to chance level, even though food was presented following each correct chain. These results were interpreted as evidence that the distinctive stimuli presented after correct responses functioned as conditioned reinforcers. Reductions in accuracy following an omitted distinctive stimulus indicated that they were also discriminative stimuli for correct responding in their presence.     

The effect of reinforcement differences on choice and response distribution during stimulus compounding

In Experiments I and II, rats were trained to respond on one lever during light and another during tone. The absence of tone and light controlled response cessation. In the multiple schedule of Experiment I, all reinforcements were received for responding in tone or light; in the chain schedule of Experiment II, all reinforcements were received in no tone + no light for not responding. Experiment I subjects, for which tone and light were associated with response and reinforcement increase, responded significantly more to tone-plus-light than to tone or light alone (additive summation). Experiment II subjects, for which tone and light were associated with response increase and reinforcement decrease, responded comparably to tone, light, and tone + light. Thus, additive summation was observed when stimulus-response and stimulus-reinforcer associations in tone and light were both positive, but not when they were conflicting. All subjects in both experiments responded predominantly on the light-correlated lever during tone + light, even when light intensity was reduced in testing. Furthermore, when a light was presented to a subject engaged in tone-associated responding, all subjects immediately switched the locus of responding to the light-correlated lever. No change in locus occurred when a tone was presented to a subject engaged in light-associated responding, irrespective of the stimulus-reinforcer association conditioned to tone. The light-lever preference in tone + light indicates that the heightened responding observed in Experiment I was not the summation of tone-associated behavior with light-associated behavior. Rather, it appears to be the result of a facilitation of one operant (light-associated responding) by the reinforcement-associated cue for the other.     

Schedules of food postponement: II. Maintenance of behavior by food postponement and effects of the schedule parameter

In Experiment I, food-deprived, feeder-trained squirrel monkeys pressed a lever to postpone brief electric shocks (Response-Shock=Shock-Shock interval=30 seconds). Forty-one three-hour sessions of shock postponement were followed by 120 sessions of concurrent shock and food postponement. The shock schedule was unchanged and the food schedule was Response-food interval–20 seconds, Food-food interval 10 seconds. After concurrent shock and food postponement, the shock schedule was discontinued and 40 sessions of food postponement ensued, followed by 53 sessions of extinction. After extinction, food postponement was resumed for 11 sessions. Stable responding with low food rates was maintained under food-postponement after the concurrent schedule. Responding decreased to low levels under extinction and recovered immediately to previous levels when the food-postponement schedule was re-instated. In Experiment II, a parameter of the food-postponement schedule was studied sequentially. Using the same subjects, the Response-food–Food-food interval was manipulated from four seconds to 80 seconds with several orders of presentation. Relations of response rates and food rates to the parameter were similar to those seen under shock postponement. Exposure to very short postponement times (four seconds), resulting in very high food rates, decreased but did not abolish subsequent responding at longer postponement times. Results are discussed from the point of view that reinforcing functions of stimuli consequent on responding depend on a prior history of scheduled contact with those stimuli.     

Time limits for completing fixed ratios. IV. Components of the ratio

Pigeons received food after completing a fixed ratio if the temporal properties of responding exceeded minimum duration requirements. In one set of conditions, a minimum time had to elapse before the first response of the ratio (the initial pause). In another set, the minimum duration was the time between the first and last response of the ratio. Obtained times increased as a power function of required times in both conditions. The power function resembled that occurring in experiments involving temporal differentiation of individual responses, interresponse times, latencies, and entire fixed-ratio sequences. Moreover, in all of these experiments individual performances could be described as a function of the base duration (the duration occurring in the absence of temporal requirements) and the specific time requirement. Control conditions indicated that the effects resulted from temporal requirements and not from reinforcer intermittency.     

Signaled reinforcement effects on fixed-interval performance of rats with lever depressing or releasing as a target response

The effect of a diffuse auditory signal filling a brief delay between a response and reinforcement depends upon the nature of the trained target response. Rats in a signaled condition responded slower than rats in an unsignaled condition if the target response was lever release. If the target response was lever depression, however, rats in the signaled condition responded faster than rats in the unsignaled condition at the end of training     

Effects Of Fixed-interval Schedule And Reinforcer Duration On Responding Reinforced By The Opportunity To Run

Two experiments investigated the effects of schedule value and reinforcer duration on responding for the opportunity to run on fixed-interval (FI) schedules in rats. In the first experiment, 8 male Wistar rats were exposed to FI 15-s, 30-s, and 60-s schedules of wheel-running reinforcement. The operant was lever pressing, and the consequence was the opportunity to run for 60 s. In the second experiment, 8 male Long-Evans rats were exposed to reinforcer durations of 15 s, 30 s, and 90 s. The schedule of reinforcement was an FI 60-s schedule. Results showed that postreinforcement pause and wheel-running rates varied systematically with reinforcer duration but not schedule value. Local lever-pressing rates decreased with reinforcer duration. Overall lever-pressing rates decreased with reinforcer duration but increased with schedule value. Although the reinforcer-duration effect is consistent with previous research, the lack a schedule effect appears to be the result of long post-reinforcement pauses following wheel-running reinforcement that render the manipulation of the interval requirement ineffective.     

Effects of variable-interval value and amount of training on stimulus generalization.

In Experiment 1 pigeons pecked a key that was illuminated with a 501-nm light and obtained food by doing so according to a variable-interval (VI) schedule of reinforcement, the mean value of which differed across groups: either 30 s, 120 s, or 240 s. The pigeons in all three groups were trained for 10 50-min sessions. Generalization testing was conducted in extinction with different wavelengths of light. Absolute and relative generalization gradients were similar in shape for the three groups. Experiment 2 was a systematic replication of Experiment 1 using line orientation as the stimulus dimension and a mean VI value of either 30 s or 240 s. Again, gradients of generalization were similar for the two groups. In Experiment 3 pigeons pecked a key that was illuminated with a 501-nm light and obtained food reinforcers according to either a VI 30-s or a 240-s schedule. Training continued until response rates stabilized (> 30 sessions). For subjects trained with the 30-s schedule, generalization gradients were virtually identical regardless of whether training was for 10 sessions (Experiment 1) or until response rates stabilized. For subjects trained with the VI 240-s schedule, absolute generalization gradients for subjects trained to stability were displaced upward relative to gradients for subjects trained for only 10 sessions (Experiment 1), and relative generalization gradients were slightly flatter. These results indicate that the shape of a generalization gradient does not necessarily depend on the rate of reinforcement during 10-session single-stimulus training but that the effects of prolonged training on stimulus generalization may be schedule dependent.