A note on chaining and temporal discrimination

Four pigeons were exposed to a two-key DRL procedure. At the start of a trial, key A was illuminated. A response to the lighted key turned it off and simultaneously illuminated key B. Reinforcement was available for responses on key B which followed the initial key A response by more than 2 sec. In the course of exposure to these conditions, all birds acquired superstitious response chains on key A. The distribution of the number of responses on key A preceding a key B response and the distribution of intervals elapsing from the initial key A response to the key B response were of the same form. The suggestion is made that the superstitious responding on key A served to mediate the required delay interval. However, when intervals between successive key A responses were recorded for one subject, they were found to be regularly spaced in time. Thus, the problem remains of how this behavior is itself timed.     

An analysis of contrast effects in multiple schedules

Some phenomena of behavioral contrast in multiple schedules are reviewed, and three accounts of contrast are considered. Rate changes within a constant schedule component (transient contrasts) are distinguished from rate changes across successive schedule cycles (sustained contrasts). Pigeons were exposed to a three-component multiple schedule, in which a stimulus correlated with a constant variable interval schedule of reinforcement was preceded by a stimulus correlated with more frequent variable interval reinforcement, or by an extinction stimulus. If the preceding stimulus was correlated with more frequent reinforcement, the response rate in the constant component was low and increased with time. If the preceding stimulus was correlated with extinction, the rate in the constant component was high and decreased with time. Similar transient contrasts were observed in a two-component multiple schedule with different variable interval schedules in the two components. The transient contrast effects in the three-component schedule were shown to depend on differential reinforcement frequency rather than differential response rate in the preceding component. Such transient contrasts were not sufficient to account for sustained contrast effects observed in these experiments. The relation of these findings to the concepts of excitation and inhibition is discussed.     

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.     

Resistance To Change As A Function Of Stimulus-reinforcer And Location-reinforcer Contingencies

Pigeons responded on two keys in each component of a multiple concurrent schedule. In one series of conditions the distribution of reinforcers between keys within one component was varied so as to produce changes in ratios of reinforcer totals for key locations when summed across components. In a second series, reinforcer allocation between components was varied so as to produce changes in ratios of reinforcer totals for components, summed across key locations. In each condition, resistance to change was assessed by presenting response-independent reinforcers during intercomponent blackouts and (for the first series) by extinction of responding on both keys in both components. Resistance to change for response totals within a component was always greater for the component with the larger total reinforcer rate. However, resistance to change for response totals at a key location was not a positive function of total reinforcement for pecking that key; indeed, relative resistance to extinction for the two locations showed a weak negative relation to ratios of reinforcer totals for key location. These results confirm the determination of resistance to change by stimulus—reinforcer contingencies.     

Choice, time allocation, and response rate during stimulus generalization

Six pigeons were trained to discriminate between two noise intensities using a procedure that assessed choice, time allocation, and response rate simultaneously and independently. Responses on the left or right key (R1 or R2) were respectively correct in the presence of two different intensities, S1 and S2. After a correct response, reinforcement became available for pecks on the center key. Reinforcement density for R1¦S1 relative to R2¦S2 was varied across experimental conditions. Generalization tests followed extensive training at each condition. As a function of stimulus intensity, proportions of initial choices of R2, of time spent in R2-initiated components, and of center-key responses emitted in R2-initiated components all yielded sigmoidal gradients of similar slope, which shifted slightly in location when relative reinforcement density changed. Changeovers were maximal where initial choice proportions approximated 0.5. Gradients relating the absolute number of center-key responses to stimulus intensity were also roughly sigmoidal, but were more sensitive to changes in reinforcement density. Gradients of momentary response rate also depended on reinforcement density. During training, large but transitory shifts in choice responding occurred when reinforcement density changed, while differences in momentary response rate developed slowly, suggesting separate control of choice and response rate by the contingencies of reinforcement.     

Fixed-interval punishment of running in hamsters

Four hamsters received brief electric shocks contingent upon running in a wheel. The fixed interval between shocks was varied systematically from 0 to 60 sec. Time spent running was directly related to the length of the fixed interval, while running speed remained roughly constant. Running depended on the fixed interval between shocks in the same way as bar-pressing maintained by food reinforcement, despite the fact that running was not established with nor maintained by explicit reinforcement.     

Preference and resistance to change with constant-duration schedule components

Previous research on preference between variable-interval terminal links in concurrent chains has most often used variable-duration terminal links ending with a single reinforcer. By contrast, most research on resistance to change in multiple schedules has used constant-duration components that include variable numbers of reinforcers in each presentation. Grace and Nevin (1997) examined both preference and resistance in variable-duration components; here, preference and resistance were examined in constant-duration components. Reinforcer rates were varied across eight conditions, and a generalized-matching-law analysis showed that initial-link preference strongly over-matched terminal-link reinforcer ratios. In multiple schedules, baseline response rates were unaffected by reinforcer rates, but resistance to intercomponent food, to extinction, and to intercomponent food plus extinction was greater in the richer component. The between-component difference in resistance to change exhibited additive effects for the three resistance tests, and was systematically related to reinforcer ratios. However, resistance was less sensitive to reinforcer ratios than was preference. Resistance to intercomponent food and to intercomponent food plus extinction was more sensitive to reinforcer ratios in the present study than in Grace and Nevin (1997). Thus, relative to variable-duration components, constant-duration components increased the sensitivity of both preference and relative resistance, supporting the proposition that these are independent and convergent measures of the effects of a history of reinforcement.