Effects of cocaine on performance under fixed-interval schedules with a small tandem ratio requirement

Daily administration of cocaine often results in the development of tolerance to its effects on responding maintained by fixed-ratio schedules. Such effects have been observed to be greater when the ratio value is small, whereas less or no tolerance has been observed at large ratio values. Similar schedule-parameter-dependent tolerance, however, has not been observed with fixed-interval schedules arranging comparable interreinforcement intervals. This experiment examined the possibility that differences in rate and temporal patterning between the two types of schedule are responsible for the differences in observed patterns of tolerance. Five pigeons were trained to key peck on a three-component multiple (tandem fixed-interval fixed-ratio) schedule. The interval values were 10, 30, and 120 s; the tandem ratio was held constant at five responses. Performance appeared more like that observed under fixed-ratio schedules than fixed-interval schedules. Effects of various doses of cocaine given weekly were then determined for each pigeon. A dose that reduced responding was administered prior to each session for 50 days. A reassessment of effects of the range of doses revealed tolerance. The degree of tolerance was similar across components of the multiple schedule. Next, the saline vehicle was administered prior to each session for 50 days to assess the persistence of tolerance. Tolerance diminished in all subjects. Overall, the results suggested that schedule-parameter-dependent tolerance does not depend on the temporal pattern of responding engendered by fixed-ratio schedules.     

Effects of adding a second reinforcement alternative: implications for Herrnstein's interpretation of r(e)

Herrnstein's hyperbola describes the relation between response rate and reinforcer rate on variable-interval (VI) schedules. According to Herrnstein's (1970) interpretation, the parameter r(e) represents the reinforcer rate extraneous to the alternative to which the equation is fitted (the target alternative). The hyperbola is based on an assumption that extraneous reinforcer rate remains constant with changes in reinforcer rate on the target alternative (the constant-r(e) assumption) and that matching with no bias and perfect sensitivity occurs between response and reinforcer ratios. In the present experiment, 12 rats pressed levers for food on a series of 10 VI schedules arranged on the target alternative. Across conditions, six VI values and extinction were arranged on a second alternative. Reinforcer rate on the second alternative, r2, negatively covaried with reinforcer rate on the target alternative for five of the six VI values on the second alternative, and significant degrees of bias and undermatching occurred in response ratios. Given covariation of reinforcer rate on the second and target alternatives, the constant-r(e) assumption can be maintained only by assuming that reinforcer rate from unmeasured background sources, rb, covaries with reinforcer rate on the second alternative such that their sum, r(e), remains constant. In a single-schedule arrangement, however, r(e) equals rb and thus rb is assumed to remain constant, forcing a conceptual inconsistency between single- and concurrent-schedule arrangements. Furthermore, although an alternative formulation of the hyperbola can account for variations in bias and sensitivity, the modified equation also is based on the constant-r(e) assumption and therefore suffers from the same logical problem as the hyperbola when reinforcer rate on the second alternative covaries with reinforcer rate on the target alternative.     

DOES SENSITIVITY TO MAGNITUDE DEPEND ON THE TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF REINFORCEMENT?

Our research addressed the question of whether sensitivity to relative reinforcer magnitude in concurrent chains depends on the distribution of reinforcer delays when the terminal-link schedules are equal. In Experiment 1, 12 pigeons responded in a two-component procedure. In both components, the initial links were concurrent variable-interval 40-s variable-interval 40-s, and the terminal links were both 20-s interval schedules in which responses were reinforced by either 4-s of grain in one, or 2-s of grain in the other. The only difference between the components was whether the terminal-link schedules were fixed interval or variable intervals. For all subjects, the relative rate of responding in the initial links for the terminal link that produced the 4-s reinforcer was greater when the terminal links were fixed-interval schedules than when they were variable-interval schedules. This result is contrary to the prediction of Grace's (1994) contextual choice model, but is consistent with both Mazur's (2001) hyperbolic value-added model and Killeen's (1985) incentive theory. In Experiment 2, 4 pigeons responded in a concurrent-chains procedure in which 4-s or 2-s reinforcers were provided independently of responding according to equal fixed-time or mixed-time schedules. Preference for the 4-s reinforcer increased as the variability of the intervals comprising the mixed-time schedules was decreased. Generalized-matching sensitivity of initial-link response allocation to relative reinforcer magnitude was proportional to the geometric mean of the terminal-link delays.     

Effects of reinforcer probability, delay, and response requirements on the choices of rats and pigeons: possible species differences

In Experiment 1 with rats, a left lever press led to a 5-s delay and then a possible reinforcer. A right lever press led to an adjusting delay and then a certain reinforcer. This delay was adjusted over trials to estimate an indifference point, or a delay at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. Indifference points increased as the probability of reinforcement for the left lever decreased. In some conditions with a 20% chance of food, a light above the left lever was lit during the 5-s delay on all trials, but in other conditions, the light was only lit on those trials that ended with food. Unlike previous results with pigeons, the presence or absence of the delay light on no-food trials had no effect on the rats' indifference points. In other conditions, the rats showed less preference for the 20% alternative when the time between trials was longer. In Experiment 2 with rats, fixed-interval schedules were used instead of simple delays, and the presence or absence of the fixed-interval requirement on no-food trials had no effect on the indifference points. In Experiment 3 with rats and Experiment 4 with pigeons, the animals chose between a fixed-ratio 8 schedule that led to food on 33% of the trials and an adjusting-ratio schedule with food on 100% of the trials. Surprisingly, the rats showed less preference for the 33% alternative in conditions in which the ratio requirement was omitted on no-food trials. For the pigeons, the presence or absence of the ratio requirement on no-food trials had little effect. The results suggest that there may be differences between rats and pigeons in how they respond in choice situations involving delayed and probabilistic reinforcers.     

Effects of stimulus variation on the reinforcing capability of nonpreferred stimuli

We examined the effects of stimulus (reinforcer) variation in several different contexts. In Study 1, we identified high-quality (HQ) and low-quality (LQ) stimuli based on results of a paired-stimulus assessment and examined their effects when available under concurrent-reinforcement schedules for 8 participants. No participants showed preference for the LQ stimuli when compared singly or in a varied arrangement to the HQ stimulus. In Study 2, we identified nonpreferred (NP) stimuli based on results of a single-stimulus assessment and examined their effects when available under single-reinforcement schedules for 3 participants. Results of Study 2 were mixed. One participant's data indicated that the varied presentation of NP stimuli produced a modest improvement in performance over that observed when the stimuli were presented singly. By contrast, a second participant's data showed no facilitative effect for the varied delivery of NP stimuli and that the inclusion of an HQ stimulus in the varied arrangement obscured the reinforcing effects of the HQ stimulus. The 3rd participant's data showed no effect for the varied delivery of NP stimuli but an apparent facilitative effect when an HQ stimulus was included in the varied arrangement, which was attributable solely to the presence of the HQ stimulus.     

Choice in a variable environment: effects of unequal reinforcer distributions

Six pigeons were trained in a procedure in which sessions included seven unsignaled components, each offering two pecking keys, and each providing a potentially different reinforcer ratio between the two keys. Across conditions, various combinations of reinforcer ratios and reinforcer-magnitude ratios were used to create unequal reinforcer distributions between the two alternatives when averaged across a session. The results extended previous research using the same basic procedure that had included only reinforcer distributions symmetrical around 1:1. Data analyses suggested that the variables controlling choice operated at a number of levels: First, individual reinforcers had local effects on choice; second, sequences of successive reinforcers obtained at the same alternative (continuations) had cumulative effects; and, third, when these sequences themselves occurred with greater frequency, their effects further cumulated. A reinforcer obtained at the other alternative following a sequence of continuations (a discontinuation) had a large effect and apparently reset choice to levels approximating the sessional reinforcer ratio.     

Analyzing Thorndike's Law Of Effect: The Question Of Stimulus-response Bonds

The stimulus—response bond postulated by Thorndike's (1911) law of effect is not required in a functional account of behavior in relation to its consequences. Moreover, the notion of a bond has been challenged by the findings of several experiments. Nevertheless, it remains viable in the light of reanalyses of those findings. Thorndike's suggestion that the strength of the bond depends on the magnitude of satisfaction is consistent with current research on resistance to change.     

Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: implications for preference assessments

We compared results obtained in two previous studies on reinforcer identification (Fisher et al., 1992; Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, & Page, 1985) by combining methodologies from both studies. Eight individuals with mental retardation participated. During Phase 1, two preference assessments were conducted, one in which stimuli were presented singly (SS method) and one in which stimuli were presented in pairs (PS method). Based on these results, two types of stimuli were identified for each participant: High-preference (HP) stimuli were those selected on 75% or more trials during both preference assessments; low-preference (LP) stimuli were those selected on 100% of the SS trials but on 25% or fewer of the PS trials. During Phase 2, the reinforcing effects of HP and LP stimuli were evaluated in reversal designs under two test conditions: concurrent and single schedules of continuous reinforcement. Two response options were available under the concurrent-schedule condition: One response produced access to the HP stimulus; the other produced access to the LP stimulus. Only one response option was available under the single-schedule condition, and that response produced access only to the LP stimulus. Results indicated that 7 of the 8 participants consistently showed preference for the HP stimulus under the concurrent schedule. However, when only the LP stimulus was available during the single-schedule condition, response rates for 6 of the 7 participants were as high as those observed for the HP stimulus during the concurrent-schedule condition (1 participant showed no reinforcement effect). These results indicate that, although the concurrent-schedule procedure is well suited to the assessment of relative reinforcement effects (preference for one reinforcer over another), absolute reinforcement effects associated with a given stimulus may be best examined under single-schedule conditions.     

MULTICOMPONENT ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT OF CIGARETTE PICA

We conducted a multicomponent assessment and treatment for 4 individuals who engaged in cigarette pica. During Phase 1, three stimulus preference assessments were conducted to identify (a) the reinforcing component of the cigarette, (b) potential alternative reinforcers that may be used during treatment, and (c) whether the alternative reinforcer would compete effectively with cigarettes. Results were successful in identifying the reinforcing component of the cigarette and suggested the feasibility of using alternative reinforcers during treatment to eliminate cigarette pica. During Phase 2, the effects of two treatment procedures were evaluated. Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) with the alternative edible reinforcer reduced the pica of 2 of the participants, but effects were not maintained when the initial dense schedule of NCR was thinned. Subsequently, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior with the alternative edible reinforcer was effective in reducing pica for 3 participants. An evaluation of nine treatment procedures failed to identify an effective intervention for the remaining participant; consequently, preventive measures were designed to minimize occurrences of cigarette pica.