Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Method Subjects
Procedure
Results
Discussion
References
All Topics
Psychology
Cognitive Science

Stimulus effects on concurrent performance in transition

Profile image of JOÃO CLAUDIO TODOROVJOÃO CLAUDIO TODOROVProfile image of Elenice S HannaElenice S Hanna

1992, Journal of The Experimental Analysis of Behavior

https://doi.org/10.1901/JEAB.1992.58-335
visibility

…

description

13 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Six experimentally naive pigeons were exposed to concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules in a three-key procedure in which food reinforcement followed pecks on the side keys and pecks on the center key served as changeover responses. In Phase 1, 3 birds were exposed to 20 combinations of five variable-interval values, with each variable-interval value consistently associated with a different color on the side keys. Another 3 pigeons were exposed to the same 20 conditions, but with a more standard procedure that used a nondifferential discriminative stimulus on the two side keys throughout all conditions. In Phase 2, the differential and nondifferential stimulus conditions were reversed for each pigeon. Each condition lasted for one 5-hr session and one subsequent 1-hr session. In the last 14 conditions of each phase, the presence of differential discriminative stimuli decreased the time necessary for differential responding to develop and increased the sensitivity of behavior to reinforcement distribution in the 1 st hr of training; during the last hours of training in each condition, however, the effects of the differential discriminative stimuli could not be distinguished from the effects of reinforcement distribution per se. These results show the importance of studying transitions in behavior as well as final performance. They may also be relevant to discrepancies in the results of previous experiments that have used nonhuman and human subjects.

Related papers

Pigeons may not remember the stimuli that reinforced their recent behavior
Amy Odum

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2000

In two experiments the conditioned reinforcing and delayed discriminative stimulus functions of stimuli that signal delays to reinforcement were studied. Pigeons' pecks to a center key produced delayed-matching-to-sample trials according to a variable-interval 60-s (or 30-s in 1 pigeon) schedule (Experiment 1) or a multiple variable-interval 20-s variable-interval 120-s schedule (Experiment 2). The trials consisted of a 2-s illumination of one of two sample key colors followed by delays ranging across phases from 0.1 to 27.0 s followed in turn by the presentation of matching and nonmatching comparison stimuli on the side keys. Pecks to the key color that matched the sample were reinforced with 4-s access to grain. Under some conditions of Experiment 1, pecks to nonmatching comparison stimuli produced a 4-s blackout and the start of the next interval. Under other conditions of Experiment 1 and each condition of Experiment 2, pecks to nonmatching stimuli had no effect and trials ended only when pigeons pecked the other, matching stimulus and received food. The functions relating pretrial response rates to delays differed markedly from those relating matching-to-sample accuracy to delays. Specifically, response rates remained relatively high until the longest delays (15.0 to 27.0 s) were arranged, at which point they fell to low levels. Matching accuracy was high at short delays, but fell to chance at delays between 3.0 and 9.0 s. In Experiment 2, both matching accuracy and response rates remained high over a wider range of delays in the variable-interval 120-s component relative to the variable-interval 20-s component. The difference in matching accuracy between the components was not due to an increased tendency in the variable-interval 20-s component toward proactive interference following short intervals. Thus, under these experimental conditions the conditioned reinforcing and the delayed discriminative functions of the sample stimulus depended on the same variables (delay and variable-interval value), but were nevertheless dissociated.

View PDFchevron_right
Discriminative stimuli that follow the absence of reinforcement are preferred by pigeons over those that follow reinforcement
Thomas Zentall

Learning & Behavior, 2005

View PDFchevron_right
Simple and multiple schedule responding and behavioral contrast when pigeons press treadles
Frances McSweeney

Behavioural Processes, 1986

View PDFchevron_right
Behavioral contrast in the pigeon: a study of the duration of key pecking maintained on multiple schedules of reinforcement1
Alan Silberberg

Journal of The Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1975

Pecks on an operant key were reinforced on either multiple variable-interval variable-interval or multiple variable-interval extinction schedules of reinforcement. The stimuli that signalled the multiple-schedule components were located on a second key (signal key), and a changeover delay prevented reinforcement of signal key-peck-operant key-peck sequences. No behavioral contrast was observed on the operant key, and appreciable responding to the signal key occurred during the variable-interval component of the multiple variable-interval extinction procedure. Peck durations on the signal key were markedly shorter than peck durations on the operant key. Moreover, most responses on the signal key occurred just after the multiple-schedule components changed. These data support an account of behavioral contrast in terms of the summation of pecks that are separately controlled by stimulusreinforcer and response-reinforcer dependencies, and suggest that the stimulus-reinforcer dependency is responsible primarily for local contrast. In addition, the data suggest that pecks that are controlled by these two dependencies may belong to topographically different classes.

View PDFchevron_right
Concurrent performances Effect of punishment contingent on the switching response
JOÃO CLAUDIO TODOROV

Pigeons' key-pecking responses were maintained under concurrently available variableinterval schedules of reinforcement. Responses in the presence of two different key-colors were reinforced on two independent and concurrent variable-interval schedules of food reinforcement, each associated with one of the key colors (red or green). Pecks at a second key (changeover key), always white, would alternate the colors on the main key. In Exp. 1 and 2, electric shock of 50 msec duration followed immediately after changeovers. The proportion of responses in the presence of the color associated with the higher frequency of reinforcements per hour was a direct function of shock intensity contingent on changeovers. When both schedules provided equal number of reinforcements per hour, there was no systematic effect of shock intensity on response distribution. In Exp. 3, a timeout period was contingent on changeovers, and response distribution was a function of timeout length. CONTENTS Experiment 1: Electric shocks contingent on changeovers Experiment 2: Punishment and reinforcement distribution Experiment 3: Timeout contingent on changeovers When pigeons and rats are free to emit two incompatible responses, each reinforced under an independently arranged variable-interval (VI) schedule, responses tend to be distributed proportionally to the relative frequency of reinforcements provided by each schedule . A high frequency of alternation between the incompatible responses has been observed in such situations .

View PDFchevron_right
Key pecking of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of briefly signaled delayed reinforcement: effects of variable-interval value
Marc Branch

Journal of the Experimental …, 1992

Key pecking of 4 pigeons was maintained under a multiple variable-interval 20-s variable-interval 120-s schedule of food reinforcement. When rates of key pecking were stable, a 5-s unsignaled, nonresetting delay to reinforcement separated the first peck after an interval elapsed from reinforcement in both components. Rates of pecking decreased substantially in both components. When rates were stable, the situation was changed such that the peck that began the 5-s delay also changed the color of the keylight for 0.5 s (i.e., the delay was briefly signaled). Rates increased to near-immediate reinforcement levels. In subsequent conditions, delays of 10 and 20 s, still briefly signaled, were tested. Although rates of key pecking during the component with the variable-interval 120-s schedule did not change appreciably across conditions, rates during the variable-interval 20-s component decreased greatly in 1 pigeon at the 10-s delay and decreased in all pigeons at the 20-s delay. In a control condition, the variable-interval 20-s schedule with 20-s delays was changed to a variable-interval 35-s schedule with 5-s delays, thus equating nominal rates of reinforcement. Rates of pecking increased to baseline levels. Rates of pecking, then, depended on the value of the briefly signaled delay relative to the programmed interfood times, rather than on the absolute delay value. These results are discussed in terms of similar findings in the literature on conditioned reinforcement, delayed matching to sample, and classical conditioning.

View PDFchevron_right
Positive behavioral contrast as a function of time-out duration when pigeons peck keys on a within-session procedure
Frances McSweeney

Animal Learning & Behavior, 1991

Three pigeons pecked keys for food reinforcersdelivered by multiple variable interval variable interval schedules in the first part of each session (baseline) and by multiple variable interval extinction schedules in the second part of each session (contrast). The variable interval schedules delivered reinforcers after an average of 4 min or 30 sec in different conditions. The duration of a time-out between the components varied in five steps from 5 10 120 sec. Positive contrast occurred for all time-out durations in both experiments. That is, the rate of responding emitted during the constant, variable interval component was greater during the contrast than during the baseline schedules. The size of contrast did not change systematically with changes in timeout duration. These results violate most theories of contrast. They are compatible with the idea that animals integrate reinforcers over intervals longer than 2 min.

View PDFchevron_right
Fixed-ratio discrimination: effects of intermittent reinforcement
Tore Lydersen

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1977

Four pigeons had discrimination training that required the choice of a left side-key after completing a fixed-ratio 10 on the center key, and a right side-key choice after fixed-ratio 20. Correct choices were reinforced on various fixed-interval, fixed-ratio, random-interval, and random-ratio schedules. When performance was examined across successive 15-second intervals (fixed-interval and fixed-ratio schedules) accuracy was high in the first 15-second interval, decreased in one or several of the next 15-second intervals, and then increased again as reinforcement was approached. When perforlniance was examined across correct trials on fixed-interval and fixed-ratio schedules, accuracy was lowest immediately after reinforcement, followed by a systematic increase in accuracy as the number of correct choices increased. These patterns were due primarily to errors on fixed-ratio 20 trials. Systematic accuracy patterns did not occur on random-interval or random-ratio schedules. The results indicate that when choice patterns differed on fixed-interval and fixed-ratio schedLules, the differences were due to the method of data analysis.

View PDFchevron_right
Transitive responding in pigeons: influences of stimulus frequency and reinforcement history
Juan Delius

Behavioural Processes, 1996

Fersen et al. (1991) (J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process., 17: 334-341) trained pigeons to discriminate four overlapping pairs of stimuli A + B -, B + C -, C + D -and D + E -(+ rewarded, -penalized).

View PDFchevron_right
Responding of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of signaled-delayed reinforcement: effects of delay-signal duration
Marc Branch

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1990

Two experiments with pigeons examined the relation of the duration of a signal for delay ("delay signal") to rates of key pecking. The first employed a multiple schedule comprised of two components with equal variable-interval 60-s schedules of 27-s delayed food reinforcement. In one component, a short (0.5-s) delay signal, presented immediately following the key peck that began the delay, was increased in duration across phases; in the second component the delay signal initially was equal to the length of the programmed delay (27 s) and was decreased across phases. Response rates prior to delays were an increasing function of delay-signal duration. As the delay signal was decreased in duration, response rates were generally higher than those obtained under identical delay-signal durations as the signal was increased in duration. In Experiment 2 a single variable-interval 60-s schedule of 27-s delayed reinforcement was used. Delay-signal durations were again increased gradually across phases. As in Experiment 1, response rates increased as the delay-signal duration was increased. Following the phase during which the signal lasted the entire delay, shorter delay-signal-duration conditions were introduced abruptly, rather than gradually as in Experiment 1, to determine whether the gradual shortening of the delay signal accounted for the differences observed in response rates under identical delay-signal conditions in Experiment 1. Response rates obtained during the second exposures to the conditions with shorter signals were higher than those observed under identical conditions as the signal duration was increased, as in Experiment 1. In both experiments, rates and patterns of responding during delays varied greatly across subjects and were not systematically related to delay-signal durations. The effects of the delay signal may be related to the signal's role as a discriminative stimulus for adventitiously reinforced intradelay behavior, or the delay signal may have served as a conditioned reinforcer by virtue of the temporal relation between it and presentation of food.

View PDFchevron_right

References (58)

  1. Baum, W. M. (1974). On two types of deviation from matching: Bias and undermatching. Journal of the Ex- perimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 231-242.
  2. Baum, W. M. (1979). Matching, undermatching and overmatching in studies of choice. Journal of the Ex- perimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 269-282.
  3. Beale, I. L., & Winton, A. S. W. (1970). Inhibitory stimulus control in concurrent schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 14, 133-137.
  4. Blough, D. S. (1973). Two-way generalization peak shift after two-key training in the pigeon. Animal Learning & Behavior, 1, 171-174.
  5. Boldero, J., Davison, M., & McCarthy, D. (1985). Re- inforcer frequency and reinforcer magnitude as biasers of signal detection. Behavior Processes, 10, 131-143.
  6. Bourland, G., & Miller, J. T. (1978). Role of discrim- inative stimuli in concurrent performances: Duration of changeover delay. Psychological Record, 28, 263-271.
  7. Bourland, G., & Miller, J. T. (1981). The role of dis- criminative stimuli in concurrent performances. Jour- nal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36, 231- 239.
  8. Bradshaw, C. M., Ruddle, H. V., & Szabadi, E. (1981). Studies of concurrent performances in humans. In C. M. Bradshaw, E. Szabadi, & C. F. Lowe (Eds.), Quan- tification of steady-state operant behaviour (pp. 79-90). Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press.
  9. Bradshaw, C. M., Szabadi, E., & Bevan, P. (1976). Be- havior of humans in variable-interval schedules of re- inforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Be- havior, 26, 135-141.
  10. Bradshaw, C. M., Szabadi, E., & Bevan, P. (1979). The effect of punishment on free-operant choice behavior in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Be- havior, 31, 71-81.
  11. Bradshaw, C. M., Szabadi, E., Bevan, P., & Ruddle, H. V. (1979). The effect of signaled reinforcement avail- ability on concurrent performances in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 65-74.
  12. Catania, A. C. (1966). Concurrent operants. In W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application (pp. 213-270). New York: Appleton-Cen- tury-Crofts.
  13. Catania, A. C., Silverman, P. J., & Stubbs, D. A. (1974). Concurrent performances: Stimulus-control gradients during schedules of signalled and unsignalled concur- rent reinforcement. Journal ofthe Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 99-107.
  14. Davison, M., & Jenkins, P. E. (1985). Stimulus dis- criminability, contingency discriminability, and sched- ule performance. Animal Learning & Behavior, 13, 77- 84.
  15. Davison, M., & McCarthy, D. (1980). Reinforcement for errors in a signal-detection procedure. Journal ofthe Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 34, 35-47.
  16. Davison, M., & McCarthy, D. (1988). The matching law: A research review. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  17. Davison, M., McCarthy, D., &Jensen, C. (1985). Com- ponent probability and component reinforcer rate as biasers of free-operant detection. Journal of the Exper- imental Analysis of Behavior, 44, 103-120.
  18. Davison, M. C., & Tustin, R. D. (1978). The relation between the generalized matching law and signal-de- tection theory. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 331-336.
  19. de Villiers, P. A. (1977). Choice in concurrent schedules and a quantitative formulation of the law of effect. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 233-287). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  20. Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  21. Findley, J. D. (1958). Preference and switching under concurrent schedules. Journal of the Experimental Anal- ysis of Behavior, 1, 123-144.
  22. Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal ofthe Experimental Analysis ofBehavior, 4, 267- 272.
  23. Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243-266.
  24. Honig, W. K., Beale, I., Seraganian, P., Lander, D., & Muir, D. (1972). Stimulus and response reduction: Two aspects of inhibitory control in learning. In R. A. Boakes & M. S. Halliday (Eds.), Inhibition and learning (p. 41-69). New York: Academic Press.
  25. Logue, A. W., Peiia-Correal, T. E., Rodriguez, M. L., & Kabela, E. (1986). Self-control in adult humans: Variation in positive reinforcer amount and delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 159-173.
  26. Lowe, C. F., & Horne, P. J. (1985). On the generality of behavioural principles: Human choice and the matching law. In C. F. Lowe, M. Richelle, D. E. Blackman, & C. M. Bradshaw (Eds.), Behaviour anal- ysis and contemporary psychology (pp. 97-115). London: Erlbaum.
  27. Mackintosh, N. J. (1977). Stimulus control: Attentional factors. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 481-513). Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  28. McCarthy, D. (1983). Measures of response bias at minimum-detectable luminance levels in the pigeon. Journal ofthe Experimental Analysis ofBehavior, 39, 87- 106.
  29. McCarthy, D., & Davison, M. (1979). Signal proba- bility, reinforcement and signal detection. Journal ofthe Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 373-386.
  30. McCarthy, D., & Davison, M. (1980). Independence of sensitivity to relative reinforcement rate and discrimi- nability in signal detection. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 34, 273-284.
  31. McCarthy, D., & Davison, M. (1981). Matching and signal detection. In M. L. Commons & J. A. Nevin (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: Vol. 1. Discrim- inative properties of reinforcement schedules (pp. 393- 417). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
  32. McCarthy, D., & Davison, M. (1982). Independence of stimulus discriminability from absolute rate of rein- forcement in a signal-detection procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 371-382.
  33. McCarthy, D., & Davison, M. (1984). Isobias and alo- bias functions in animal psychophysics. Journal of Ex- perimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 390-409.
  34. McCarthy, D., Davison, M., & Jenkins, P. E. (1982). Stimulus discriminability in free-operant and discrete- trial detection procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 199-215.
  35. Miller, J. T., Saunders, S., & Bourland, G. (1980). The role of stimulus disparity in concurrently available re- inforcement schedules. Animal Learning & Behavior, 8, 635-641.
  36. Myers, D. L., & Myers, L. E. (1977). Undermatching: A reappraisal of performance on concurrent variable- interval schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Ex- perimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 203-214.
  37. Navarick, D. J., & Chellsen, J. (1983). Matching versus undermatching in the choice of humans. Behaviour Analysis Letters, 3, 325-335.
  38. Nevin, J. A. (1969). Signal detection theory and operant behavior: A review of David M. Green and John A. Swets' Signal-Detection Theory and Psychophysics. Jour- nal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 475- 480.
  39. Nevin, J. A. (1981 a). Psychophysics and reinforcement schedules. In M. L. Commons & J. A. Nevin (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: Vol. 1. Discriminative properties of reinforcement schedules (pp. 3-27). Cam- bridge, MA: Ballinger.
  40. Nevin, J. A. (1981b). Quantitative analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 421-434.
  41. Nevin, J. A., Jenkins, P., Whittaker, S., & Yarensky, P. (1982). Reinforcement contingencies and signal de- tection. Journal ofthe Experimental Analysis ofBehavior, 37, 65-79.
  42. Oscar-Berman, M., Heyman, G. M., Bonner, R. T., & Ryder, J. (1980). Human neuropsychology: Some differences between Korsakoff and normal operant per- formance. Psychological Research, 41, 235-247.
  43. Pierce, W. D., Epling, W. F., & Greer, S. M. (1981). Human communication and the matching law. In C. M. Bradshaw, E. Szabadi, & C. F. Lowe (Eds.), Quan- tification of steady-state behaviour (pp. 345-348). Am- sterdam: Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press.
  44. Poppen, R. (1982). Human fixed-interval performance with concurrently programmed schedules: A paramet- ric analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Be- havior, 37, 251-266.
  45. Rilling, M. (1977). Stimulus control and inhibitory pro- cesses. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 432-480). Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  46. Ruddle, H. V., Bradshaw, C. M., & Szabadi,. E. (1981). Performance of humans in variable-interval avoidance schedules programmed singly, and concurrently with variable-interval schedules of positive reinforcement. Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 33B, 213- 226.
  47. Ruddle, H. V., Bradshaw, C. M., Szabadi, E., & Bevan, P. (1979). Behaviour of humans in concurrent sched- ules programmed on spatially separated operanda. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 509- 517.
  48. Ruddle, H. V., Bradshaw, C. M., Szabadi, E., & Foster, T. M. (1982). Performance of humans in concurrent avoidance/positive-reinforcement schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 51-61.
  49. Schmitt, D. R. (1974). Effects of reinforcement rate and reinforcer magnitude on choice behavior of humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 409-419.
  50. Silberberg, A., & Fantino, E. (1970). Choice, rate of reinforcement, and the changeover delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 187-197.
  51. Takahashi, M., & Iwamoto, T. (1986). Human con- current performances: The effects of experience, in- structions, and schedule-correlated stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 257-267.
  52. Taylor, R., & Davison, M. (1983). Sensitivity to rein- forcement in concurrent arithmetic and exponential schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Be- havior, 39, 191-198.
  53. Todorov, J. C., Acufia-Santaella, L. E., & Falcon-San- guinetti, 0. (1982). Concurrent procedures, change- over delay and the choice behavior of rats. Revista Mexi- cana de Analisis de la Conducta, 8, 133-147.
  54. Todorov, J. C., Hanna, E. S., & Bittencourt de Si, M. C. N. (1984). Frequency versus magnitude of rein- forcement: New data with a different procedure. Jour- nal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 157- 167.
  55. Todorov, J. C., Oliveira-Castro, J. M., Hanna, E. S., Bittencourt de Si, M. C. N., & Barreto, M. Q. (1983).
  56. Choice, experience, and the generalized matching law. Journal ofthe Experimental Analysis ofBehavior, 40, 99- 111.
  57. Wearden, J. H., & Burgess, I. S. (1982). Matching since Baum (1979). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 339-348.
  58. Winton, A. S. W., & Beale, I. L. (1971). Peak shift in concurrent schedules. Journal of the Experimental Anal- ysis of Behavior, 15, 73-81.

Related papers

The effects of changeover delays of fixed or variable duration on concurrent variable-interval performance in pigeons
Frans van Haaren

Animal Learning & Behavior, 1981

The effects of changeover delays of fixed or variable duration on concurrent variable-interval performance in pigeons were investigated in a series of three experiments. Experiment 1 compared the effects of a fixed, variable, or variable signaled changeover delay on interchangeover times and responding during and after the changeover delay. The duration of the changeover delays was systematically varied in Experiment 2, and the relative reinforcement frequencies were manipulated in Experiment 3. Interchangeover times were found to be shorter when changeover delays of variable duration were compared with those of fixed duration. Changeover delays of fixed duration produced higher response rates during the changeover delay than after the changeover delay had elapsed; changeover delays of variable duration produced such differences to a lesser extent. It was concluded that the changeover delay in concurrent variableinterval schedules of reinforcement functionally acts as a delay period to the next opportunity for reinforcement, possibly serving as a conditioned reinforcer for the behavior preceding it (the interchangeover time) and as a discriminative stimulus for the behavior in its presence (response rates during the delay).

View PDFchevron_right
Increasing the variability of response sequences in pigeons by adjusting the frequency of switching between two keys.
Armando Machado

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1997

View PDFchevron_right
Delayed signal detection, differential reinforcement, and short-term memory in the pigeon
Michael Davison

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1984

In two discrete-trial delayed-detection experiments, six pigeons were trained on dependent concurrent variable-interval schedules. Pecking a red side key was reinforced when the brighter of two white lights (S1) had been presented on the center key, and pecking a green side key was reinforced when the duller of two white lights (S2) had been presented on the center key. Incorrect responses were red side-key pecks following S2 presentations and green side-key pecks following S1 presentations; these resulted in three-second blackouts. In Experiment 1, the time between presentation of S1 or S2 on the center key and the onset of the red and green side keys was varied nonsystematically from 0.06 seconds to 19.69 seconds across experimental conditions. Stimulus discriminability decreased as the stimulus-choice delay increased. A rectangular-hyperbolic function better described this decrease in discriminability over time than did a negative-exponential function. In Experiment 2, at each of three stimulus-choice delays (0.06, 3.85, and 10.36 seconds), relative reinforcer frequency for correct responses to the red and green side keys was varied by changing the values of the dependent concurrent variable-interval schedules. The sensitivity of choice to relative reinforcer frequency was independent of the decrease in stimulus discriminability with increasing stimulus-choice delay.

View PDFchevron_right
Waiting in pigeons: the effects of daily intercalation on temporal discrimination
John Staddon

1992

Pigeons trained on cyclic-interval schedules adjust their postfood pause from interval to interval within each experimental session. But on regular fixed-interval schedules, many sessions at a given parameter value are usually necessary before the typical fixed-interval "scallop" appears. In the first case, temporal control appears to act from one interfood interval to the next; in the second, it appears to act over hundreds of interfood intervals. The present experiments look at the intermediate case: daily variation in schedule parameters. In Experiments 1 and 2 we show that pauses proportional to interfood interval develop on short-valued response-initiated-delay schedules when parameters are changed daily, that additional experience under this regimen leads to little further improvement, and that pauses usually change as soon as the schedule parameter is changed. Experiment 3 demonstrates identical waiting behavior on fixed-interval and response-initiated-delay schedules when the food delays are short (<20 s) and conditions are changed daily. In Experiment 4 we show that daily intercalation prevents temporal control when interfood intervals are longer (25 to 60 s). The results of Experiment 5 suggest that downshifts in interfood interval produce more rapid waiting-time adjustments than upshifts. These and other results suggest that the effects of short interfood intervals seem to be more persistent than those of long intervals. Key words: linear waiting, timing, fixed-interval schedules, response-initiated delay schedules, key peck, pigeons One of the most reliable aspects of performance on any reinforcement schedule is the postreinforcement pausing observed when reinforcers are delivered at regular time intervals. Independent of any response-reinforcer contingency, birds and mammals (including humans, under some conditions) learn to postpone food-related responses after each food delivery for a time proportional to the typical interfood interval (temporal control: Chung &

View PDFchevron_right
The Response‐Reinforcement Dependency in Fixed‐Interval Schedules of REINFORCEMENT1
Richard Shull

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1970

Pigeons were exposed to four different schedules of food reinforcement that arranged a fixed minimum time interval between reinforcements (60 sec or 300 sec). The first was a standard fixed‐interval schedule. The second was a schedule in which food was presented automatically at the end of the fixed time interval as long as a response had occurred earlier. The third and fourth schedules were identical to the first two except that the first response after reinforcement changed the color on the key. When the schedule required a peck after the interval elapsed, the response pattern consisted of a pause after reinforcement followed by responding at a high rate until reinforcement. When a response was not required after the termination of the interval, the pattern consisted of a pause after reinforcement, followed by responses and then by a subsequent pause until reinforcement. Having the first response after reinforcement change the color on the key had little effect on performance. Pos...

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Psychology
  • Cognitive Science
  • The Experimental Analysis of Beh...

    • Cited by

    A study of preferences in a simulated online shopping experiment
    Erik Arntzen

    Service Industries Journal, 2011

    The current study seeks to expand understanding of how brand loyalty develops by arranging environmental contingencies in online stores. A simulated online shopping experiment was prepared where participants purchase products (116 in all) from two different online stores. A concurrent reinforcement schedule was arranged for two groups of 20 participants. Free shipment was presumed to reinforce purchase behaviour. For the first group, the concurrent schedule was a VR4/VR8 arrangement for choices between two online stores. The researchers wanted to replicate this with different VR values and the second group was exposed to a VR4/VR16 arrangement for choice between two online stores. The results showed that the preference of 13 out of the 40 participants was not under the control of the experimenter-defined contingencies. For the remaining 27 participants, it was found that 18 showed preferences according to the experimenter-defined contingencies. In the first phase of the experiment, there was more variability, switching between the alternatives, than in the maintenance phase. In addition, average choice time decreased as a function of number of trials.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Temporal discounting of aversive consequences in rats
    William Rodríguez

    Learning & behavior, 2017

    Previous research has extensively evaluated the impact of delay on the value of positive reinforcers, but the study of its impact on the value of aversive consequences is scarce. The present study employed a modification of Evenden and Ryan&#39;s procedure (1996, Psychopharmacology, 128(2), 161-170) to obtain data on temporal discounting of an aversive consequence, with rats as experimental subjects. In the first phase of the procedure, rats chose between one-pellet and four-pellet alternatives; when subjects developed preference for the larger-amount alternative, a shock was added to it, resulting in a loss of preference. In the first experimental condition, the delay to shock was progressively increased within each session from zero to 40 s (ascending delays), which resulted in a recovery of the preference for the larger-amount + shock alternative as the delay to shock was increased. In a subsequent condition (descending delays) the delay to shock was progressively decreased withi...

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved