Interlocking schedules: the relationship between response and time requirements.

Rats were exposed to an interlocking fixed-ratio 150 fixed-interval 5-minute schedule of food reinforcement and then to yoked variable-ratio schedules in which individual ratios corresponded exactly to the ratios of responses to reinforcement obtained on the interlocking schedule. After additional training with the interlocking schedule, the rats were exposed to yoked variable-interval schedules in which intervals corresponded to the intervals between successive reinforcements obtained on the second interlocking schedule. Response rates were highest in the yoked VR condition and lowest in the yoked VI, while intermediate rates characterized the interlocking schedule. Break-run patterns of responding were generated by the interlocking schedule for all subjects, while both the yoked VR and VI schedules produced comparatively stable local rates of responding. These results indicate that responding is sensitive to the interlocking schedule's inverse relationship between reinforcement frequency and responses per reinforcement.     

Response and time allocation in concurrent second-order schedules

Six pigeons were trained on two-key concurrent variable-interval schedules in which the required response was the completion of a fixed number of key pecks. When the required number of pecks was equal on the two keys, response- and time-allocation ratios under-matched obtained reinforcement rate ratios. A similar result was found when the required number of pecks was unequal, except that performance, measured in response terms, was biased to the shorter required number of pecks and was less sensitive to reinforcement-rate changes. No such differences were found in the data on time spent responding. When the variable-interval schedules were kept constant and the required numbers of pecks were systematically varied, response ratios changed inversely with the ratio of the required number of pecks, but time-allocation ratios varied directly with the same independent variable. Thus, on response measures, pigeons “prefer” the schedule with the smaller peck requirement, but on time measures they “prefer” the schedule with the larger peck requirement. This finding is inconsistent with a commonsense notion of choice, which sees response and time-allocation measures as equivalent.     

RESEARCH ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENERALIZATION AND MAINTENANCE IN EXTRA-THERAPY RESPONDING1

Many authors have reported that the development of programs for producing durable extra-therapy responding lags behind the development of programs for producing initial behavior change. In Experiment I, responding was recorded continuously in both the therapy and extra-therapy settings. The results showed that one child did not generalize to the extra-therapy setting, but that other children did. However, for the children who generalized, extra-therapy responding was not maintained. Therefore, in Experiment II two variables affecting the durability of extra-therapy responding were assessed and found to be influential: (a) the use of partial reinforcement schedules in the original treatment environment; and (b) the presence of noncontingent reinforcers in the extra-therapy environment. The results suggest that there are two distinct parameters of extra-therapy responding: generalization and maintenance. A technology for producing durable extra-therapy responding is discussed in terms of different treatment procedures required for different deficits in extra-therapy responding.     

On the effects of component durations and component reinforcement rates in multiple schedules

Four experiments, each using the same six pigeons, investigated the effects of varying component durations and component reinforcement rates in multiple variable-interval schedules. Experiment 1 used unequal component durations in which one component was five times the duration of the other, and the shorter component was varied over conditions from 120 seconds to 5 seconds. The schedules were varied over five values for each pair of component durations. Sensitivity to reinforcement rate changes was the same at all component durations. In Experiment 2, both component durations were 5 seconds, and the schedules were again varied using both one and two response keys. Sensitivity to reinforcement was not different from the values found in Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, various manipulations, including body-weight changes, reinforcer duration changes, blackouts, hopper lights correlated with keylights, and overall reinforcement rate changes were carried out. No reliable increase in reinforcement sensitivity resulted from any manipulation. Finally, in Experiment 4, reinforcement rates in the two components were kept constant and unequal, and the component durations were varied. Shorter components produced significantly increased response rates normally in the higher reinforcement rate component, but schedule reversals at short component durations eliminated the response rate increases. The effects of component duration on multiple schedule performance cannot be interpreted as changing sensitivity to reinforcement nor to changing bias.     

Preference in concurrent variable-interval fixed-ratio schedules

Five pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval fixed-ratio schedules in three experiments. Experiment 1 used two variable-interval schedules and one fixed-ratio schedule, and the ratio requirement was varied. Using the generalized matching law, sensitivity to reinforcement was close to 1.0, but performance was biased toward the variable-interval schedule with the lower reinforcement rate. In Experiment 2, which used one variable-interval and one fixed-ratio schedule, the interval schedule was varied. All birds showed sensitivities to reinforcement of less than 1.0 and of less than the values obtained in Experiment 1. The performance was also biased toward the fixed-ratio schedule. Because the generalized matching law could not account for the differences in the data from Experiments 1 and 2, an extension of this law was suggested and successfully tested in Experiment 3. The proposed dual-sensitivity model was also shown to clarify some previously reported results.     

Responses and pauses: discrimination and a choice catastrophe.

Pigeons produced a stimulus change either by responding or by not responding for a specified time period (by pausing). They then had to choose between two responses to obtain food. One choice was correct if the first component had been completed by a response; the other was correct if the component had been completed by a pause. The pigeons usually chose correctly, thereby indicating that they used their own prior behavior as a discriminative stimulus. Fixed pause requirements did not produce equal first component completions by a response and by a pause. To obtain equality, the pause requirement was titrated as a function of current performance. Titration resulted in equal completions and also produced accurate discrimination. In addition to showing that pigeons discriminated whether they had responded or paused, the data displayed and discontinuous functions predicted by catastrophe theory. Another procedure used forced choice rather than titration to produce equal completions by pausing and responding and also showed accurate discrimination of behavior.     

Changeover ratio effects on concurrent variable-interval performance

Rats' bar-pressing was maintained by concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. A fixed-ratio of pulls on a chain (the changeover ratio) was required for switching between schedules. The first experiment employed equal variable-interval schedules and symmetrical changeover ratios. Increasing these ratios resulted in a decrease in the rate of switching between schedules and an increase in local response rate. In the second experiment, a range of asymmetrical changeover ratios was used with equal variable-interval schedules, and a preference was found for the schedule associated with the larger switching-into ratio. Both the distributions of responses and time between the two schedules deviated from those expected on the basis of obtained reinforcers. In the third experiment, the switching-out-of ratio was dependent on the amount of time spent in a variable-interval 2-minute schedule; a constant ratio permitted switching out of the alternative variable-interval 1-minute schedule. A strong preference was shown for the variable-interval 2-minute schedule. The fourth experiment used equal variable-interval schedules; one changeover ratio was varied while the second remained constant. The results failed to show systematic differences in local response rates immediately after a changeover.     

The effect of punishment on free-operant choice behavior in humans

During Phase I, three female human subjects pressed a button for monetary reinforcement in five variable-interval schedules specifying different frequencies of reinforcement. On alternate days, responding was also punished (by subtracting money) according to a variable-ratio 34 schedule. In the absence of punishment, response rates conformed to Herrnstein's equation for single variable-interval schedules. Punishment suppressed responding at all frequencies of reinforcement. This was reflected in a change in the values of both constants in Herrnstein's equation: the value of the theoretical maximum response-rate parameter was reduced, and the parameter describing the reinforcement frequency corresponding to the half-maximal response rate was elevated. During Phase II, the same five schedules (A) were in operation (without punishment), but in addition, a concurrent variable-interval schedule (B) of standard reinforcement frequency was introduced. On alternate days, responding in Component B was punished according to a variable-ratio 34 schedule. In the absence of punishment, absolute response rates conformed to equations proposed by Herrnstein to describe performance in concurrent schedules; the ratios of the response rates in the two components and the ratios of the times spent in the two components conformed to the Matching Law. When responding in Component B was punished, response rates in Component B were reduced and those in Component A were elevated, these changes being reflected in distortions of the matching relationship.     

Molar And Molecular Control In Variable-interval And Variable-ratio Schedules

Response rates are typically higher under variable-ratio than under variable-interval schedules of reinforcement, perhaps because of differences in the dependence of reinforcement rate on response rate or because of differences in the reinforcement of long interresponse times. A variable-interval-with-added-linear-feedback schedule is a variable-interval schedule that provides a response rate/reinforcement rate correlation by permitting the minimum interfood interval to decrease with rapid responding. Four rats were exposed to variable-ratio 15, 30, and 60 food reinforcement schedules, variable-interval 15-, 30-, and 60-s food reinforcement schedules, and two versions of variable-interval-with-added-linear-feedback 15-, 30-, and 60-s food reinforcement schedules. Response rates on the variable-interval-with-added-linear-feedback schedule were similar to those on the variable-interval schedule; all three schedules led to lower response rates than those on the variable-ratio schedules, especially when the schedule values were 30. Also, reinforced interresponse times on the variable-interval-with-added-linear-feedback schedule were similar to those on variable interval and much longer than those produced by variable ratio. The results were interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that response rates on variable-interval schedules in rats are lower than those on comparable variable-ratio schedules, primarily because the former schedules reinforce long interresponse times.