Effects of differences between stimuli, responses, and reinforcer rates on conditional discrimination performance

In a discrete-trial conditional discrimination procedure, 4 pigeons obtained food reinforcers by pecking a key with a short latency on trials signaled by one stimulus and by pecking the same key with a long latency on trials signaled by a second stimulus. The physical difference between the two stimuli and the temporal separation between the latency values required for reinforcement were varied factorially over four sets of conditions, and the ratio of reinforcer rates for short and long latencies was varied within each set of conditions. Stimulus discrimination varied directly with both stimulus and response differences and was unaffected by the reinforcer ratio. Sensitivity to reinforcement, estimated by generalized-matching-law fits to the data within each set of conditions, varied directly with the response difference but inversely with the stimulus difference arranged between sets of conditions. Because variations in stimulus differences, response differences, and reinforcer differences did not have equivalent effects, these findings question the functional equivalence of the three terms of the discriminated operant: antecedent stimuli, behavior, and consequences.     

Unit price as a useful metric in analyzing effects of reinforcer magnitude.

In this paper, we applied the behavioral-economic concept of unit price to the study of reinforcer magnitude in an attempt to provide a consistent account of the effects of reinforcer magnitude on behavior. Recent research in the experimental analysis of behavior and in behavioral pharmacology suggests that reinforcer magnitude interacts with the schedule of reinforcement to determine response rate and total consumption. The utility of the unit-price concept thus stems from its ability to quantify this interaction as a cost-benefit ratio (i.e., unit price = characteristics of the schedule of reinforcement divided by magnitude of reinforcement). Research employing the unit-price concept has shown that as unit price increases, a positively decelerating function exists for consumption (i.e., a function with an increasingly negative slope, when plotted on log coordinates) and a bitonic function exists for response rate. Based on these findings, the present analysis applied the unit-price concept to those studies of reinforcer magnitude and drug self-administration that examined the effects of reinforcer magnitude on response rate using simple schedules of reinforcement (e.g., fixed-ratio schedule). This resulted in three findings: (a) Reinforcer-magnitude manipulations and schedule manipulations interact in a manner that can be quantified in terms of unit price as benefit and cost factors, respectively; (b) different reinforcer-magnitude manipulations are functionally interchangeable as benefit factors in the unit-price ratio; and (c) these conclusions appear warranted despite the differences in reinforcers (food or drug), species (dogs, monkeys, or rats), and schedules (interval or ratio), and despite the fact that these studies were not designed for a unit-price analysis. In methodological terms, these results provide further evidence that employing the unit-price concept is a parsimonious method for examining the effects of reinforcer magnitude. In theoretical terms, these results suggest that a single process may underlie the effect of combined reinforcer-magnitude and schedule manipulations.     

The asymptotic posterior normality of the latent trait in an IRT model

It has long been part of the item response theory (IRT) folklore that under the usual empirical Bayes unidimensional IRT modeling approach, the posterior distribution of examinee ability given test response is approximately normal for a long test. Under very general and nonrestrictive nonparametric assumptions, we make this claim rigorous for a broad class of latent models.This research was partially supported by Office of Naval Research Cognitive and Neural Sciences Grant N0014-J-90-1940, 442-1548, National Science Foundation Mathematics Grant NSF-DMS-91-01436, and the National Center for Supercomputing Applications. We wish to thank Kumar Joag-dev and Zhiliang Ying for enlightening suggestions concerning the proof of the basic result.The authors wish to thank Kumar Joag-Dev, Brian Junker, Bert Green, Paul Holland, Robert Mislevy, and especially Zhiliang Ying for their useful comments and discussions.     

FIXED-INTERVAL PERFORMANCE AND SELF-CONTROL IN INFANTS

Twenty-six infants, 3 to 23 months old, were trained on fixed-interval schedules ranging from 10 s to 80 s. The operant response was touching an illuminated location on a touch-sensitive screen, and 20 s of cartoon presentation was the reinforcer. The subjects were also trained in a six-phase self-control procedure in which the critical phases involved choice between 20 s of cartoon available after a 0.5-s delay (impulsive choice) and 40 s of cartoon delayed for 40 s (self-controlled choice). All the youngest children (3 to 5 months) showed long postreinforcement pauses on the fixed-interval schedule, with most intervals involving the emission of a single, reinforced, response, and all made self-controlled choices. Older subjects (9 to 23 months) either produced the same pattern as the younger ones on the fixed-interval schedule (classified as pause-sensitive subjects) or produced short pauses and higher steady response rates (classified as pause-insensitive subjects). All pause-sensitive subjects made self-controlled choices in the self-control condition, and all pause-insensitive subjects made impulsive ones.     

Choice between delayed reinforcers and fixed-ratio schedules requiring forceful responding.

This experiment measured pigeons' choices between delayed reinforcers and fixed-ratio schedules in which a force of approximately 0.48 N was needed to operate the response key. In ratio-delay conditions, subjects chose between a fixed-ratio schedule and an adjusting delay. The delay was increased or decreased several times a session in order to estimate an indifference point--a delay duration at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. Each ratio-delay condition was followed by a delay-delay condition in which subjects chose between the adjusting delay and a variable-time schedule, with the components of this schedule selected to match the ratio completion times of the preceding ratio-delay condition. The adjusting delays at the indifference point were longer when the alternative was a fixed-ratio schedule than when it was a matched variable-time schedule, which indicated a preference for the matched variable-time schedules over the fixed-ratio schedules. This preference increased in a nonlinear manner with increasing ratio size. This nonlinearity was inconsistent with a theory that states that indifference points for both time and ratio schedules can be predicted by multiplying the choice response-reinforcer intervals of the two types of schedules by different multiplicative constants. Two other theories, which predict nonlinear increases in preference for the matched variable-time schedules, are discussed.     

The utility of verbal and behavioral assessments of value.

Subjects lived in a laboratory apartment for up to 30 days, engaging in ordinary activities such as reading, sewing, and artwork. The amount of time devoted to each activity was recorded and compared with periodic verbal ratings of the amount of time devoted to the activities. The verbal and observational assessments of the time distribution were very similar, but there were some discrepancies. Based on self-reports and on observation of time actually devoted to the activities, contingencies were arranged in which time devoted to one activity produced time available for a second activity. When the contingency relation was based on behavioral assessment, predictions of time redistribution were more accurate than when the relations were based on verbal assessment. The close correspondence between observed distributions of time and verbally assessed distributions was probably due to the well-specified situation and rigorous assessment methods. Contrary to some cognitive-behavioral accounts, the contingency results suggest that verbal assessment is not necessarily preferable to observation when the two make discrepant predictions. It is suggested that verbal reports might be used more often in behavior analysis in place of lengthy or difficult observations, and attention is drawn to a personality model that parallels important components of behavior analysis.     

Modeling item responses when different subjects employ different solution strategies

A model is presented for item responses when different subjects employ different strategies, but only responses, not choice of strategy, can be observed. Using substantive theory to differentiate the likelihoods of response vectors under a fixed set of strategies, we model response probabilities in terms of item parameters for each strategy, proportions of subjects employing each strategy, and distributions of subject proficiency within strategies. The probabilities that an individual subject employed the various strategies can then be obtained, along with a conditional estimate of proficiency under each. A conceptual example discusses response strategies for spatial rotation tasks, and a numerican example resolves a population of subjects into subpopulations of valid responders and random guessers.The first author's work was supported by Contract No. N00014-85-K-0683, project designation NR 150-539, from the Cognitive Science Program, Cognitive and Neural Sciences Division, Office of Naval Research. We are grateful to Murray Aitkin, Isaac Bejar, Neil Dorans, Frederiksen, and Marklyn Wingersky for their comments and suggestions, and to Alison Gooding, Maxine Kingston, Donna Lembeck, Joling Liang, and Kentaro Yamamoto for their assistance with Example 2.     

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.