Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies

College students' presses on a telegraph key occasionally turned on a light in the presence of which button presses produced points later exchangeable for money. Initially, responding was maintained by low-rate contingencies superimposed on either random-interval or random-ratio schedules. Later, the low-rate contingencies were relaxed. Low-rate key pressing had been established for some students by shaping and for others by demonstration and written instructions. After the low-rate contingencies were relaxed, higher response rates generally did not increase point earnings with random-interval scheduling, but did so with random-ratio scheduling. In both cases, shaped responding usually increased, and instructed responding usually continued at an unchanged low rate. The insensitivity of instructed responding typically occurred despite contact with the contingencies. The differential sensitivity to schedule contingencies of shaped responding relative to instructed responding is consistent with the different properties of contingency-governed and rule-governed behavior and is not rate-dependent.     

Marc Richelle (1930–2021) and the Study of Temporal Regulation of Behaviour in Animals

This article discusses the contribution of Marc Richelle to the study of temporal regulation of behaviour in animals. Richelle was a pioneer of behavioural pharmacology in Europe in the 1960s, and some of his early pharmacological experiments, particular those involving chlordiazepoxide, are discussed. Richelle frequently tested drug effects on performance on fixed-interval (FI) and differential reinforcement of low rate (DRL) schedules. Much of his later work, conducted with Helga Lejeune, involved cross-species comparisons of performance on FI and DRL, and often focused on potential differences between “timing competence” and “timing performance”. His work provided an unrivalled body of research on operant behaviour in different species, involving research on animals as different as cats and fish. Much of the work was reviewed in Richelle and Lejeune’s 1980 book Time in Animal Behaviour, which contained particularly influential accounts of collateral behaviour and inter-species comparisons.     

Drug effects on fixed-interval responding with pause requirements for food presentation.

In pigeons performing under a multiple schedule of food presentation, low key-pecking rates (0.18 to 0.29 responses per second) were maintained during 3-min fixed-interval components by requiring a 4-, 5-, or 6-sec pause preceding the food-delivery response (tandem DRL), while higher rates (0.70 to 1.37 responses per second) were maintained in alternative fixed-interval components by requiring a pause of no more than 40 msec preceding the food-delivery response (tandem DRH). Thus, reinforcement density was equal but overall response rates markedly different in the two schedule components. Pentobarbital (3, 10 mg/kg) had effects on overall rates of responding consistent with a rate-dependency interpretation (low rates were increased while higher rates were decreased), but d-amphetamine (0.03 to 3 mg/kg) either failed to increase low overall rates in the tandem DRL components or increased them only slightly. Effects of both drugs on local responding within the fixed-intervals were always related in an orderly way to control response rate, but the extent of rate increases produced by d-amphetamine was modifed in some birds by pause requirements such that the drug increased comparable rates less when these occurred in the tandem DRL component than when they occurred in the tandem DRH components. Control rate is an important determinant of drug effects, independent DRH components. Control rate is an important determinant of drug effects, independent of reinforcement density maintaining rates, and independent of environmental influences, such as response-spacing requirements for food presentation, that can modify the extent of some drug-produced rate changes.     

Effects of a delay-reinforcement procedure on performance under IRT>t schedules

Water-deprived rats were studied under a compound schedule that prescribed that responses terminating interresponse times (IRTs) greater than a fixed value t₁ (IRT > t₁ component schedule) initiated a delay of reinforcement interval t₂, at the end of which water was presented if the subject did not respond ( > t₂ component schedule). If the subject responded before the t₂ interval elapsed, the IRT > t₁ component schedule was re-initiated and water was not presented. The IRT > t₁ and > t₂ component schedules were not differentially correlated with distinctive stimuli. Rate of responding during the IRT > t₁ component decreased as a function of the value of t₂. The magnitude of the decreases in response rate appeared to be proportional to the subject's rate under the IRT > t schedule with no delay of reinforcement (t₂ = 0 sec). The effects were independent of the parameter value of the IRT > t₁ component schedule and of the rate of reinforcement. The results suggested that “efficiency” of performance under IRT > t schedules can be increased by appropriately arranging brief delays of reinforcement.     

Briefly delayed reinforcement: An interresponse time analysis

Key-peck responding of pigeons was compared under VI or DRL schedules arranging immediate reinforcement and briefly (.5 sec) delayed reinforcement. Delays were either signaled by a blackout in the chamber, unsignaled, or unsignaled with an additional requirement that responding not occur during the .5 sec interval immediately preceding reinforcement (response delay). Relative to the immediate reinforcement condition, response rates increased during the unsignaled delay, decreased during the signaled delay, and were inconsistent during the response delay condition. An analysis of interresponse times (IRTs) under the different conditions revealed a substantial increase in the frequency of short (0 to .5 sec) IRTs during the unsignaled condition and generally during the response delay conditions compared to that during the immediate reinforcement baseline. Signaled delays decreased the frequency of short (0 to .5 sec) IRTs relative to the immediate reinforcement condition. The results suggest that brief unsignaled delays and, in many instances, response delays increase the frequency of short IRTs by eliminating constraints on responding.     

EFFECTS OF SPACED RESPONDING DRL ON THE STEREOTYPED BEHAVIOR OF PROFOUNDLY RETARDED PERSONS

Stereotypic responding and social behaviors of three profoundly retarded children were measured before and during application of a DRL contingency for stereotypic responding. A variant of the standard DRL procedure, spaced responding DRL, was used, in which reinforcement is delivered following a response if that response has been separated from the previous response by at least a fixed minimum time interval. Three children were treated by using a reversal design. Results showed that: (a) during baseline sessions, the children engaged in high rates of stereotypic responding and very low rates of appropriate social behavior; and (b) during DRL sessions, appropriate behavior increased markedly as stereotypic responding was reduced. The data suggest that spaced responding DRL may be effective in increasing appropriate social behavior as well as in reducing stereotypic responding.     

Successive discrimination training with equated reinforcement frequencies: failure to obtain behavioral contrast

In two experiments, pigeons were trained on two-component multiple schedules in which responding in one component (S₁) was always maintained by a variable-interval schedule. In Experiment I, low response rates were reinforced in the second (S₂) component for six master subjects. This schedule was adjusted to equate reinforcement frequencies in the two components. These subjects were compared to yoked partners, for which reinforcement in the S₂ component was made available on a variable-interval schedule whose value was determined by the master subjects. A similar procedure was used in Experiment II, where the S₂ schedule for master subjects made reinforcers contingent on the absence of responding. No evidence was found in either experiment for a behavioral contrast effect in the S₁ component attributable to response reduction in the S₂ component. A reliable contrast effect was obtained from a group of pigeons given extinction conditions in the S₂ component, which was compared to a group maintained throughout on a multiple variable-interval schedule. The results suggest that previous indications of behavioral contrast in similar situations were probably caused by uneven reinforcement distributions or reflect uncontrolled fluctuations in response rates.     

Choice between response units: The rate constancy model

In a conjoint schedule, reinforcement is available simultaneously on two or more schedules for the same response. The present experiments provided food for key pecking on both a random-interval and a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule. Experiment 1 involved ordinary DRL schedules; Experiment 2 added an external stimulus to indicate when the required interresponse time had elapsed. In both experiments, the potential reinforcer frequency from each component was varied by means of a second-order fixed-ratio schedule, and the DRL time parameter was changed as well. Response rates were described by a model stating that time allocation to each component matches the relative frequency of reinforcement for that component. When spending time in a given component, the subject is assumed to respond at the rate characteristic of baseline performance. This model appeared preferable to the absolute-rate version of the matching law. The model was shown to be applicable to multiple-response concurrent schedules as well as to conjoint schedules, and it described some of the necessary conditions for response matching, undermatching, and bias. In addition, the pigeons did not optimize reinforcer frequency.