Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 11 – uploaded by Michael Davison

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 11. Condition 7 (2.22 reinforcers per minute). Log response ratios in 1:1 and 27:1 reinforcer-ratio com- ponents as a function of successive reinforcers delivered according to the reinforcer ratio in the previous com- ponent, as shown on the legend. The results from the first component of a session, which did not follow any other component, are labeled “first component.”

Figure 11 Condition 7 (2.22 reinforcers per minute). Log response ratios in 1:1 and 27:1 reinforcer-ratio com- ponents as a function of successive reinforcers delivered according to the reinforcer ratio in the previous com- ponent, as shown on the legend. The results from the first component of a session, which did not follow any other component, are labeled “first component.”

Related Figures (19)

Sequence of experimental conditions, number of rein- forcers per component, the maximum number of rein- forcers per session available, and the overall arranged rate of reinforcers in each condition of the experiment. In Conditions 4, 6, and 9, each component was presented twice per session.
Sequence of experimental conditions, number of rein- forcers per component, the maximum number of rein- forcers per session available, and the overall arranged rate of reinforcers in each condition of the experiment. In Conditions 4, 6, and 9, each component was presented twice per session.
Fig. 1. Bird 91. Log response ratios following each successive reinforcer delivered in each of the seven components in each condition of the experiment. Each panel shows data from a particular reinforcer ratio (indicated at the tor of each panel). The different curves show data from conditions that arranged different numbers of reinforcers pe1 component (R/C) and reinforcer rates (R/M) as indicated in the legend. Response numbers for each alternative were summed across all 35 sessions. On the x axis, the value of 0 indicates response ratios prior to the first reinforce: delivery.
Fig. 1. Bird 91. Log response ratios following each successive reinforcer delivered in each of the seven components in each condition of the experiment. Each panel shows data from a particular reinforcer ratio (indicated at the tor of each panel). The different curves show data from conditions that arranged different numbers of reinforcers pe1 component (R/C) and reinforcer rates (R/M) as indicated in the legend. Response numbers for each alternative were summed across all 35 sessions. On the x axis, the value of 0 indicates response ratios prior to the first reinforce: delivery.
Fig. 2. Bird 92. Log response ratios as a function of successive reinforcers delivered in each of the seven com ponents in each condition of the experiment. See Figure 1.
Fig. 2. Bird 92. Log response ratios as a function of successive reinforcers delivered in each of the seven com ponents in each condition of the experiment. See Figure 1.
Fig. 3. Bird 93. Log response ratios as a function of successive reinforcers delivered in each of the seven com- ponents in each condition of the experiment. One data point for the 27:1 reinforcer-ratio component fell off the graph. See Figure 1.
Fig. 3. Bird 93. Log response ratios as a function of successive reinforcers delivered in each of the seven com- ponents in each condition of the experiment. One data point for the 27:1 reinforcer-ratio component fell off the graph. See Figure 1.
Fig. 4. Bird 94. Log response ratios as a function of successive reinforcers delivered in each of the seven con ponents in each condition of the experiment. See Figure 1.
Fig. 4. Bird 94. Log response ratios as a function of successive reinforcers delivered in each of the seven con ponents in each condition of the experiment. See Figure 1.
Fig. 5. Bird 95. Log response ratios as a function of successive reinforcers delivered in each of the seven com- ponents in each condition of the experiment. Two data points for the 1:27 reinforcer-ratio component fell off the graph. See Figure 1.
Fig. 5. Bird 95. Log response ratios as a function of successive reinforcers delivered in each of the seven com- ponents in each condition of the experiment. Two data points for the 1:27 reinforcer-ratio component fell off the graph. See Figure 1.
Fig. 6. Bird 96. Log response ratios as a function of successive reinforcers delivered in each of the seven con ponents in each condition of the experiment. See Figure 1.
Fig. 6. Bird 96. Log response ratios as a function of successive reinforcers delivered in each of the seven con ponents in each condition of the experiment. See Figure 1.
Fig. 7. Group log response ratios obtained by summing response numbers over the 6 subjects as a function of successive reinforcers delivered in each of the seven components in each condition of the experiment. See Figure 1.
Fig. 7. Group log response ratios obtained by summing response numbers over the 6 subjects as a function of successive reinforcers delivered in each of the seven components in each condition of the experiment. See Figure 1.
Fig. 8. Group log response ratios in Conditions 7 (12 reinforcers per component, 2.22 reinforcers per minute) and 8 (12 reinforcers per component, six reinforcers per minute) as a function of the arranged log reinforcer ratio in the components for the data collected before the first reinforcer (R1), between the first and second reinforcers (R2), up to the 12th reinforcer. Filled circles show data from Condition 7, and open circles show data from Condition 8.
Fig. 8. Group log response ratios in Conditions 7 (12 reinforcers per component, 2.22 reinforcers per minute) and 8 (12 reinforcers per component, six reinforcers per minute) as a function of the arranged log reinforcer ratio in the components for the data collected before the first reinforcer (R1), between the first and second reinforcers (R2), up to the 12th reinforcer. Filled circles show data from Condition 7, and open circles show data from Condition 8.
Values of sensitivity (a) and bias (log c) for each experimental condition prior to each suc- cessive reinforcer in the components. The data used were averaged over the 6 subjects (i.e., the response and reinforcer totals were averaged and sensitivity values were determined from those averages).
Values of sensitivity (a) and bias (log c) for each experimental condition prior to each suc- cessive reinforcer in the components. The data used were averaged over the 6 subjects (i.e., the response and reinforcer totals were averaged and sensitivity values were determined from those averages).
Fig. 10. Time-allocation sensitivity to reinforcement (from fits exemplified in Figure 8) according to Equation 1 for the group average data (times summed over all 6 subjects) as a function of successive reinforcers delivered in all conditions of the experiment. R/C indicates the number of reinforcers per component, and Hi indicates the conditions in which six (rather than 2.22) reinforcers per minute were arranged. Fig. 9. Response-allocation sensitivity to reinforce- ment (from fits exemplified in Figure 8) according to Equation 1 for the group average data (response num- bers summed over all 6 subjects) as a function of succes- sive reinforcers delivered in all conditions of the experi- ment. R/C indicates the number of reinforcers per component, and Hi indicates the conditions in which six (rather than 2.22) reinforcers per minute were arranged.
Fig. 10. Time-allocation sensitivity to reinforcement (from fits exemplified in Figure 8) according to Equation 1 for the group average data (times summed over all 6 subjects) as a function of successive reinforcers delivered in all conditions of the experiment. R/C indicates the number of reinforcers per component, and Hi indicates the conditions in which six (rather than 2.22) reinforcers per minute were arranged. Fig. 9. Response-allocation sensitivity to reinforce- ment (from fits exemplified in Figure 8) according to Equation 1 for the group average data (response num- bers summed over all 6 subjects) as a function of succes- sive reinforcers delivered in all conditions of the experi- ment. R/C indicates the number of reinforcers per component, and Hi indicates the conditions in which six (rather than 2.22) reinforcers per minute were arranged.
Fig. 12. Condition 8 (six reinforcers per minute). Log response ratios in 1:1 and 27:1 reinforcer-ratio com: ponents as a function of successive reinforcers delivered according to the reinforcer ratio in the previous com- ponent, as shown on the legend. The results from the first component of a session, which did not follow any other component, are labeled ‘“‘first component.”
Fig. 12. Condition 8 (six reinforcers per minute). Log response ratios in 1:1 and 27:1 reinforcer-ratio com: ponents as a function of successive reinforcers delivered according to the reinforcer ratio in the previous com- ponent, as shown on the legend. The results from the first component of a session, which did not follow any other component, are labeled ‘“‘first component.”
Fig. 13. Scatterplots of the relation between log response ratios emitted before the first reinforcer in a component as a function of the log response ratio emitted before the final reinforcer of the previous component. The lines, and associated equations shown on the graphs, show the best fitting linear regressions through the data. The data are from conditions that arranged 2.22 reinforcers per minute.
Fig. 13. Scatterplots of the relation between log response ratios emitted before the first reinforcer in a component as a function of the log response ratio emitted before the final reinforcer of the previous component. The lines, and associated equations shown on the graphs, show the best fitting linear regressions through the data. The data are from conditions that arranged 2.22 reinforcers per minute.
Fig. 14. Scatterplots of the relation between log response ratios emitted before the first reinforcer in a component as a function of the log response ratio emitted before the final reinforcer of the previous component. The lines, and associated equations shown on the graphs, show the best fitting linear regressions through the data. The data are from conditions that arranged six reinforcers per minute.
Fig. 14. Scatterplots of the relation between log response ratios emitted before the first reinforcer in a component as a function of the log response ratio emitted before the final reinforcer of the previous component. The lines, and associated equations shown on the graphs, show the best fitting linear regressions through the data. The data are from conditions that arranged six reinforcers per minute.
Fig. 15. Log response ratios following each reinforcer delivery in sequences of left- and right-key reinforcer deliveries for all conditions of the experiment. For clarity, only the data up to the delivery of the third reinforcer are shown. Dotted lines join points in which right reinforcers were subsequently delivered.
Fig. 15. Log response ratios following each reinforcer delivery in sequences of left- and right-key reinforcer deliveries for all conditions of the experiment. For clarity, only the data up to the delivery of the third reinforcer are shown. Dotted lines join points in which right reinforcers were subsequently delivered.
Fig. 16. Log response ratios following selected se- quences of left-right reinforcer deliveries in Conditions 7 (2.22 reinforcers per minute) and 8 (six reinforcers per minute) when 12 reinforcers per component were ar- ranged. The sequences were L, LR, LLR, LLLR, etc., and R, RL, RRL, RRRL, etc. Dotted lines join disconfirmations, in which a reinforcer was delivered for a response on an alternative that was different from prior reinforced re- sponses in that component.
Fig. 16. Log response ratios following selected se- quences of left-right reinforcer deliveries in Conditions 7 (2.22 reinforcers per minute) and 8 (six reinforcers per minute) when 12 reinforcers per component were ar- ranged. The sequences were L, LR, LLR, LLLR, etc., and R, RL, RRL, RRRL, etc. Dotted lines join disconfirmations, in which a reinforcer was delivered for a response on an alternative that was different from prior reinforced re- sponses in that component.
Fig. 17. Sensitivity to reinforcement values from multiple linear regressions between log response ratios and arranged log reinforcer ratios (Equation 2) in the previous and the present components for each successive reinforce1 delivery. R/C indicates the number of reinforcers per component, and Hi indicates the conditions in which six reinforcers per minute were arranged.
Fig. 17. Sensitivity to reinforcement values from multiple linear regressions between log response ratios and arranged log reinforcer ratios (Equation 2) in the previous and the present components for each successive reinforce1 delivery. R/C indicates the number of reinforcers per component, and Hi indicates the conditions in which six reinforcers per minute were arranged.
Fig. 18. Predictions of sensitivity to reinforcement val- ues obtained from a simulation of the model embodied in Equations 3 and 4. The figure parallels Figure 17.
Fig. 18. Predictions of sensitivity to reinforcement val- ues obtained from a simulation of the model embodied in Equations 3 and 4. The figure parallels Figure 17.
Related topics:
PsychologyCognitive ScienceDiscrimination LearningChoice BehaviorCondition numberThe Experimental Analysis of Behavior
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved