The Isolation of Motivational, Motoric, and Schedule Effects on Operant Performance: A Modeling Approach

Dissociating motoric and motivational effects of pharmacological manipulations on operant behavior is a substantial challenge. To address this problem, we applied a response‐bout analysis to data from rats trained to lever press for sucrose on variable‐interval (VI) schedules of reinforcement. Motoric, motivational, and schedule factors (effort requirement, deprivation level, and schedule requirements, respectively) were manipulated. Bout analysis found that interresponse times (IRTs) were described by a mixture of two exponential distributions, one characterizing IRTs within response bouts, another characterizing intervals between bouts. Increasing effort requirement lengthened the shortest IRT (the refractory period between responses). Adding a ratio requirement increased the length and density of response bouts. Both manipulations also decreased the bout‐initiation rate. In contrast, food deprivation only increased the bout‐initiation rate. Changes in the distribution of IRTs over time showed that responses during extinction were also emitted in bouts, and that the decrease in response rate was primarily due to progressively longer intervals between bouts. Taken together, these results suggest that changes in the refractory period indicate motoric effects, whereas selective alterations in bout initiation rate indicate incentive‐motivational effects. These findings support the use of response‐bout analyses to identify the influence of pharmacological manipulations on processes underlying operant performance.     

A RUNS‐TEST ALGORITHM: CONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT AND RESPONSE RUN STRUCTURES

Four rats' choices between two levers were differentially reinforced using a runs‐test algorithm. On each trial, a runs‐test score was calculated based on the last 20 choices. In Experiment 1, the onset of stimulus lights cued when the runs score was smaller than criterion. Following cuing, the correct choice was occasionally reinforced with food, and the incorrect choice resulted in a blackout. Results indicated that this contingency reduced sequential dependencies among successive choice responses. With one exception, subjects' choice rule was well described as biased coin flipping. In Experiment 2, cuing was removed and the reinforcement criterion was changed to a percentile score based on the last 20 reinforced responses. The results replicated those of Experiment 1 in successfully eliminating first‐order dependencies in all subjects. For 2 subjects, choice allocation was approximately consistent with nonbiased coin flipping. These results suggest that sequential dependencies may be a function of reinforcement contingency.     

Response duration is sensitive to both immediate and delayed reinforcement

We investigated the duration of lever pressing by rats when the delivery of appetitive reinforcers was contingent upon response duration. In the first experiment, response durations increased when duration requirements were imposed, and they decreased when duration requirements were removed. This effect occurred whether reinforcers were immediate or delayed by 8 s. In order to maintain the integrity of the delay intervals, reinforcer delivery was dependent upon both lever depression and release. In a second experiment, lever depression only and a response duration of at least 4 s were required for reinforcer delivery. Compared to immediate reinforcement conditions, delayed reinforcers increased both variability and the length of the maximum response durations. In a third experiment, immediate reinforcers were delivered contingent upon lever depression and release under a variety of duration requirements. Median lever‐press durations tracked the contingencies rapidly. Across all three experiments, rats emitted numerous response durations that were too short to satisfy the reinforcer requirements, and bimodal distributions similar to those produced by differential reinforcement of low rate schedules were evident for most rats. In many aspects, response duration responds to reinforcement parameters in a fashion similar to rate of discrete responding, but an examination of this continuous dimension of behavior may provide additional information about environment–behavior relationships.     

Resurgence of response sequences during extinction in rats shows a primacy effect

Rats were trained to emit a series of three-response sequences to a criterion (i.e., more than 80% of all emitted sequences correct over five successive sessions). Each rat was trained on a series of different, three-response sequences. After the final three-response sequence was acquired, two extinction tests were administered, and the three-response sequences that re-emerged during these extinction tests were noted. Resurgence effects during extinction were observed; that is, the previously trained sequences were emitted. These resurgence effects followed an orderly pattern, which involved a primacy effect. The rats initially emitted the immediately previously trained response, but then started to emit the response sequence they first were trained to emit. Thus, resurgence behavior during extinction can be an orderly function of previous training history. These results replicate those previously obtained with human subjects.     

Observing behavior: effects of rate and magnitude of primary reinforcement

Four experiments examined the free-operant observing behavior of rats. In Experiment 1, observing was a bitonic function of random-ratio schedule requirements for the primary reinforcer. In Experiment 2, decreases in the magnitude of the primary reinforcer decreased observing. Experiment 3 examined observing when a random-ratio schedule or a yoked random-time schedule of primary reinforcement was in effect across conditions. Removing the response requirement for the primary reinforcer increased observing, suggesting that the effects of the random-ratio schedule in Experiment 1 likely were due to an interaction between observing and responding for the primary reinforcer. In Experiment 4, decreasing the rate of primary reinforcement by increasing the duration of a random-time schedule decreased observing monotonically. Overall, these results suggest that observing decreases with decreases in the rate or magnitude of the primary reinforcer, but that behavior related to the primary reinforcer can affect observing and potentially affect measurement of conditioned reinforcing value.     

Bouts of responding from variable-interval reinforcement of lever pressing by rats

Four rats obtained food pellets by lever pressing. A variable-interval reinforcement schedule assigned reinforcers on average every 2 min during one block of 20 sessions and on average every 8 min during another block. Also, at each variable-interval duration, a block of sessions was conducted with a schedule that imposed a variable-ratio 4 response requirement after each variable interval (i.e., a tandem variable-time variable-ratio 4 schedule). The total rate of lever pressing increased as a function of the rate of reinforcement and as a result of imposing the variable-ratio requirement. Analysis of log survivor plots of interresponse times indicated that lever pressing occurred in bouts that were separated by pauses. Increasing the rate of reinforcement increased total response rate by increasing the rate of initiating bouts and, less reliably, by lengthening bouts. Imposing the variable-ratio component increased response rate mainly by lengthening bouts. This pattern of results is similar to that reported previously with key poking as the response. Also, response rates within bouts were relatively insensitive to either variable.