Changeover behavior and preference in concurrent schedules

Pigeons were trained on a multiple schedule of reinforcement in which separate concurrent schedules occurred in each of two components. Key pecking was reinforced with milo. During one component, a variable-interval 40-s schedule was concurrent with a variable-interval 20-s schedule; during the other component, a variable-interval 40-s schedule was concurrent with a variable-interval 80-s schedule. During probe tests, the stimuli correlated with the two variable-interval 40-s schedules were presented simultaneously to assess preference, measured by the relative response rates to the two stimuli. In Experiment 1, the concurrently available variable-interval 20-s schedule operated normally; that is, reinforcer availability was not signaled. Following this baseline training, relative response rate during the probes favored the variable-interval 40-s alternative that had been paired with the lower valued schedule (i.e., with the variable-interval 80-s schedule). In Experiment 2, a signal for reinforcer availability was added to the high-value alternative (i.e., to the variable-interval 20-s schedule), thus reducing the rate of key pecking maintained by that schedule but leaving the reinforcement rate unchanged. Following that baseline training, relative response rates during probes favored the variable-interval 40-s alternative that had been paired with the higher valued schedule. The reversal in the pattern of preference implies that the pattern of changeover behavior established during training, and not reinforcement rate, determined the preference patterns obtained on the probe tests.     

Beyond the relational principle of reinforcement

Behavior under baseline conditions in which the contingency is absent can shed some light on the individual's performance under a schedule, but is insufficient as a basis for prediction of performance. This insufficiency of the baseline data runs counter to a recent formalization of the relational principle of reinforcement (Donahoe, 1977). A more satisfactory predictive model must incorporate not only the baseline level of the instrumental response and that of the contingent response, but also the schedule requirements, the character of each response in relation to the other, and the behavior required in simply switching from each to the other.     

On the discriminability of stimulus duration.

The performance of pigeons trained to detect differences in the duration of stimuli was analysed using a matching model of signal detection. Two white stimuli, S1 and S2, differing in duration, were arranged with equal probability on the center key of a three-key chamber. S1 was systematically varied from 5 seconds to 25 seconds while S2 remained constant at 30 seconds. On completion of the center-key stimulus, a peck on the center key turned on the two red side keys. A left-key response was "correct" when S1 had been in effect on the center key and a right-key response was "correct" on S2 trials. A correct response produced a 3-second magazine light accompanied intermittently by food. Incorrect responses produced 3-second blackouts. Detection performance was measured under two procedures. In the first, the obtained reinforcement ratio was uncontrolled by allowing the number of food reinforcements obtained for correct left- and right-key responses to vary as the stimuli were changed. In the second procedure, the presentation of food reinforcement was controlled by holding the obtained reinforcement ratio constant. Discriminability changed as a function of stimulus differences under both procedures. No such trend was found in response bias.     

Choice and reinforcement delay

Previous studies of choice between two delayed reinforcers have indicated that the relative immediacy of the reinforcer is a major determinant of the relative frequency of responding. Parallel studies of choice between two interresponse times have found exceptions to this generality. The present study looked at the choice by pigeons between two delays, one of which was always four times longer than the other, but whose absolute durations were varied across conditions. The results indicated that choice is not uniquely determined by the relative immediacy of reinforcement, but that absolute delays are also involved. Models for concurrent chained schedules appear to be more applicable to the present data than the matching relation; however, these too failed to predict choice for long delays.     

Context dependent changes in the reinforcing strength of schedule-induced drinking.

Previous experiments show that the opportunity to engage in schedule-induced responding is reinforcing. In this experiment, the reinforcing strength of schedule-induced drinking was measured. Four rats were trained on a concurrent-chain schedule. The two terminal links provided food pellets on identical fixed-time schedules. In addition, one terminal link also provided the opportunity to press a button that operated a water dipper. In this link, the rats showed polydipsic drinking. Button-pressing rate for polydipsic drinking was a bitonic function of pellet rate, and it was possible to describe the relationship with a slightly modified version of the matching equation for primary reinforcement. This equation also closely fit the data from other studies. Initial-link response rates, however, did not appear to be influenced by the availability of water in the terminal links. Control conditions suggested that the reinforcing strength of polydipsia was strongly bound to the context provided by periodic food reinforcement.     

The following schedule of reinforcement as a fundamental determinant of steady state contrast in multiple schedules

Two experiments investigated whether steady-state interactions in multiple schedules depend exclusively on the following schedule of reinforcement. Experiment 1 used a four-component multiple schedule in which two components were associated with the same constant schedule of reinforcement, and where rate of reinforcement was varied in the component that followed one of these. Contrast effects were reliable only in the component that preceded the point of reinforcement variation, although some contrast did occur otherwise. In those instances where contrast other than the following-schedule effect did occur, it was accounted for by the effect of the preceding schedule, an effect for which there were consistent individual differences among subjects, and which varied with component duration. Experiment 2 used a three-component schedule, in which reinforcement rate was varied in the middle component. The results were consistent with Experiment 1, as the following-schedule effect was the only consistent effect that occurred, although an effect of the preceding schedule did occur for some subjects under some conditions, and was especially evident early in training. The conclusion from both experiments is that there is no general effect of relative rate of reinforcement apart from the sum of the effects of the preceding and following schedules, and that the following-schedule effect is the fundamental cause of steady-state interactions.     

How to maximize reward rate on two variable-interval paradigms

Without assuming any constraints on behavior, we derive the policy that maximizes overall reward rate on two variable-interval paradigms. The first paradigm is concurrent variable time-variable time with changeover delay. It is shown that for nearly all parameter values, a switch to the schedule with the longer interval should be followed immediately by a switch back to the schedule with the shorter interval. The matching law does not hold at the optimum and does not uniquely specify the obtained reward rate. The second paradigm is discrete trial concurrent variable interval-variable interval. For given schedule parameters, the optimal policy involves a cycle of a fixed number of choices of the schedule with the shorter interval followed by one choice of the schedule with the longer interval. Molecular maximization sometimes results in optimal behavior.     

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.     

Effect of delay-interval stimuli on delayed symbolic matching to sample in the pigeon

In Experiment 1, food-deprived pigeons received delayed symbolic matching to sample training in a darkened Skinner box. Trials began with the illumination of the grain feeder lamp (no food sample), or illumination of this lamp, accompanied by the raising of the feeder tray (food sample). After a delay of a few seconds, the two side response keys were illuminated, one with red and one with green light, with positions counterbalanced over trials. Pecking the red (green) comparison produced grain reinforcement if the trial had started with food (no food); pecking red after a no-food sample or green after a food sample was not reinforced. Once matching performance was stable, four stimuli were presented during the delay interval, and their effects on matching accuracy were evaluated. Both illumination of the houselight and the center key with white geometric forms decreased matching accuracy, whereas presentation of a tone and vibration of the test chamber did not. In Experiment 2, pecking the red center key was reinforced with food according to a variable interval schedule. The effects of occasional brief presentations of the four stimuli used in the first experiment on ongoing pecking were assessed. The houselight and form disturbed key pecking, but the tone and vibration did not. Thus, stimuli that interfered with delayed matching also interfered with simple operant behavior. Implications of these results for theories of remembering are discussed.