Reinforcement: Food Signals the Time and Location of Future Food

It has long been understood that food deliveries may act as signals of future food location, and not only as strengtheners of prefood responding as the law of effect suggests. Recent research has taken this idea further—the main effect of food deliveries, or other “reinforcers”, may be signaling rather than strengthening. The present experiment investigated the ability of food deliveries to signal food contingencies across time after food. In Phase 1, the next food delivery was always equally likely to be arranged for a left‐ or a right‐key response. Conditions were arranged such that the next food delivery was likely to occur either sooner on the left (or right) key, or sooner on the just‐productive (or not‐just‐productive) key. In Phase 2, similar contingencies were arranged, but the last‐food location was signaled by a red keylight. Preference, measured in 2‐s bins across interfood intervals, was jointly controlled by the likely time and location of the next food delivery. In Phase 1, when any food delivery signaled a likely sooner next food delivery on a particular key, postfood preference was strongly toward that key, and moved toward the other key across the interreinforcer interval. In other conditions in which food delivery on the two keys signaled different subsequent contingencies, postfood preference was less extreme, and quickly moved toward indifference. In Phase 2, in all three conditions, initial preference was strongly toward the likely‐sooner food key, and moved to the other key across the interfood interval. In both phases, at a more extended level of analysis, sequences of same‐key food deliveries caused a small increase in preference for the just‐productive key, suggesting the presence of a “reinforcement effect”, albeit one that was very small.     

Poor Imitative Performance of Unlearned Gestures in Children with Probable Developmental Coordination Disorder

It has been hypothesized that deficits in imitation, linked to abnormal functioning of the mirror neuron system (MNS), may contribute to the motor impairments associated with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). The authors aimed to examine imitation of complex novel postures and sequences of gestures in children with and without probable DCD (pDCD), using the postural praxis and sequencing praxis subtests of the Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests (Ayres, 1989 Ayres, A. J. (1989). Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests: SIPT manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. [Google Scholar]). Participants were 29 boys with pDCD between 6.08 and 13.33 years old, and 29 group age-matched typically developing boys between 6.08 and 13.83 years old. Responses of children with pDCD on both imitation tasks were less accurate than controls, with group differences more apparent with increasing task complexity. Furthermore, as a group, children with pDCD were slower and had a higher number of non–mirror-imitated responses. There was considerable variability within the pDCD group, with some children displaying imitation scores within the normative range. Given the importance of imitation and visual learning for motor development, the difficulties in imitation displayed by some children with pDCD have the potential to impact on movement acquisition. Interventions to target imitation may be beneficial for these children. The results show that children with pDCD had difficulty imitating complex novel postures, children with pDCD had difficulty imitating gesture sequences, children with pDCD had slower responses than controls, group differences in imitation performance increased with task complexity, and not all children with pDCD displayed imitation deficits.     

The co-consciousness hypothesis

Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences - Self-knowledge seems to be radically different from the knowledge of other people. However, rather than focusing on the gap between self and others, we...     

Leaving patches: Effects of travel requirements

Five pigeons were trained in an analogue foraging procedure in which, by completing a travel requirement, they entered a “patch” in which a reinforcer might be available after an unpredictable time. They also had the opportunity, by emitting a defined response, to exit the patch and travel to another patch. Prey availability in a patch was not signaled. Data were collected on the length of time that subjects stayed in patches before exiting (residence times) as a function of various travel requirements: travel for a fixed time in blackout, fixed-interval schedule traveling, fixed-time traveling with an added response required to terminate traveling, and fixed-ratio traveling. For each of these conditions, the required amount of travel (time or responses) was varied over a wide range. As previously reported, residence times increased with increases in fixed-time traveling, as they did with increasing fixed-interval or fixed-ratio traveling. There was no evidence that adding response or work requirements systematically affected residence time except via increased travel time, although 3 of the 5 birds stayed longer in a patch under higher fixed-ratio values. A “threshold-maximization” model described the data well with a single parameter that was consistent across subjects, procedures, and experiments.     

The control of choice by its consequences

Five pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules in which equal rates of reinforcement were always arranged for left- and right-key responses, but different overall rates were signaled by key colors. Sessions began with both keys lit yellow for the instrumental phase. If, after 20 s of this phase, the relative number of responses that had been made to the left key equaled or exceeded .75, both keys changed red for the contingent phase. The contingent phase arranged another concurrent variable-interval schedule for a further 20 s before the instrumental phase was reinstated. However, if preference in the instrumental phase did not exceed .75, the instrumental phase continued for a further 20 s before preference was again compared with the criterion. In Part 1, the reinforcer rate arranged in the instrumental phase was held constant at 4.8 reinforcers per minute, while the reinforcer rate arranged in the contingent phase was varied across conditions from 0 to 19.2 over five steps. In Part 2, reinforcer rates in the contingent phase were kept constant at 36 per minute, while reinforcer rates in the instrumental phase were varied from 0 to 36 over seven steps. Part 3 replicated Part 2 but used reinforcer rates in both phases that were one third of those arranged in Part 2. Measures of choice obtained by summing responses across presentations of the instrumental phase became more extreme toward the left key as the reinforcer rate obtained in the contingent phase was increased (Part 1) and as the reinforcer rate obtained in the instrumental phase was decreased (Parts 2 and 3). Changes in these measures of choice were accompanied by systematic changes in the relative frequency with which the criterion was exceeded. Changes in both these measures were correlated with changes in the relative frequency with which subjects responded exclusively to the left key. These results are discussed with respect to the two choices that were concurrently available in this procedure and the response alternatives that might constitute the concurrent operants in each choice.     

Frequency versus magnitude of reinforcement: New data with a different procedure

Two pigeons, with previous exposure to concurrent schedules, were submitted to 29 sessions of 8 hours each with concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules in which reinforcement parameters changed from session to session. In the first nine sessions reinforcement durations were equal in both schedules while reinforcement frequencies varied; in Sessions 10 through 18, both frequency and duration of reinforcement were varied; in Sessions 19 through 29, only reinforcement duration was varied. Results with this different procedure confirm previous findings that behavior is more sensitive to changes in reinforcement frequency than to reinforcement magnitude.     

Independence of response force and reinforcement rate on concurrent variable-interval schedule performance

Five pigeons were trained over 43 experimental conditions on a variety of concurrent variable-interval schedules on which the forces required on the response keys were varied. The results were well described by the generalized matching law with log reinforcement ratios and log force ratios exerting independent (noninteractive) effects on preference. A further analysis using the Akaike criterion, an information-theoretic measure of the efficiency of a model, showed that overall reinforcement rate and overall force requirement did not affect preference. Unlike reinforcement rate changes, force requirement increases did not change the response rate on the alternate key, and an extension of Herrnstein's absolute response rate function for force variation on a single variable-interval schedule is suggested.     

Spatial and temporal relations in conditioned reinforcement and observing behavior

In Experiment 1, depressing one perch produced stimuli indicating which of two keys, if pecked, could produce food (spatial information) and depressing the other perch produced stimuli indicating whether a variable-interval or an extinction schedule was operating (temporal information). The pigeons increased the time they spent depressing the perch that produced the temporal information but did not increase the time they spent depressing the perch that produced the spatial information. In Experiment 2, pigeons that were allowed to produce combined spatial and temporal information did not acquire the perch pressing any faster or maintain it at a higher level than pigeons allowed to produce only temporal information. Later, when perching produced only spatial information, the time spent depressing the perch eventually declined. The results are not those implied by the statement that information concerning biologically important events is reinforcing but are consistent with an interpretation in terms of the acquisition of reinforcing properties by a stimulus associated with a higher density of primary reinforcement.     

Near-field visual acuity of pigeons: effects of head location and stimulus luminance.

Two pigeons were trained to discriminate a grating stimulus from a blank stimulus of equivalent luminance in a three-key chamber. The stimuli and blanks were presented behind a transparent center key. The procedure was a conditional discrimination in which pecks on the left key were reinforced if the blank had been present behind the center key and pecks on the right key were reinforced if the grating had been present behind the center key. The spatial frequency of the stimuli was varied in each session from four to 29.5 lines per millimeter in accordance with a variation of the method of constant stimuli. The number of lines per millimeter that the subjects could discriminate at threshold was determined from psychometric functions. Data were collected at five values of stimulus luminance ranging from--0.07 to 3.29 log cd/m2. The distance from the stimulus to the anterior nodal point of the eye, which was determined from measurements taken from high-speed motion-picture photographs of three additional pigeons and published intraocular measurements, was 62.0 mm. This distance and the grating detection thresholds were used to calculate the visual acuity of the birds at each level of luminance. Acuity improved with increasing luminance to a peak value of 0.52, which corresponds to a visual angle of 1.92 min, at a luminance of 2.33 log cd/m2. Further increase in luminance produced a small decline in acuity.