Human Signal-detection Performance: Effects Of Signal Presentation Probabilities And Reinforcer Distributions

University students participated in one of four standard two-choice signal-detection experiments in which signal presentation probability was varied and the reinforcement distribution was held constant and equal. In Experiments 1, 3 and 4, subjects' performance showed a systematic response bias for reporting the stimulus presented least often. Experiments 1 and 4 showed that this effect was reliable with extended training and monetary, rather than point, reinforcement. In Experiment 2, all correct responses were signaled in some way, and this produced the opposite relationship between signal presentation probability and response bias. Experiments 1 and 3 found that explicitly deducting money (intended as punishment) for equal numbers of incorrect responses on each alternative, or varying the obtained overall rate of reinforcement, produced no clear change in response bias. The bias, shown by humans, for reporting the stimulus presented least often remains a challenge for theories of stimulus detection.     

Preparing the Way: A Qualitative Study of High-Achieving African American Males and the Role of the Family

Employed qualitative methods to examine the role of the family in the academic success of very high-achieving African American males. Findings revealed a complex tapestry of family processes and contexts involved in each youth's journey to outstanding academic achievement. Specifically, the combined importance of parental-determined academic engagement, strict discipline, nurturance, and community connectedness appeared to counteract potentially negative contextual influences of neighborhood, peers, schools, and society. The qualitative findings tell a multifaceted, rich, and compelling story of the pathways to academic success for Black males, and highlight the need for culture-specific and ecologically based conceptualization, research, and intervention approaches.     

A comparison of multiple versus single examples of the correct stimulus on task acquisition and generalization by persons with developmental disabilities

In teaching discriminations to persons with retardation, we often presume we will improve acquisition and generalization if we use multiple examples of boththe correct and incorrect stimuli. Two experiments were conducted to test this hypothesis. In the first experiment, 7 persons with moderate retardation learned to discriminate between functional words under two conditions. In one condition, Multiple Example of S- Only,1 example of the correct stimulus (S+) and 10 examples of the incorrect stimulus (S-) were used during acquisition. In the other condition, Multiple Examples of S+ and S-,10 examples of the S+ and 10 examples of the S- were used. Results showed that the condition which presented only a single example of S+ was superior 16 times and inferior 4 times during acquisition, generalization, and maintenance. A second experiment was conducted to (a) replicate the methodology and procedures in Experiment 1 with different participants, (b) determine whether the results were replicable, and (c) obtain efficiency data. Results replicated the findings of the first experiment. The condition which presented only a single example of S+ was superior on measures of (a) trials to criterion, (b) percent correct during acquisition, and (c) minutes to criterion. On measures of generalization, the two conditions were relatively equal. Thus, the condition which presented only a single example of the correct stimulus was more efficient and was just as effective in generalization as the condition which presented multiple examples of both the S+ and S-. These surprising results were discussed in terms of stimulus control, why students performed just as well during generalization when only one example of the S+ was used, why acquisition was also poorer for this condition, and how future studies might address these points.     

Interactions in multiple schedules: negative induction with squirrel monkeys

In Experiment I, lever pressing by squirrel monkeys was maintained under a sequence of variable-interval, multiple variable-interval variable-interval, and multiple variable-interval extinction schedules of food presentation. Negative induction (decreased responding in the unchanged component) occurred when one component of the multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule was changed to extinction. Negative induction was transient over sessions; responding in the unchanged component usually recovered to a rate similar to that under the multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule. Negative induction was not accompanied by consistent changes in the patterns of local responding within the unchanged component, and did not depend on whether component schedules were associated with localized (lever lights) or diffuse visual stimuli (houselights), or on whether the unchanged component was a 60- or 180-sec variable-interval schedule. In Experiment II, responding was maintained under a sequence of variable-interval and multiple variable-interval timeout schedules of food presentation. Negative induction occurred when responding declined gradually in the timeout component but not when responding declined abruptly. The nature of interactions in multiple schedules may depend on the species; negative induction was observed with squirrel monkeys under conditions similar to those that produce positive contrast with pigeons.     

Reaction times of pigeons on a wavelength discrimination task

After extensive pretraining, three pigeons were exposed in 2-second trials to a random series of 14 light wavelengths, ranging in one nanometer (nm) steps from 575 nanometers to 589 nanometers. Responses to one of the wavelengths, 582 nanometers, were intermittently reinforced. The relative frequency of response approached 1.0 at 582 nanometers, and decreased with progressively higher and lower wavelengths. Reaction times shorter than about 0.2 second occurred with a low frequency that was largely independent of wavelength. Wavelength controlled the frequency of longer reaction times, but did not affect the distribution of these reaction times. Consequently, receiver-operating characteristic curves constructed by using reaction time as a rating measure did not conform to the signal-detection model, in contrast to such conformity when response rate is used in a similar way. The data suggest that stimulus onset as such triggers early response emission with some small probability; the probability of responses with longer latency is controlled by wavelength, but their time of emission is controlled by some independent process.     

On the discriminability of stimulus duration.

The performance of pigeons trained to detect differences in the duration of stimuli was analysed using a matching model of signal detection. Two white stimuli, S1 and S2, differing in duration, were arranged with equal probability on the center key of a three-key chamber. S1 was systematically varied from 5 seconds to 25 seconds while S2 remained constant at 30 seconds. On completion of the center-key stimulus, a peck on the center key turned on the two red side keys. A left-key response was "correct" when S1 had been in effect on the center key and a right-key response was "correct" on S2 trials. A correct response produced a 3-second magazine light accompanied intermittently by food. Incorrect responses produced 3-second blackouts. Detection performance was measured under two procedures. In the first, the obtained reinforcement ratio was uncontrolled by allowing the number of food reinforcements obtained for correct left- and right-key responses to vary as the stimuli were changed. In the second procedure, the presentation of food reinforcement was controlled by holding the obtained reinforcement ratio constant. Discriminability changed as a function of stimulus differences under both procedures. No such trend was found in response bias.     

An investigation of peak shift and behavioral contrast for autoshaped and operant behavior.

Instrumental treadle press and nonreinforced key peck responses were monitored during discrimination training and generalization testing in pigeons on positive and negative reinforcement schedules. In Experiment 1, six pigeons pressed a treadle for food on a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule. In Experiment 2, three pigeons pressed a treadle to avoid shock on a multiple free-operant avoidance extinction schedule. Different color keylights signaled S+ and S- components. Some positive behavioral contrast occurred during discrimination training, but the effect was small. Pecking occurred to the S+ keylight in Experiment 1 but not in Experiment 2. On stimulus generalization tests, all subjects displayed a positive peak shift when pressing the treadle for food or to avoid shock. However, peak shift was not found for nonreinforced "autopecks" on the stimulus key, although an area shift was observed in Experiment 1. This is the first demonstration of peak shift for pigeons pressing treadles and the only reliable demonstration of peak shift when negative reinforcement maintained responding. These results, in combination with previous demonstrations of peak shift for rats pressing levers and pigeons pecking keys, indicate that peak shift is a general by-product of operant discrimination learning, since it occurs across a variety of the organisms, responses, and reinforcers.     

Effect of delay-interval stimuli on delayed symbolic matching to sample in the pigeon

In Experiment 1, food-deprived pigeons received delayed symbolic matching to sample training in a darkened Skinner box. Trials began with the illumination of the grain feeder lamp (no food sample), or illumination of this lamp, accompanied by the raising of the feeder tray (food sample). After a delay of a few seconds, the two side response keys were illuminated, one with red and one with green light, with positions counterbalanced over trials. Pecking the red (green) comparison produced grain reinforcement if the trial had started with food (no food); pecking red after a no-food sample or green after a food sample was not reinforced. Once matching performance was stable, four stimuli were presented during the delay interval, and their effects on matching accuracy were evaluated. Both illumination of the houselight and the center key with white geometric forms decreased matching accuracy, whereas presentation of a tone and vibration of the test chamber did not. In Experiment 2, pecking the red center key was reinforced with food according to a variable interval schedule. The effects of occasional brief presentations of the four stimuli used in the first experiment on ongoing pecking were assessed. The houselight and form disturbed key pecking, but the tone and vibration did not. Thus, stimuli that interfered with delayed matching also interfered with simple operant behavior. Implications of these results for theories of remembering are discussed.     

Stimulus control of respondent and operant key pecking: A single key procedure

Pigeons' responses to a uniformly illuminated response key were either reinforced on a variable-interval one-minute schedule of reinforcement or extinguished for one-minute periods. When 1.5 second signals were presented at the beginning of each component, so as to differentially predict reinforcement, the pigeons pecked at the signals, at rates higher than rates during the remainder of the component. When the brief signals were not differentially predictive of reinforcement, pecking in their presence decreased to near zero levels. Similar results were obtained with signals based upon colors and upon line orientations. Changes in rates of (unreinforced) pecking occurred during the signal whether pigeons responded differentially during the remainder of the component or not. Experiment II demonstrated that the presence of the signal correlated with extinction was not necessary for pecking to develop at the signal which preceded the component in which responding was intermittently reinforced. The experiments demonstrated a clear dissociation of respondent control from operant control of a response. In addition, operant behavior was shown to be relatively insensitive to differing rates of reinforcement, as compared to the sensitivity of respondent behavior to differing rates of reinforcement produced by the very same operant behavior.