Effects of methadone on alternative fixed-ratio fixed-interval performance: latent influences on schedule-controlled responding.

Effects of methadone on pigeons' key pecking were examined under four conditions selected to analyze the control of behavior under alternative fixed-ratio fixed-interval schedules. In Condition 1, pigeons pecked under one of three different alternative schedules (alternative fixed-ratio 50 fixed-interval 90 s, alternative fixed-ratio 75 fixed-interval 90 s and alternative fixed-ratio 200 fixed-interval 90 s) each week. In Condition 2, fixed-ratio 50 or fixed-ratio 75 schedules were in effect during baseline sessions, and alternative fixed-ratio 50 fixed-interval 90-s or alternative fixed-ratio 75 fixed-interval 90-s schedules were in effect during sessions in which methadone was administered. In Condition 3, effects of methadone on key pecking maintained under fixed-ratio 50 and fixed-ratio 75 schedules were examined, whereas in Condition 4 the effects of methadone on key pecking under a fixed-interval 90-s schedule as well as fixed-ratio 50 and fixed-ratio 75 schedules were investigated. Control by the fixed-interval contingency was assessed by computing the proportion of total session reinforcers delivered under the fixed-interval schedule. Methadone administration (0.5-4.0 mg/kg) shifted the predominant source of schedule control under the alternative schedule from the fixed-ratio schedule to the fixed-interval contingency. This shift was dependent on methadone dose and fixed-ratio size. Control by the fixed-interval contingency was greatest following extensive exposure to the interval component embedded within the alternative schedule (Condition 1), but was apparent to a lesser degree with even very limited exposure to the alternative fixed-ratio fixed-interval schedule (Condition 2). Interreinforcement intervals comparable to those under fixed-interval schedule were not observed under the fixed-ratio schedules presented alone (Condition 3). Repeated exposure to the fixed-interval contingency outside the context of the alternative fixed-ratio fixed-interval schedule did not engender performance changes under a fixed-ratio schedule which would mimic those of increased fixed-interval contingency control (Condition 4). These data suggest that drug administration can be used to unmask the influence of contingencies that are latent under baseline conditions and reveal influences of both past and present environmental variables.     

THE BASIS OF SUPERSTITIOUS BEHAVIOR: CHANCE CONTINGENCY,STIMULUS SUBSTITUTION,OR APPETITIVE BEHAVIOR?

This research examined three explanations for the "superstitious" behavior of pigeons under frequent fixed-time delivery of food: accidental response-reward contingency, stimulus substitution, and elicited species-typical appetitive behavior. The behavior observed in these studies consisted of occasional postfood locomotion away from the food hopper, and a predominant pattern of activity directed toward the hopper wall (wall-directed behavior), including approaching, stepping side to side, scratching with the feet, bumping with the breast, pendulum movements of the extended neck, and head bobbing, though not pecking. The consistency of these behavior patterns argued against explanation by accidental response contingencies, and the complexity of behavior was incompatible with the classic stimulus-substitution account. These studies also showed that: (1) response contingencies and prior stimulus experience can modify wall-directed behavior, but within definable limits; (2) pecking sometimes can be obtained in birds of specific strains, and by providing extended training; (3) placing the hopper in the floor at the center of a large chamber replaces wall-directed behavior with circling in a manner that resembles ground foraging for food. We conclude that superstitious behavior under periodic delivery of food probably develops from components of species-typical patterns of appetitive behavior related to feeding. These patterns are elicited by a combination of frequent food presentations and the supporting stimuli present in the environment.     

Incentive theory: IV. Magnitude of reward

Incentive theory is successfully applied to data from experiments in which the amount of food reward is varied. This is accomplished by assuming that incentive value is a negatively accelerated function of reward duration. The interaction of the magnitude of a reward with its delay is confirmed, and the causes and implications of this interaction are discussed.     

Homogeneous chains, heterogeneous chains, and delay of reinforcement

Three pigeons responded on two-component chain schedules in which the required response topography in the initial and terminal links was similar (a homogeneous chain) or dissimilar (a heterogeneous chain). Key-peck responding in the initial link under a variable-interval 60-second (VI 60) schedule produced a terminal link in which, in different conditions, either key pecking or foot treadling was reinforced according to a VI 60 schedule. Multiple VI 60 VI 60 schedules, in which the responses required in the chain schedules were maintained by primary reinforcement in the two components, preceded and followed each type of chain. These multiple schedules were used to ensure that both responses occurred reliably prior to introducing the chain schedule. Key-peck response rates in the initial link of the chain consistently were higher during the homogeneous chain than during the heterogeneous chain. These results illustrate that intervening events during a period separating an operant response from primary reinforcement influence that operant, independently of the delay between the response and reinforcement.     

Choice, foraging, and reinforcer duration.

Pigeons were exposed to a foraging schedule characterized by three different states, beginning with a search state in which completion of a variable interval on a white key led to a choice state. In the choice state the subject could, by appropriate responding on a fixed ratio of three, either accept or reject the schedule offered. If the subject accepted the schedule, it entered a handling state in which the appropriate reinforcer amount was presented according to a variable-interval schedule. In Experiment 1 the shorter duration reinforcer was more likely to be accepted the longer the duration of the search state and the shorter the equal durations of the handling states. In Experiment 2 the shorter duration reinforcer was more likely to be accepted the longer the handling time preceding the longer duration reinforcer. All of the results were in qualitative--and some were in quantitative--agreement with those predicted by the delay-reduction hypothesis and the optimal-diet model.     

Choice between single and multiple delayed reinforcers.

Pigeons chose between alternatives that differed in the number of reinforcers and in the delay to each reinforcer. A peck on a red key produced the same consequences on every trial within a condition, but between conditions the number of reinforcers varied from one to three and the reinforcer delays varied between 5 s and 30 s. A peck on a green key produced a delay of adjustable duration and then a single reinforcer. The green-key delay was increased or decreased many times per session, depending on a subject's previous choices, which permitted estimation of an indifference point, or a delay at which a subject chose each alternative about equally often. The indifference points decreased systematically with more red-key reinforcers and with shorter red-key delays. The results did not support the suggestion of Moore (1979) that multiple delayed reinforcers have no effect on preference unless they are closely grouped. The results were well described in quantitative detail by a simple model stating that each of a series of reinforcers increases preference, but that a reinforcer's effect is inversely related to its delay. The success of this model, which considers only delay of reinforcement, suggested that the overall rate of reinforcement for each alternative had no effect on choice between those alternatives.     

An equation for behavioral contrast.

Pigeons were trained on a three-component multiple schedule in which the rates of reinforcement in the various components were systematically varied. Response rates were described by an equation that posits that the response-strengthening effects of reinforcement are inversely related to the context of reinforcement in which it occurs, and that the context is calculated as the weighted average of the various sources of reinforcement in the situation. The quality of fits was comparable to that found with previous quantitative analyses of concurrent schedules, especially for relative response rates, with over 90% of the variance accounted for in every case. As with previous research, reinforcements in the component that was to follow received greater weights in determining the context than did reinforcements in the preceding component.     

The generalized matching law as a description of multiple-schedule responding

The literature was examined to determine how well the generalized matching law (Baum, 1974) describes multiple-schedule responding. In general, it describes the data well, accounting for a median of 91% of the variance. The median size of the undermatching parameter was 0.46; the median bias parameter was 1.00. The size of the undermatching parameter, and the proportion of the variance accounted for by the equation, varied inversely with the number of schedules conducted, with the number of sessions conducted per schedule, and with the time within a component. The undermatching parameter also varied with the operanda used to produce reinforcers and with the reinforcer used. The undermatching parameter did not vary consistently with component duration or with several other variables. Bias was greater when fewer rather than more schedules were conducted, when two rather than one operanda were used, and when White Carneaux rather than homing pigeons served as subjects. These results imply that the generalized matching law may describe both concurrent and multiple-schedule responding, but that the same variables do not always influence the bias and undermatching parameters in the same way for the two types of schedules.