Effects of alternative reinforcement sources: A reevaluation

The effects of two alternative sources of food delivery on the key-peck responding of pigeons were examined. Pecking was maintained by a variable-interval 3-min schedule. In the presence of this schedule in different conditions, either a variable-time 3-min schedule delivering food independently of responding or an equivalent schedule that required a minimum 2-s pause between a key peck and food delivery (a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule) was added. The differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule reduced response rates more than did the variable-time schedule in most instances. The delay between a key peck and the next reinforcer consistently was longer under the differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule than under the variable-time schedule. Response rates and median delay between responses and reinforcers were negatively correlated. These results contradict earlier conclusions about the behavioral effects of alternative reinforcement. They suggest that an interpretation in terms of response–reinforcer contiguity is consistent with the data.     

Varying response-reinforcer contiguity in a recycling conjunctive schedule

Three experiments describe the effects of manipulating the frequency of response-reinforcer contiguity in a recycling conjunctive schedule. The schedule arranged that a reinforcer was delivered after 30 s provided at least one response had occurred; otherwise the next cycle started immediately. In Experiment 1, this schedule produced the typical pause–respond–pause pattern, with most responses at mid-interval; and, when a limited number of contiguities between responses and food delivery were added, the pattern became more like the monotonic scallop seen on fixed-interval schedules. In Experiment 2, the schedule was initially presented with an additional contingency that allowed contiguity on every trial. Fixed-interval-like behavior occurred and tended to persist as contiguities were gradually eliminated. In Experiment 3, the recycling conjunctive schedule alternated with a condition in which a large number of contiguities occurred. The pause–respond–pause pattern and fixed-interval-like performance occurred with few or many contiguities, respectively. The results of all three experiments illustrate how contiguity interacts with a small number of other variables to determine performance on interval schedules and illuminate previous findings with fixed-interval and fixed-time schedules.     

Drug effects on responding maintained by stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer contingencies.

The effects of pentobarbital and d-amphetamine were assessed on key pecking by pigeons under conventional single-key multiple schedules and under two-key multiple schedules in which discriminative stimuli appeared on one key (stimulus key) while pecks on a second key (constant key) produced food. Pecks on the stimulus key had no scheduled consequences. A 60-second variable-interval schedule operated in one component of each multiple schedule: either extinction or a 60-second variable-time schedule operated in the alternate component. When the alternate-component schedule was extinction, a high rate of responding was maintained in the variable-interval component of the single-key schedule; responding on both keys was maintained in the variable-interval component of the two-key schedule. Pentobarbital increased responding in the variable-interval component of the single-key schedule and increased stimulus-key, but not constant-key responding in that component of the two-key schedule. When the alternate-component schedule was changed to variable time, responding declined in the variable-interval component of the single-key schedule; stimulus-key responding was no longer maintained under the two-key schedule. Pentobarbital decreased responding in the variable-interval component of both schedules. With an exception, d-amphetamine only decreased responding in the variable-interval component of the single- and two-key schedules both when the alternate-component schedule was extinction and when it was variable time. The results suggest that the effects of pentobarbital, but not d-amphetamine, depend on the nature of the contingency (stimulus-reinforcer, response-reinforcer) that maintains responding.     

Rate and temporal pattern of key pecking under autoshaping and omission schedules of reinforcement

The role of response-reinforcer contiguity on autoshaped key pecking in pigeons was studied by scheduling response-dependent nonreinforcement at the beginning or the end of brief (8-sec) discrete trials. Schedules that permitted chance conjunctions of key pecking and food sustained high rates of responding, whereas those that prevented the occurrence of key peck-food intervals shorter than 4 sec sustained low response rates. In addition, selective reinforcement schedules supported accelerating or decelerating rates of responding within individual trials. These effects were traceable to response-reinforcer (operant), but not stimulus-reinforcer (respondent) factors.     

Interactions in multiple schedules: the role of the stimulus-reinforcer contingency

In Experiments I and II, pigeons were exposed to single-key multiple schedules of response-independent and -dependent food presentation. Components were correlated with different keylights. When the rate of food presentation in the first component exceeded that in the second component, the local rate of key pecking was relatively high at onset of the first component. Overall rate in that component varied inversely with component duration and the rate of food presentation in the second component. When responding was maintained in the second component, the local rate of key pecking was relatively low at onset of that component. Overall rate in the second component varied directly with component duration and the rate of food presentation in that component. In Experiment III, pigeons were exposed to a two-key multiple schedule. Pecks on a constantly illuminated key produced food. Components were correlated with the color of a second key on which pecks had no scheduled consequences. The effects of component duration and rate of food presentation under the single-key response-dependent schedule were synthesized by combining response rates on each concurrently available key under the two-key procedure. The results support an account of multiple-schedule interactions in terms of the joint influence on responding of stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer contingencies.     

Effects of alternative reinforcement on human behavior: the source does matter

Competing theories regarding the effects of delivering periodic response-independent reinforcement (more accurately, response-independent points exchanged for money) on a baseline rate of behavior were evaluated in human subjects. Contiguity theory holds that these events decrease target responding because incompatible behavior is adventitiously strengthened when the point deliveries follow target behavior closely in time. Matching theory holds that response-independent points, like any other alternative reinforcer, should reduce target responding. On this view, temporal contiguity between target responding and response-independent point delivery is unimportant. In our experiment, four different responses (moving a joystick in four different directions) were reinforced with points exchangeable for money according to four independent variable-interval schedules. Different schedules of point delivery were then superimposed on these baselines. When all superimposed point deliveries occurred immediately after one of the four responses (the target response), time allocated to target responding increased. When the superimposed point deliveries could be delivered at any time, time allocated to target responding declined and other behavior increased. When superimposed points could never immediately follow target responses, time allocated to target responding decreased further and other behavior or pausing predominated. The findings underscore the contribution of temporal contiguity in the effects of response-independent deliveries of food, money, points, etc.     

DELAYED REINFORCEMENT OF OPERANT BEHAVIOR

The experimental analysis of delay of reinforcement is considered from the perspective of three questions that seem basic not only to understanding delay of reinforcement, but, also, by implication, the contributions of temporal relations between events to operant behavior. The first question is whether effects of the temporal relation between responses and reinforcers can be isolated from other features of the environment that often accompany delays, such as stimuli or changes in the temporal distribution or rate of reinforcement. The second question is that of the effects of delays on operant behavior. Beyond the common denominator of a temporal separation between reinforcers and the responses that produce them, delay of reinforcement procedures differ from one another along several dimensions, making delay effects circumstance dependent. The final question is one of interpreting delay of reinforcement effects. It centers on the role of the response—reinforcer temporal relation in the context of other, concurrently operating behavioral processes.     

Contiguity and the causal theory of memory

In Memory: A Philosophical Study, Bernecker argues for an account of contiguity. This Contiguity View is meant to solve relearning and prompting, wayward causation problems plaguing the causal theory of memory. I argue that Bernecker’s Contiguity View fails in this task. Contiguity is too weak to prevent relearning and too strong to allow prompting. These failures illustrate a problem inherent in accounts of memory causation. Relearning and prompting are both causal relations, wayward only with respect to our interest in specifying remembering’s requirements. Solving them requires saying more about remembering, not causation. I conclude by sketching such an account.     

Nonuniform effects of reinstatement within the time window

A time window is a limited period after an event initially occurs in which additional information can be integrated with the memory of that event. It shuts when the memory is forgotten. The time window hypothesis holds that the impact of a manipulation at different points within the time window is nonuniform. In two operant conditioning experiments with 68 3-month-old human infants, we tested the predictive validity of the nonuniformity principle for reinstatement—a partial training trial that forestalls forgetting. After demonstrating that 3-month-olds forget the training task after 5 days (Experiment 1), we presented a reinstatement early (immediately), midway (3 days), or late (5 days) in the time window (Experiment 2). Retention increased exponentially with the reinstatement delay. The surprising magnitude of this result, plus its generality across tasks and species, strongly suggests that the timing of reinstatement differentially affects the outcomes of studies on learning and memory.     

The role of contingencies and "principles of behavioral variation" in pigeons' pecking

Staddon and Simmelhag's proposal that behavior is produced by “principles of behavioral variation” instead of contingencies of reinforcement was tested in two experiments. In the first experiment pigeons were exposed to either a fixed-interval schedule of response-contingent reinforcement, an autoshaping schedule of stimulus-contingent reinforcement, or a fixed-time schedule of noncontingent reinforcement. Pigeons exposed to contingent reinforcement came to peck more rapidly than those exposed to noncontingent reinforcement. Staddon and Simmelhag's “principles of behavioral variation” included the proposal that patterns (interim and terminal) were a function of momentary probability of reinforcement. In the second experiment pigeons were exposed to either a fixed-time or a random-time schedule of noncontingent reinforcement. Pecking showed a constant frequency of occurrence over postfood time on the random-time schedule. Most behavior showed patterns on the fixed-time schedule that differed in overall shape (i.e., interim versus terminal) from those shown on the random-time schedule. It was concluded that both the momentary probability of reinforcement and postfood time can affect patterning.