Successive discrimination training with equated reinforcement frequencies: failure to obtain behavioral contrast

In two experiments, pigeons were trained on two-component multiple schedules in which responding in one component (S₁) was always maintained by a variable-interval schedule. In Experiment I, low response rates were reinforced in the second (S₂) component for six master subjects. This schedule was adjusted to equate reinforcement frequencies in the two components. These subjects were compared to yoked partners, for which reinforcement in the S₂ component was made available on a variable-interval schedule whose value was determined by the master subjects. A similar procedure was used in Experiment II, where the S₂ schedule for master subjects made reinforcers contingent on the absence of responding. No evidence was found in either experiment for a behavioral contrast effect in the S₁ component attributable to response reduction in the S₂ component. A reliable contrast effect was obtained from a group of pigeons given extinction conditions in the S₂ component, which was compared to a group maintained throughout on a multiple variable-interval schedule. The results suggest that previous indications of behavioral contrast in similar situations were probably caused by uneven reinforcement distributions or reflect uncontrolled fluctuations in response rates.     

Signalled reinforcement and multiple schedules

The responses of four pigeons were first reinforced in the presence of two different wave-lengths (green and red) on a two-ply multiple schedule with identical variable-interval 3-min schedules of reinforcement associated with each component. While the constant-component reinforcement schedule remained unchanged during the experiment, the schedule associated with the variable component was changed to (1) signalled variable time, (2) unsignalled variable time, or (3) signalled variable interval. The probability with which the availability of the reinforcer was signalled in the variable-interval schedules was either 0.5 or 1.0. Positive contrast occurred in both signalled variable-interval and variable-time schedules, but only when the availability of all the variable-component reinforcers was signalled. Signalling the availability of only 50% of the reinforcers in signalled variable-interval schedules resulted in negative induction. The present data suggest that positive behavioral contrast resulting from signalled reinforcer availability is due to the presence of an extinction-correlated stimulus.     

Factors influencing responding under multiple schedules of conditioned and unconditioned reinforcement

Two experiments examined pigeons' responses under multiple schedules of conditioned and unconditioned reinforcement. In one component, responses produced food according to a fixed-interval schedule; in a second component, responses produced brief stimuli according to a fixed-ratio schedule. When brief-stimulus presentations were paired with food in the first component, rates in the second component were usually higher than 10 responses per minute. When pairing in the first component was eliminated, responding continued to be maintained in the second component. Elimination of food presentation from the first component substantially decreased responding in the second component, even though the brief stimulus had not been paired with food. Experiment II demonstrated that response rate was affected by the duration of both the second component and the brief stimulus. The results suggest that three conditions are important in maintaining responding with brief-stimulus presentations: (1) pairing the brief stimulus, at least initially, with food, (2) maintaining unconditioned reinforcement in one component, and (3) employing optimal brief-stimulus and component durations.     

Fixed versus variable sequences of food and stimulus presentation in second-order schedules

Three pigeons were exposed to a second-order schedule in which the behavior specified by a fixed-interval component schedule was reinforced according to a ratio overall schedule. The completion of components not followed by food was signalled by a brief stimulus never paired with food. Food and the stimulus occurred in a random sequence or in fixed alternation, but the overall schedules (variable ratio 2 or fixed ratio 2) ensured that an equal number of food and brief-stimulus presentations occurred in each session. The control exerted by the food and by the brief stimulus was measured by overall response rates, mean pauses, frequency distributions of pauses, and response patterning across components. In general, the stimulus controlled patterns of behavior more similar to those controlled by food when food and the stimulus occurred in a random sequence than when they occurred in fixed alternation.     

Conjunctive schedules of response-dependent and response-independent reinforcement

Pigeons received food when they emitted the number of responses specified by a fixed-ratio schedule, and the time specified by a fixed-time schedule had elapsed. The order of meeting the response and time requirements was irrelevant. In different conditions, stimuli signalled completion of one, both, or neither requirement. Ratio size interacted with stimulus condition to determine performance. When a stimulus signalled the end of the fixed-time period, under all ratios the birds tended to respond after the stimulus appeared. When stimuli followed both components, small ratios produced responding during the fixed-time period, and other ratios resulted in responses after the time period had elapsed. With either no stimulus changes, or with a stimulus correlated with completion of the ratio alone, responding first increased and then decreased as the ratio increased. Low and high ratios produced stable response frequencies and patterns in successive intervals. Intermediate ratios resulted in two types of performance. Intervals with long initial pauses and few responses during the fixed-time period were followed by intervals with short pauses and numerous responses and vice versa. The source of these dynamic effects was hypothesized to be number of responses per reinforcer in one condition and response-reinforcer contiguity in the other.     

Response bias and the discrimination of stimulus duration

Pigeons discriminated stimulus duration in a psychophysical choice situation. Following presentation of any duration from a set of short duration (11 to 15 sec), responses on a red key were reinforced intermittently. Following presentation of any duration from a set of long durations (16 to 22 sec), responses on a green key were reinforced intermittently. Relative reinforcement rates were manipulated for choice responses across conditions. As relative reinforcement rates were varied, psychometric functions showed shifts in green-key responses at all durations. A signal-detection analysis showed that sensitivity remained roughly constant across conditions while response bias changed as a function of changes in relative reinforcement rate. Relative error rates tended to match relative reinforcement rates.     

Dynamic effects of food magnitude on interim-terminal interaction

We tested the assumption of a facilitatory relation between periodic food presentation and schedule-induced drinking by examination of (a) elicited drinking, (b) drinking in anticipation of food delivery, and (c) possible indirect effects of food delivery on drinking. We exposed rats to a fixed-time 60-second schedule in which interfood intervals ended in either one or four food pellets with equal probability. In Phases 1 and 3, a stimulus signaled the magnitude of upcoming food presentation. In Phase 2, the stimulus was eliminated. Changes in drinking and “head-in-feeder” distributions within interfood intervals demonstrated that head-in-feeder was controlled directly by food presentation, but drinking was not. Head-in-feeder increased and drinking was reduced when large meals began or ended an interval. In Phases 4 to 6, meal size was manipulated across sessions yielding a positive relation between meal size and schedule-induced drinking. We conclude: (1) Schedule-induced drinking is determined by distributions of food-related behavior and results from indirect effects of food delivery; and (2) the amount of schedule-induced drinking and the form of the drinking distributions in this experiment can be accurately explained by two assumptions: (a) Food presentation facilitates food-related behavior through elicitation and anticipation; and (b) food-related behavior and drinking are reciprocally, linearly related.     

The effects of brief-stimulus presentations in fixed-ratio second-order schedules

Pigeons' responses were reinforced according to a three-component multiple schedule. In Component 1, key pecks produced food according to a fixed-ratio second-order schedule with fixed-ratio units. Here, a fixed number of fixed-ratio units produced food, and the brief stimulus terminating each unit also accompanied food. Responses in Component 2 produced food on an identical schedule except that the brief stimulus was not paired with food. Component 3 contained a simple fixed-ratio schedule whose response requirement equaled that of Components 1 and 2. Across conditions the size of the fixed-ratio unit (five, ten, twenty, forty, and eighty responses) and the total number of responses per reinforcement were parametrically manipulated. The highest response rates and shortest preratio pauses were observed in Component 3 (no brief stimulus). The lowest rates and longest pauses were found in the component with paired brief-stimulus presentations, indicating that the food-paired brief stimulus suppressed responding. The suppressive effects were greatest when the fixed-ratio units were small (e.g., fixed-ratio 5) and the total fixed-ratio requirement was large (e.g., fixed-ratio 160). Under no conditions did the paired brief stimulus facilitate responding. The nonpaired brief stimulus also suppressed responding but to a lesser extent. The suppressive effects of nonpaired brief stimuli were greatest when the fixed-ratio units were small and the total response requirement was large. These data suggest that the suppressive effects of the brief stimuli may have masked the conditioned-reinforcing effects reported in other studies, and that conditions that maximize suppression in second-order schedules involve the use of fixed-ratio schedule units and the presentation of many brief stimuli per reinforcer.     

Effects of fixed-time shocks and brief stimuli on food-maintained behavior of rats

When a fixed-time schedule of shocks was presented to rats lever pressing for food on a random-interval schedule, a pattern of behavior developed with a high rate of pressing after shock declining to near zero before the next shock was delivered. Once this pattern had stabilized, one-quarter of the shocks were replaced with brief auditory stimuli (tones) in a random sequence. Tone maintained behavior similar to shock, although tone was never paired with shock. Both tone and shocks elicited responding when presented at various times as probe stimuli, and responding was usually totally suppressed if neither stimulus occurred at the beginning of the fixed-time interval. When other stimuli were paired with tone and shock, only those paired with tone gained discriminative control and elicited responding. These findings suggest that stimuli that signal a shock-free, or safe, period will maintain the pattern of behavior generated by shock on a fixed-time schedule. There is a parallel between this phenomenon and the control of behavior on second-order schedules of positive reinforcement with nonpaired brief stimuli.     

The role of discriminative stimuli in concurrent performances

Key pecking in pigeons was examined under concurrent and parallel arrangements of two independent and simultaneously available variable-interval schedules. Pecks on the changeover key alternated the schedule of reinforcement for responses on the main key. Under concurrent schedules, discriminative stimuli were paired with the reinforcement schedule arranged in each component and changeover responses also alternated these stimuli. Under parallel schedules, changeover responses alternated the effective reinforcement schedule, but did not change the discriminative stimulus. On concurrent procedures, changeover response rate was inversely related to the difference in reinforcement rate between the two components, whereas on parallel schedules no consistent relationship was found. With both schedules, absolute response and reinforcement rates were positively related, although for a given set of reinforcement frequencies, rates were often higher on the concurrent schedules. On concurrent schedules, relative response rates and relative times were equal to relative reinforcement rates. On parallel schedules these ratios were positively related, but response and time ratios were much smaller than were obtained with comparable concurrent schedules. This inequality was most pronounced when absolute reinforcement frequencies were lowest.