Concurrent choice: Effects of overall reinforcer rate and the temporal distribution of reinforcers

Six pigeons responded on a series of concurrent exponential variable-interval schedules, offering a within-subject comparison with previously published data from concurrent arithmetic variable-interval schedules. Both relative and overall reinforcer rates were varied between conditions. The generalized matching law described the data well, with undermatching much more frequent than strict matching. Time-allocation sensitivity consistently exceeded response-allocation sensitivity for both schedule types, and exponential-schedule sensitivity exceeded arithmetic-schedule sensitivity for both measures of choice. A further set of conditions using variable-interval schedules whose shortest interval was correlated with the mean interval, like arithmetic schedules, but that provided a constant conditional probability of reinforcement, like exponential schedules, produced sensitivities between those produced by conventional arithmetic and exponential schedules. Unlike previous arithmetic-schedule results, exponential sensitivity changed nonmonotonically with changes in overall reinforcer rate. The results clarify our knowledge of the effects of arithmetic and exponential schedules but confuse our understanding of the effects of overall reinforcer rate on concurrent choice.     

Blocking, unblocking, and overexpectation in autoshaping with pigeons

Three experiments used pigeons in an autoshaping procedure and a single-subject design to examine compound stimulus control in classical conditioning. Experiment 1 examined the blocking effect, and Experiment 2 examined the unblocking effect. In both experiments, response-independent food was first delivered intermittently in the presence of one distinctively colored houselight but not another. Then, conventional autoshaping trials were carried out in the presence of each houselight. In Experiment 1, the keylight readily elicited responding in the presence of the houselight that had been negatively correlated with food, but not in the presence of the houselight that had been positively correlated with food. In Experiment 2, the keylight readily elicited responding in the presence of the houselight positively correlated with food, but only when the amount of food used on the autoshaping trials was either greater or less than that previously delivered in the presence of the houselight. Experiment 3 examined the overexpectation effect. Conventional autoshaping trials were first carried out by presenting each of two keylights individually. Then, additional autoshaping trials were carried out by presenting the two keylights as a compound, with either the same amount of food or a greater amount of food per trial. Finally, the keylights were retested by again presenting them individually. The number of responses per trial elicited by the keylights decreased when the amount of food used in compound trials was the same as that used in individual trials. However, the number of responses per trial remained approximately the same when the amount of food used in compound trials was greater than that used in individual trials. Taken together, the results of the three experiments demonstrate (a) the generality of the blocking, unblocking, and overexpectation effects by virtue of their extension to appetitive unconditioned stimuli; (b) the suitability of pigeons as subjects and autoshaping as a procedure for studying classical conditioning; and (c) the appropriateness of single-subject designs.     

Key pecking in pigeons produced by pairing keylight with inaccessible grain

In Experiment I, keylight was paired with inaccessible grain delivery (under two conditions of keylight intensity) to determine if autoshaping would occur in the absence of primary reinforcement. In Experiment II, the procedure was repeated with accessible grain, for comparison. In Experiment III, the procedures were repeated with explicitly unpaired presentations of keylight and either inaccessible or accessible grain. The results indicated that key pecking occurred as quickly in the presence of keylight pairings with inaccessible grain as with accessible grain, though (except for one bird) key pecking was not maintained with inaccessible grain. Furthermore, compared to the dim keylight, the bright keylight greatly suppressed key pecking when paired with inaccessible grain, and reduced the rate of key pecking when paired with accessible grain. Little key pecking occurred in groups exposed to explicitly unpaired presentations of keylight (whether bright or dim) and grain (whether accessible or inaccessible). When the birds in Experiment III were retested with explicitly paired presentations of keylight and grain, little key pecking was observed, suggesting suppressive effects of prior explicitly unpaired presentations. It is suggested that the effects of key-brightness manipulation were produced by the association of grain with cues other than the response key, or by distraction produced by partial illumination of the grain hopper.     

The effects of varying the distribution of generalization stimuli within a constant range upon the bisection of a sound-intensity interval by rats

Two male, albino rats were trained on a two-valued, self-paced, discrete-trials auditory discrimination. In the presence of a high-intensity stimulus (90 decibels SPL, 4 kiloHertz), response A was reinforced; in the presence of a low-intensity stimulus (50 decibels SPL, 4 kiloHertz), response B was reinforced. When discrimination performance was asymptotic, stimuli intermediate in intensity were presented with the training stimuli in a maintained generalization paradigm. Generalization gradients were derived from the relative frequencies of response A in the presence of each stimulus. A relative frequency of 0.50 was then determined and used as the bisection point of the intensity interval defined by the 90- and 50-decibel stimuli. The bisection point varied with the distribution of the stimuli presented in generalization. This effect was similar to context effects seen in human psychophysics.     

Behavioral contrast in rats with different reinforcers and different response topographies

Experiment I demonstrated positive behavioral contrast in rats when one of two qualitatively different reinforcers (milk and pellets) was removed from a component of a multiple schedule. The contrast effect was larger and more enduring when milk was removed. Experiment II showed that the rats spent more time on the side of a shuttle-box on which milk was freely available than on the side on which pellets were freely available. Experiment III, a partial replication of Experiment I, failed to demonstrate the contrast effect of Experiment I. Experiment IV demonstrated contrast when two topographically distinct responses, nose-key poking and lever pressing, were required in different components of a multiple schedule. These results extend the conditions that generate behavioral contrast in rats.     

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.     

Procedural antecedents of behavioral contrast: a re-examination of errorless learning

Behavioral contrast reliably occurred in pigeons following errorless discrimination training, contrary to Terrace's (1963) observations. In the main experiment, a 60-sec green keylight, associated with a variable-interval 30-sec schedule of reinforcement alternated with a 60-sec period of extinction when the key was dark. Such aspects of the discrimination training procedure as: (1) the amount of prior nondifferential exposure to the positive stimulus before the discrimination was instituted, and (2) the rapidity with which the negative stimulus was introduced (whether progressively or abruptly) directly influenced the amount of behavioral contrast produced. This occurred independently of the number of errors made by a pigeon during acquisition of the discrimination. In a series of control experiments, substitution of a red keylight for the dark key during extinction resulted in greater behavioral contrast, while an increase to 3 min in the duration of the green keylight associated with reinforcement attenuated the behavioral contrast effect.     

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.