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.     

Relative reinforcer magnitude under a nonindependent concurrent schedule of cocaine reinforcement in rhesus monkeys.

Lever pressing by three rhesus monkeys was maintained under a two-lever concurrent schedule of cocaine reinforcement. Responding on one lever (constant-dose lever) produced a constant dose of 0.05 or 0.1 mg/kg/injection arranged according to a variable-interval 1-min schedule. Responding on the other lever (variable-dose lever) produced a comparison dose of cocaine (0.013 to 0.8 mg/kg/injection), also under a variable-interval 1-min schedule. The two variable-interval schedules were made nonindependent by arranging that the assignment of a reinforcer by one schedule inactivated the second schedule until the assigned reinforcer had been obtained. This modification ensured that the two cocaine doses were obtained with approximately equal frequency, regardless of the distribution of the subject's responding. Preference, indicated by relative response frequency on the variable-dose lever, was almost always for the larger of the doses and was a monotonic function of the comparison dose, except at the highest doses. Preferences at the highest comparison doses may have resulted from the low overall response rates exhibited at these doses. Relative response frequencies on the variable-dose lever roughly matched relative reinforcer magnitude (mg/kg/injection available on the variable-dose lever divided by the sum of mg/kg/injections available on each lever).     

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.     

Choice: Some quantitative relations

Six pigeons responded in fifty-six conditions on a concurrent-chains procedure. Conditions included several with equal initial links and unequal terminal links, several with unequal initial links and equal terminal links, and several with both unequal initial and terminal links. Although the delay-reduction hypothesis accounted well for choice when the initial links were equal (mean deviation of .04), it fit the data poorly when the initial links were unequal (mean deviation of .18). A modification of the delay-reduction hypothesis, replacing the rates of reinforcement with the square roots of these rates, fit the data better than either the unmodified delay-reduction equation or Killeen's (1982) model. The modified delay-reduction equation was also consistent with data from prior studies using concurrent chains. The absolute rates of responding in each terminal link were well described by the same hyperbola (Herrnstein, 1970) that describes response rates on simple interval schedules.     

Choice between response units: The rate constancy model

In a conjoint schedule, reinforcement is available simultaneously on two or more schedules for the same response. The present experiments provided food for key pecking on both a random-interval and a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule. Experiment 1 involved ordinary DRL schedules; Experiment 2 added an external stimulus to indicate when the required interresponse time had elapsed. In both experiments, the potential reinforcer frequency from each component was varied by means of a second-order fixed-ratio schedule, and the DRL time parameter was changed as well. Response rates were described by a model stating that time allocation to each component matches the relative frequency of reinforcement for that component. When spending time in a given component, the subject is assumed to respond at the rate characteristic of baseline performance. This model appeared preferable to the absolute-rate version of the matching law. The model was shown to be applicable to multiple-response concurrent schedules as well as to conjoint schedules, and it described some of the necessary conditions for response matching, undermatching, and bias. In addition, the pigeons did not optimize reinforcer frequency.     

Matching and maximizing with concurrent ratio-interval schedules.

Animals exposed to standard concurrent variable-ratio variable-interval schedules could maximize overall reinforcement rate if, in responding, they showed a strong response bias toward the variable-ratio schedule. Tests with the standard schedules have failed to find such a bias and have been widely cited as evidence against maximization as an explanation of animal choice behavior. However, those experiments were confounded in that the value of leisure (behavior other than the instrumental response) partially offsets the value of reinforcement. The present experiment provides another such test using a concurrent procedure in which the confounding effects of leisure were mostly eliminated while the critical aspects of the concurrent variable-ratio variable-interval contingency were maintained: Responding in one component advanced only its ratio schedule while responding in the other component advanced both ratio schedules. The bias toward the latter component predicted by maximization theory was found.     

Choice for aperiodic versus periodic ratio schedules: A comparison of concurrent and concurrent-chain procedures

Choice between mixed-ratio schedules, consisting of equiprobable ratios of 1 and 99 responses per reinforcement, and fixed-ratio schedules of food reinforcement was assessed by two commonly used procedures: concurrent schedules and concurrent-chains schedules. Rats were trained under concurrent fixed-ratio mixed-ratio schedules, in which both ratio schedules were simultaneously available, and under a concurrent-chains schedule, in which access to one of the mutually exclusive ratio schedules comprising the terminal links was contingent on a single “choice” response. The distribution of responses between the two ratio schedules was taken as the choice proportion under the concurrent procedure, and the distribution of “choice” responses was taken as the choice proportion under the concurrent-chains procedure. Seven of eight rats displayed systematic choice; of those, each displayed nearly exclusive choice for fixed-ratio 35 to the mixed-ratio schedule under the concurrent procedure, but each displayed nearly exclusive choice for the mixed-ratio schedule to fixed-ratio 35 under the concurrent-chains procedure. Thus, preference for a fixed or a mixed schedule of reinforcement depended on the procedure used to assess preference.     

Separating the effects of salience and disparity on the rate of observing

Pigeons producing deliveries of grain on a mixed variable-interval, extinction schedule by pecking a center key could also produce discriminative stimuli on concurrent variable-interval schedules by pecking the left or right observing key. The stimuli produced by each observing key were varied independently. In the first experiment, the negative discriminative stimulus was at the far end of the spectrum from the key illumination accompanying the mixed schedule and from the positive discriminative stimulus. When the magnitude of the difference between the latter two stimuli (salience) was varied, more pecks occurred on the observing key producing the larger of the two differences than on the key producing the smaller difference. In the second experiment, the stimulus accompanying the mixed schedule was at the far end of the spectrum, and the magnitude of the difference between the two discriminative stimuli (disparity) was varied. The proportion of pecks occurring on each observing key shifted systematically in the direction of the key producing the larger difference. The salience of the discriminative stimuli and their disparity each has an independent influence on the frequency of observing when the other is controlled, but the effect of the salience appears to be the more substantial.