The effects of concurrent responding and reinforcement on behavioral output

Four birds key pecked on concurrent variable-interval one-minute variable-interval four-minute schedules with a two-second changeover delay. Response rates to the variable-interval one-minute key were then reduced by signaling its reinforcer availability and later by providing its reinforcers independently of responding. Each manipulation increased response rates to the variable-interval four-minute key even though relative reinforcement rates were unchanged. In a final phase, eliminating the variable-interval one-minute key and its schedule produced the highest rates of all to the variable-interval four-minute key. These results show that both reinforcement and response rates to one schedule influence response rates to another schedule. These results join those of Guilkey, Shull, & Brownstein (1975) in failing to replicate Catania (1963). Moreover, they violate the predictions of the equation for simple action (de Villiers & Herrnstein, 1976). In terms of a median-rate measure (reciprocal of the median interresponse time), rates to the variable-interval four-minute key were high when responding was not reduced to the variable-interval one-minute key and were low when it was reduced. This rate difference suggests a process difference between concurrent-schedule procedures that maintain high concurrent response rates versus those that do not. This process difference jeopardizes attempts to integrate single- and concurrent-operant performances within a single formulation.     

Choice and segmented interreinforcement intervals

Pigeons were trained on a two-key concurrent schedule, where food reinforcers on one key were arranged by a simple variable-interval schedule and on the other key by a chain variable-interval variable-interval schedule. When the initial link of the chain was in effect, the pigeons tended to respond more on the simple variable-interval schedule, and hence less on the chain, than would be expected from a comparison of both the local and overall rates of reinforcement of the two schedules. When the terminal link of the chain was in effect, the pigeons responded more on the chain than would be expected from a comparison of the rates of reinforcement of the schedules then in effect. Overall responding on the chain was not proportional to overall reinforcement on the chain but rather was a by-product of responding during initial- and terminal-link phases.     

Choice, relative reinforcer duration, and the changeover ratio

Relative reinforcer duration was varied in concurrent schedules with a fixed-ratio four changeover requirement. The schedule in effect after each reinforcer was randomly chosen. For all three pigeons, relative response rates overmatched relative reinforcer durations. Time allocation was less extreme and, on the average, matched relative reinforcer duration. In a subsequent manipulation, the level of preference was shown to depend on the size of the changeover requirement. These results are similar to those from related unequal reinforcement-frequency procedures.     

Matching, maximizing, and the behavioral unit: concurrent reinforcement of response sequences.

Pigeons pecked two keys in a probability matching situation in which four two-peck sequences were intermittently reinforced: left-left, left-right, right-left and right-right. In Phase 1, relative reinforcement rate was varied with respect to the first response of a sequence: reinforcers were differentially assigned for left-left and left-right sequences as opposed to right-left and right-right sequences. The second response of reinforced sequences occurred equally on the left and right keys across conditions. In Phase II, relative reinforcement rate was varied for sequences that involve an alternation as opposed to those that did not. The relative outputs of the different sequences matched the relative reinforcement rates for the different sequences in both phases. Relative response rates for key pecks did not always match relative reinforcement rates. The intertrial interval separating responses was varied in both phases; increases in the intertrial interval affected the relative frequency of different sequences. The results demonstrate that response sequences acted as functional units influencing choice and thus support a structural account of choice. At the same time, the matching of relative sequence proportion and relative reinforcement rate supports a matching account.     

Phencyclidine discrimination in the pigeon using color tracking under second-order schedules

Pigeons were trained to track different key colors, depending on whether they had been injected with phencyclidine or saline prior to the session. A second-order schedule was used to generate large numbers of responses prior to the initial food delivery. The procedure offers several advantages over traditional procedures for studying drug discrimination.     

Mirror pecking and timeout under a multiple fixed-ratio schedule of food delivery

Pigeons were trained to peck a key under a multiple fixed-ratio 25 fixed-ratio 175 schedule of food presentation. In the first condition, either a mirror or the opportunity to produce a 30-second timeout were available. In a second condition, mirror and timeout availability were reversed for the two groups. Following a return to the initial condition, mirror and timeout keys were presented together for all birds. Mirror and timeout responses occurred predominantly in the pause in the larger fixed-ratio component, regardless of whether the opportunities for the two responses were available singly or together. Mirror responding occurred in a greater proportion of the pauses than did timeouts. When the opportunities for both mirror pecking and timeout were available concurrently, they occurred with probabilities similar to those under the single conditions. Within the pause itself, mirror responses most frequently occurred immediately after reinforcement. Timeouts occurred most frequently toward the end of the pause, and some timeouts occurred in the early part of the run. Longer preratio pausing occurred in the larger fixed-ratio component in the conditions in which the mirror was present, whether or not any mirror pecks were recorded.     

Alternative reinforcement effects on fixed-interval performance

Pigeons' key pecks were reinforced with food on a fixed-interval schedule. Food also was available at variable time periods either independently of responding or for not key pecking (a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule). The latter condition arranged reinforcement following the first pause of t seconds after it became available according to a variable-time schedule. This schedule allowed separation of the effects of pause requirements ≤ five-seconds and reinforcement frequency. The time spent pausing increased as the duration of the pause required for reinforcement increased from 0 to 30 seconds and as the frequency of reinforcement for pausing increased from 0 to 2 reinforcers per minute. Key pecking was more evenly distributed within each fixed interval with shorter required pauses and with more frequent reinforcement for pausing. The results complement those obtained with other concurrent schedules in which the same operant response was reinforced in both components.     

The role of contingencies and "principles of behavioral variation" in pigeons' pecking

Staddon and Simmelhag's proposal that behavior is produced by “principles of behavioral variation” instead of contingencies of reinforcement was tested in two experiments. In the first experiment pigeons were exposed to either a fixed-interval schedule of response-contingent reinforcement, an autoshaping schedule of stimulus-contingent reinforcement, or a fixed-time schedule of noncontingent reinforcement. Pigeons exposed to contingent reinforcement came to peck more rapidly than those exposed to noncontingent reinforcement. Staddon and Simmelhag's “principles of behavioral variation” included the proposal that patterns (interim and terminal) were a function of momentary probability of reinforcement. In the second experiment pigeons were exposed to either a fixed-time or a random-time schedule of noncontingent reinforcement. Pecking showed a constant frequency of occurrence over postfood time on the random-time schedule. Most behavior showed patterns on the fixed-time schedule that differed in overall shape (i.e., interim versus terminal) from those shown on the random-time schedule. It was concluded that both the momentary probability of reinforcement and postfood time can affect patterning.     

Temporal discrimination and a free-operant psychophysical procedure.

Pigeons were presented a series of keylight time periods (separated by blackouts) during which two response keys were lit, one by blue light and the other either by orange or green. Blue-key responses changed the color on the other key. Orange-key responses sometimes produced food during the first half of a time period; green-key responses sometimes produced food during the second half. In three experiments, the probability of a green-key response increased as a function of elapsed time. Experiment 1 compared performance when the duration of the keylight periods was varied across a wide range. Discrimination of performance was similar across the range of durations. Experiment 2 varied both relative reinforcement rate and the local reinforcement rate for orange-key and green-key responses. These manipulations produced changes in response bias but not discrimination sensitivity. Experiment 3 varied the local temporal placement of reinforcers within time periods and demonstrated that choice behavior was affected by differential reinforcement at different points during the time periods. The results were consistent with previous research on duration discrimination that used psychophysical trials procedures.