Discriminated response and incentive processes in operant conditioning: a two-factor model of stimulus control

Understanding stimulus control generated in instrumental learning requires the direct investigation of discriminated response and reinforcer (incentive) processes acquired exclusively through the response-reinforcer contingencies operating on complex (multicomponent) baselines. Two series of stimulus-compounding studies accomplished this direct investigation. In one series, the independent variable was the relative reinforcement between schedule components; in the second series, it was relative response rate between components. Stimulus-compounding tests revealed that response and incentive processes enhanced each other when in agreement, counteracted each other when in opposition, and produced intermediate results when only one factor was operating. This pattern of results led to the conclusion that these factors were algebraically combining and to the development of a response/incentive matrix reflecting these dynamics. This two-factor analysis was extended to the peak-shift effect in stimulus generalization experiments and to the generation of inhibitory control. Two decades of stimulus compounding and peak-shift research were organized within this two-factor framework, extending this traditional approach to learning to active research areas heretofore not systematically considered in these terms.     

The role of physical identity of the sample and correct comparison stimulus in matching-to-sample paradigms

Pigeons were trained in a higher-order conditional discrimination paradigm to assess the role of physical identity in a within-subjects design. A line orientation which was super-imposed on all response keys signalled whether a response to the matching color or a response to the nonmatching color was correct. Following training under this paradigm, stimulus control gradients were obtained by varying the angularity of the lines. Orderly gradients of stimulus control were obtained and no bias toward or away from the physically identical comparison stimulus was observed. The data were interpreted as indicating that the pigeons acquired a discrimination for each specific stimulus configuration or a set of specific stimulus-response chains based on compound stimuli in which physical identity played no special role.     

Conditioned reinforcement and choice

In a series of three experiments, rats were exposed to successive schedule components arranged on two levers, in which lever pressing produced a light, and nose-key pressing produced water in 50% of the light periods. When one auditory signal was presented only during those light periods correlated with water on one lever, and a different signal was presented only during those light periods correlated with nonreinforcement on the other lever, the former lever was preferred in choice trials, and higher rates of responding were maintained on the former lever in nonchoice (forced) trials. Thus, the rats preferred a schedule component that included a conditioned reinforcer over one that did not, with the schedules of primary reinforcement and the information value of the signals equated. Preferences were maintained when one or the other of the auditory signals was deleted, but were not established in naive subjects when training began with either the positive or negative signal only. Discriminative control of nose-key pressing by the auditory signals was highly variable across subjects and was not correlated with choice.     

Visual dominance in the pigeon

In Experiment 1, three pigeons were trained to obtain grain by depressing one foot treadle in the presence of a 746-Hertz tone stimulus and by depressing a second foot treadle in the presence of a red light stimulus. Intertrial stimuli included white light and the absence of tone. The latencies to respond on auditory element trials were as fast, or faster, than on visual element trials, but pigeons always responded on the visual treadle when presented with a compound stimulus composed of the auditory and visual elements. In Experiment 2, pigeons were trained on the auditory-visual discrimination task using as trial stimuli increases in the intensity of auditory or visual intertrial stimuli. Again, pigeons showed visual dominance on subsequent compound stimulus test trials. In Experiment 3, on compound test trials, the onset of the visual stimulus was delayed relative to the onset of the auditory stimulus. Visual treadle responses generally occurred with delay intervals of less than 500 milliseconds, and auditory treadle responses generally occurred with delay intervals of greater than 500 milliseconds. The results are discussed in terms of Posner, Nissen, and Klein's (1976) theory of visual dominance in humans.     

NORMAL PEER MODELS AND AUTISTIC CHILDREN'S LEARNING

Present research and legislation regarding mainstreaming autistic children into normal classrooms have raised the importance of studying whether autistic children can benefit from observing normal peer models. The present investigation systematically assessed whether autistic children's learning of discrimination tasks could be improved if they observed normal children perform the tasks correctly. In the context of a multiple baseline design, four autistic children worked on five discrimination tasks that their teachers reported were posing difficulty. Throughout the baseline condition the children evidenced very low levels of correct responding on all five tasks. In the subsequent treatment condition, when normal peers modeled correct responses, the autistic children's correct responding increased dramatically. In each case, the peer modeling procedure produced rapid achievement of the acquisition criterion which was maintained after the peer models were removed. These results are discussed in relation to issues concerning observational learning and in relation to the implications for mainstreaming autistic children into normal classrooms.     

The legacy of Guttman and Kalish (1956): Twenty-five years of research on stimulus generalization

This paper is a selective review of the methods, problems, and findings in the area of operant stimulus generalization over the 25 years since the publication of the original paper by Guttman and Kalish (1956) on discriminability and spectral generalization in the pigeon. The paper falls into five main sections, which encompass the main themes and problems stemming from the Guttman and Kalish work and its immediate successors. The first section addresses the relationship between stimulus generalization and stimulus control, as well as the variety of testing procedures and dependent variables used to measure generalization. The next section reviews the limited literature on the effects of early rearing on the generalization gradient. The relationship between discriminability among test stimuli and the slope of the spectral gradient is discussed in the third section, with emphasis upon recent reassessments of the pigeon's hue discriminability function. The fourth section reviews the topic of inhibitory stimulus control, one which developed with the discovery of the peak shift following intradimensional discrimination training. Problems of definition and measurement are discussed in conjunction with the gradient forms used to index inhibitory control. The last section is devoted to attentional effects and the two principal theories postulated to account for them. A survey of different attentional paradigms is provided and the possible role of constant irrelevant stimuli as a source of control is examined. A brief conclusion summarizes the contribution of the generalization technique toward an understanding of the nature and acquisition of stimulus control.     

Differential responding without differential reinforcement: Intensity difference, continuum position, and reinforcement density effects

The response rates of five groups of rats were observed during exposure to different intensities of a four kilohertz tone within a two-component multiple schedule of nondifferential reinforcement. Response rates were found to be higher during the multiple schedule component which contained the higher intensity tone. Larger differences in response rates between the two multiple schedule components occurred with greater intensity separations (30 versus 20 decibels). At the 30 decibel separation a low absolute magnitude produced larger response rate differences than a high absolute magnitude, while at the 20 decibel separation a high absolute magnitude produced larger response rate differences. Increases in reinforcement density were accompanied by decreases in response rate differences between high and low intensity components only when over-all response rates also increased.     

The role of discriminative stimuli in concurrent performances

Key pecking in pigeons was examined under concurrent and parallel arrangements of two independent and simultaneously available variable-interval schedules. Pecks on the changeover key alternated the schedule of reinforcement for responses on the main key. Under concurrent schedules, discriminative stimuli were paired with the reinforcement schedule arranged in each component and changeover responses also alternated these stimuli. Under parallel schedules, changeover responses alternated the effective reinforcement schedule, but did not change the discriminative stimulus. On concurrent procedures, changeover response rate was inversely related to the difference in reinforcement rate between the two components, whereas on parallel schedules no consistent relationship was found. With both schedules, absolute response and reinforcement rates were positively related, although for a given set of reinforcement frequencies, rates were often higher on the concurrent schedules. On concurrent schedules, relative response rates and relative times were equal to relative reinforcement rates. On parallel schedules these ratios were positively related, but response and time ratios were much smaller than were obtained with comparable concurrent schedules. This inequality was most pronounced when absolute reinforcement frequencies were lowest.     

Stimulus stringing by pigeons

Pigeons were trained to peck one, two, three, and then four colors in a predetermined sequence from a five-key array where, over trials, each color appeared equally often in each position of the array. Incorrect pecks resulted in a buzzer and trial termination, with the same array presented for the next trial. Correct pecks produced feedback and correct strings could produce food. All subjects performed at a high level of accuracy with no difference at asymptote between a continuous and a mixed spectral sequence as the required order. Transfer to a new set of arrays had little effect on accuracy. Errors forward in the sequence had the highest probability, followed by repeat errors, backward errors, and dark-key errors. Some arrays had a higher level of accuracy than others but a corresponding systematic variable could not be identified.     

RESEARCH ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENERALIZATION AND MAINTENANCE IN EXTRA-THERAPY RESPONDING1

Many authors have reported that the development of programs for producing durable extra-therapy responding lags behind the development of programs for producing initial behavior change. In Experiment I, responding was recorded continuously in both the therapy and extra-therapy settings. The results showed that one child did not generalize to the extra-therapy setting, but that other children did. However, for the children who generalized, extra-therapy responding was not maintained. Therefore, in Experiment II two variables affecting the durability of extra-therapy responding were assessed and found to be influential: (a) the use of partial reinforcement schedules in the original treatment environment; and (b) the presence of noncontingent reinforcers in the extra-therapy environment. The results suggest that there are two distinct parameters of extra-therapy responding: generalization and maintenance. A technology for producing durable extra-therapy responding is discussed in terms of different treatment procedures required for different deficits in extra-therapy responding.