Delayed and current stimulus control in successive discriminations

In a successive discrimination in which successively alternating red and green hues signaled component variable-interval schedules, sensitivity of the ratio of responses in the two components to variation in the component reinforcer ratio decreased systematically during the course of the component. This decrease in stimulus control or discrimination over the course of the component was shown to be the result of delayed control of responding during the component by the stimulus transition between components. When the red–green stimulus transition was altered by interpolating a white stimulus at the end of each 60-s component, discrimination at the beginning of the component (measured by the power-function exponent for sensitivity to reinforcement) was reduced. Conditions with the white stimulus inserted in other quarters of the component indicated that the current discriminative stimulus exerts control over responding throughout the component, whereas during about the first half of the component, response differentials are influenced by the transition between discriminative stimuli.     

Category discrimination by pigeons using five polymorphous features

Eight pigeons were trained to discriminate between sets of color photographs of natural scenes. The scenes differed along five two-valued dimensions (site, weather, camera distance, camera orientation, and camera height), and all combinations of the feature values were used. One value of each dimension was designated as positive, and slides containing three or more positive feature values were members of the positive stimulus set. Thus, each feature had an equal, low, correlation with reinforcement, and all features had zero correlations with each other. Seven of the 8 pigeons learned this discrimination, and their responding came under the control of all five features. Within the positive and negative stimulus sets, response rates were higher to stimuli that contained more positive feature values. Once discrimination had been achieved, reversal training was given using a subset of the slides. In this subset, only a single feature was correlated with reinforcement. All pigeons learned this reversal successfully and generalized it to additional photographs with the same feature content. After reversal, the original reinforcement contingencies were reinstated, and training was continued using all the slides except those that had been used in reversal. Reversal generalized to these slides to some extent. Analysis of the response rates to individual slides showed that, compared with prereversal training, only the feature that had been subjected to reversal contingencies showed a reversed correlation with response rate. The remaining features showed the same correlation with response rate as they had before reversal training. Thus, reversal on some members of a category following category discrimination training led to generalization to stimuli within the category that were not involved in the reversal, but not to features that were not reversed. It is therefore inappropriate to refer to the pigeons as learning a concept.     

Additional-delay schedules: A continuum of temporal contingencies by varying food delay

Pigeons performed on discrete-trial, temporally defined schedules in which the food delay (D) was adjusted according to the latency of the key peck (X) and two schedule parameters (t and A). The schedule function was D = A(t − X), where D is the experienced delay between a response and a reinforcer. The schedule parameter t is the maximum value below which the present contingencies occur. A is the additional delay to reinforcement for each second the response latency is shorter than the t value. When A = 0 s, the schedule is a continuous reinforcement schedule with immediate reinforcement. When A = 1 s, the schedule is a conjunctive fixed-ratio 1 fixed-time t-s schedule. When A approaches infinity, the schedule becomes a differential reinforcement of long latency schedule. The latencies for subjects with t = 10 s and t = 30 s were observed with the present schedules having seven values for A between 0 s and 11 s. In addition, the latencies for subjects for which t = 30 s were observed at an A value of 31 s to 41 s. As the A value increased, the latencies approached the t value for subjects for which t = 10 s. The latencies for 30-s-t subjects did not approach t, even when the A value was 41 s. The latencies for 10-s-t subjects at 11-s A value were longer than those under yoked conditions having exactly the same delays/interreinforcement intervals. These results demonstrated a continuum of latency related to the schedule continuum (value of A) at a small t value.     

Timeout from concurrent schedules.

Response-contingent timeouts of equal duration and frequency were added to both alternatives of unequal concurrent schedules of reinforcement. For each of 4 pigeons in Experiment 1, relative response rates generally became less extreme as the frequency of timeout increased. In Experiment 2, relative response rates consistently approached indifference as the duration of timeout was increased. Variation in time allocation was less consistent in both experiments. Absolute response rates did not vary with the timeout contingency in either experiment. In a third experiment, neither measure of choice varied systematically when the duration of a postreinforcement blackout was varied. In contrast to the present results, preference has been shown to vary directly with the parameters of shock delivery in related procedures. The pattern of results in the first two experiments follows that obtained with other manipulations of the overall rate of reinforcement in concurrent schedules. The results of the third experiment suggest that an intertrial interval following reinforcement is not a critical feature of the overall rate of reinforcement.     

Determinants of pigeons' waiting time: Effects of interreinforcement interval and food delay

Four pigeons performed on three types of schedules at short (i.e., 10, 30, or 60 s) interreinforcement intervals: (a) a delay-dependent schedule where interreinforcement interval was held constant (i.e., increases in waiting time decreased food delay), (b) an interreinforcement-interval-dependent schedule where food delay was held constant (i.e., increases in waiting time increased interreinforcement interval), and (c) a both-dependent schedule where increases in waiting time produced increases in interreinforcement interval but decreases in food delay. Waiting times were typically longer under the delay-dependent schedules than under the interreinforcement-interval-dependent schedules. Those under both-dependent schedules for 1 subject were intermediate between those under the other two schedule types, whereas for the other subjects waiting times under the both-dependent procedure were similar either to those under the delay-dependent schedule or to those under the interreinforcement-interval-dependent schedule, depending both on the subject and the interreinforcement interval. These results indicate that neither the interreinforcement interval nor food delay is the primary variable controlling waiting time, but rather that the two interact in a complex manner to determine waiting times.     

Schedule interactions involving punishment with pigeons and humans

The principal aim of the present experiments was to assess whether punishment increased or decreased the rate of unpunished behavior (contrast and induction, respectively) for which reinforcement rate was held constant, with physical and nonphysical punishers (electric shock and response cost), pigeon and human subjects, signaled and unsignaled components (multiple and mixed schedules), and the presence or absence of a blackout period between components. Across the three experiments there were 20 punishment conditions. Induction was found in nine of those, less consistent response-rate reduction was found in three, contrast was found in four, and in four there was no change in responding from conditions without punishment. Contrast occurred consistently only with multiple schedules during the first exposure to electric-shock punishment. Induction and no change, however, were found with every combination of the independent variables studied. Four conclusions regarding the interactions between punished and unpunished responding emerged from the present results: (a) Both contrast and induction occurred with the reinforcement rate held constant and a blackout between components, (b) induction was more common than contrast, (c) contrast occurred only in the presence of a stimulus different from that correlated with the punisher, and (d) contrast diminished with prolonged exposure to punishment. None of the current theoretical accounts of punishment contrast can explain the present results.     

MEMORY PROCESSES IN DELAYED SPATIAL DISCRIMINATIONS: RESPONSE INTENTIONS OR RESPONSE MEDIATION?

Pigeons were trained on a pair-comparison task in which left versus right choices were reinforced following different sequences of two center-key stimuli. Choice accuracy was higher when retention intervals occurred after the entire sequence than when they separated the two stimuli comprising it, and this effect occurred independently of whether the initial and terminal stimuli came from the same or different dimensions. The initial stimulus from the prior trial was a source of proactive interference only in groups for which the retention interval separated the two sequence stimuli. By contrast, differential delay-interval behavior was observed only in groups for which the retention interval followed presentation of the entire sequence. These results indicate that coding processes in delayed discriminations are influenced by the location of the retention interval, and that response mediation affects retention performances if the reinforced choice can be determined prior to the interval.     

Response-independent Events In The Behavior Stream

The metaphor of the behavior stream provides a framework for studying the effects of response-independent food presentations intruded into an environment in which operant responding of pigeons was maintained by variable-interval schedules. In the first two experiments, response rates were reduced when response-independent food was intruded during the variable-interval schedule according to a concomitantly present fixed-time schedule. These reductions were not always an orderly function of the percentage of response-dependent food. Negatively accelerated patterns of key pecking across the fixed-time period occurred in Experiment 1 under the concomitant fixed-time variable-interval schedules. In Experiment 2, positively and negatively accelerated and linear response patterns occurred even though the schedules were similar to those used in Experiment 1. The variable findings in the first two experiments led to three subsequent experiments that were designed to further illuminate the controlling variables of the effects of intruded response-independent events. When the fixed and variable schedules were correlated with distinct operanda by employing a concurrent fixed-interval variable-interval schedule (Experiment 3) or with distinct discriminative stimuli (Experiments 4 and 5), negatively accelerated response patterns were obtained. Even in these latter cases, however, the response patterns were a joint function of the physical separation of the two schedules and the ratio of fixed-time or fixed-interval to variable-interval schedule food presentations. The results of the five experiments are discussed in terms of the contributions of both reinforcement variables and discriminative stimuli in determining the effects of intruding response-independent food into a stream of operant behavior.     

Comparisons of rats' choice behavior among three different radial-maze tasks

The present study compared rats' behavioral changes on three tasks on the radial-arm maze. In the free-choice task (0Fo/8Fr; no forced choice/eight free choices), rats performed efficiently with the simple response pattern of sequential adjacent-arm choices. In the two forced-choice tasks (3Fo/5Fr and 5Fo/3Fr), rats performed as efficiently as 0Fo/8Fr but showed no particular response patterns. The frequency of arm investigation was the highest in 5Fo/3Fr, and was higher in 3Fo/5Fr than in 0Fo/8Fr. The probability of correct rejection, avoiding re-entry to visited arms after investigation, was also higher in 3Fo/5Fr and 5Fo/3Fr than in 0Fo/8Fr. These results suggest that the rats could adjust their behavior to the task demands.     

Predicting and scaling hens' preferences for topographically different responses

Six hens were exposed to several concurrent (second-order) variable-interval schedules in which the response requirements on the alternatives were varied. The response requirements were one key peck versus five key pecks, one key peck versus one door push, and five key pecks versus one door push. Response- and time-allocation ratios undermatched the obtained reinforcement ratios but were well described by the generalized matching law. Time and response bias estimates from two pairs of response requirements were used to predict bias in the third pairing. The predicted values were close to those obtained; this result supports the notion that both numerically and topographically different responses act as constant sources of bias within the generalized matching law. The differences between the response and time biases could be accounted for by the different times needed to complete each response requirement. The results also suggest that the door push is a useful operant for research with domestic hens.