Search

We investigated the effects of differential and nondifferential reinforcers on divided control by compound‐stimulus dimensions. Six pigeons responded in a delayed matching‐to‐sample procedure in which a blue or yellow sample stimulus flashed on/off at a fast or slow rate, and subjects reported its color or alternation frequency. The dimension to report was unsignaled (Phase 1) or signaled (Phase 2). Correct responses were reinforced with a probability of.70, and the probability of reinforcers for errors varied across conditions. Comparison choice depended on reinforcer ratios for correct and incorrect responding; as the frequency of error reinforcers according to a dimension increased, control (measured by log d) by that dimension decreased and control by the other dimension increased. Davison and Nevin's (1999) model described data when the dimension to report was unsignaled, whereas model fits were poorer when it was signaled, perhaps due to carryover between conditions. We are the first to test this quantitative model of divided control with reinforcers for errors and when the dimension to report is signaled; hence, further research is needed to establish the model's generality. We question whether divided stimulus control is dimensional and suggest it may instead reflect joint control by compound stimuli and reinforcer ratios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organisms may sometimes behave as if a contingency exists between behavior and consequences, even if this is not actually the case. Killeen (1978) suggested that such superstition occurs because of factors that bias subjects to behave "superstitiously" rather than because of failures of discrimination. We systematically replicated Killeen's experiment and compared contingency discrimination between different consequences. Six pigeons responded in a matching‐to‐sample procedure in which a response‐independent or response‐dependent stimulus change, food delivery, or blackout occurred. The pigeons reported whether the consequence was response dependent or response independent by choosing between two side keys. Discrimination was strongest after stimulus changes, weaker after blackouts, and weakest after food deliveries. These differences persisted even after additional training, suggesting asymmetries that may reflect differences in the disruptive effects of different consequences on remembering and/or behavioral mnemonics. Importantly, the pigeons were not biased to report response‐dependent consequences unless that response was consistent with locational biases; that is, they behaved "superstitiously" when there was a reason to be biased to do so. These findings corroborate Killeen's and demonstrate that behavior may deviate from contingencies not necessarily because subjects cannot discriminate those contingencies but because they are biased to behave otherwise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is widely assumed that reinforcers are biologically relevant stimuli, or stimuli that have been associated with biologically relevant stimuli. However, brief, arbitrary stimuli have also been reported to have reinforcement‐like effects, despite being unrelated to biologically relevant stimuli like food. The present study explored the potential reinforcement‐like effects of brief stimuli across 5 experiments. In Experiments 1 through 4, pigeon subjects responded for food reinforcement and brief stimulus presentations in a 2‐component multiple schedule. Neither baseline response rates nor resistance to change during disruption tests were systematically greater in a component with versus without brief stimulus presentations. Increasing the rate and duration of brief stimulus presentations in Experiment 4 did not reveal reinforcement‐like effects when compared directly with food. In Experiment 5, pigeons chose between independent terminal links in a concurrent‐chains procedure. Across conditions, varying the location, duration, and rate of brief stimulus presentations in the terminal links had no systematic effects on preference. In contrast, varying rates of food reinforcers resulted in large and reliable shifts in preference. Therefore, the present study found no systematic evidence that brief stimuli unrelated to food reliably increase response rates, resistance to change, or preference. These data demonstrate the value of systematic replication, and a behavioral momentum approach to assessing potential reinforcement‐like effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • Control by stimuli signaling future reinforcer availability is often weaker in more certain environments. • We examined whether this was the case when reinforcer availability changed over time. • Across conditions, we varied the certainty of the next-reinforcer location at a particular time. • Stimuli strongly controlled behavior and environmental contingencies exerted weak control. • Control by stimuli and by the environment may depend on global, not local, environmental certainty. Abstract Several studies suggest that the degree of control by reinforcer ratios (environment tracking) and by exteroceptive stimuli that signal future reinforcer availability (signal following) depends on environmental certainty: As reinforcers become more likely at one location, environmental contingencies exert stronger control and exteroceptive stimuli exert weaker control. This research has not yet been extended to environments in which reinforcer availability changes across time, even though such changes are present in most natural environments. Thus, in the present experiment, we examined environment tracking and signal following in a concurrent schedule in which the reinforcer ratio reversed to its reciprocal 30 s after a reinforcer delivery and keylight-color stimuli signaled the likely or definite time or location of the next reinforcer. Across conditions, we manipulated environmental certainty by varying the probability of reinforcer deliveries on the locally richer key. This made the location of future reinforcers at a particular time more or less certain, but did not change the overall reinforcer ratio. Changes in local environmental certainty had little to no effect on environment tracking and signal following; in all conditions, keylight-color stimuli strongly controlled choice and reinforcer ratios exerted weak control. The present findings suggest that the extent of environment tracking and signal following is primarily determined by global, not local, environmental certainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The extent to which a stimulus exerts control over behavior depends largely on its informativeness. However, when reinforcers have discriminative properties, they often exert less control over behavior than do other less reliable stimuli such as elapsed time. We investigated why less reliable cues in the present often overshadow stimulus control by more reliable cues presented in the recent past, by manipulating the reliability and duration of stimulus presentations. Five pigeons worked on a modified concurrent schedule in which the location of the response that produced the last reinforcer was a discriminative stimulus for the likely time and location of the next reinforcer. In some conditions, either the location of the previous reinforcer, or the location of the next reinforcer, was signaled by a red key light. This stimulus was either Brief, occurring for 10 s starting a fixed time after the most recent reinforcer, or Extended, being present at all times between food deliveries. Brief and Extended stimuli that signaled the same information had a similar effect on choice when they were present, but control by Brief stimuli weakened as time since stimulus offset elapsed. Control was divided among stimuli in the present and recent past according to the apparent reliability of the information signaled about the next reinforcer. More reliable stimuli in the present degraded, but did not erase, control by less reliable stimuli presented in the recent past. Thus, we conclude that less reliable stimuli in the present control behavior to a greater degree than do more reliable stimuli in the recent past because these more reliable stimuli are forgotten, and hence their relation to the likely availability of food cannot be discriminated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The baseline rate of a reinforced target response decreases with the availability of response-independent sources of alternative reinforcement; however, resistance to disruption and relapse increases. Because many behavioral treatments for problem behavior include response-dependent reinforcement of alternative behavior, the present study assessed whether response-dependent alternative reinforcement also decreases baseline response rates but increases resistance to extinction and relapse. We reinforced target responding at equal rates across two components of a multiple schedule with pigeons. We compared resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement of (1) a target response trained concurrently with a reinforced alternative response in one component with (2) a target response trained either concurrently or in separate components from the alternative response across conditions. Target response rates trained alone in baseline were higher but resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement tests were greater after training concurrently with the alternative response. In another assessment, training target and alternative responding together, but separating them during extinction and reinstatement tests, produced equal resistance to extinction and relapse. Together, these findings are consistent with behavioral momentum theory-operant response-reinforcer relations determined baseline response rates but Pavlovian stimulus-reinforcer relations established during training determined resistance to extinction and relapse. These findings imply that reinforcing alternative behavior to treat problem behavior could initially reduce rates but increase persistence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Overall reinforcer rate appears to affect choice. The mechanism for such an effect is uncertain, but may relate to reinforcer rate changing the discrimination of the relation between stimuli and reinforcers. We assessed whether a quantitative model based on a stimulus-control approach could be used to account for the effects of overall reinforcer rate on choice under changing time-based contingencies. On a two-key concurrent schedule, the likely availability of a reinforcer reversed when a fixed time had elapsed since the last reinforcer, and the overall reinforcer rate was varied across conditions. Changes in the overall reinforcer rate produced a change in response bias, and some indication of a change in discrimination. These changes in bias and discrimination always occurred quickly, usually within the first session of a condition. The stimulus-control approach provided an excellent account of the data, suggesting that changes in overall reinforcer rate affect choice because they alter the frequency of reinforcers obtained at different times, or in different stimulus contexts, and thus change the discriminated relation between stimuli and reinforcers. These findings support the notion that temporal and spatial discriminations can be understood in terms of discrimination of reinforcers across time and space. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Four pigeons were trained on two-key concurrent variable-interval schedules with no changeover delay. In Phase 1, relative reinforcers on the two alternatives were varied over five conditions from .1 to .9. In Phases 2 and 3, we instituted a molar feedback function between relative choice in an interreinforcer interval and the probability of reinforcers on the two keys ending the next interreinforcer interval. The feedback function was linear, and was negatively sloped so that more extreme choice in an interreinforcer interval made it more likely that a reinforcer would be available on the other key at the end of the next interval. The slope of the feedback function was 21 in Phase 2 and 23 in Phase 3. We varied relative reinforcers in each of these phases by changing the intercept of the feedback function. Little effect of the feedback functions was discernible at the local (interreinforcer interval) level, but choice measured at an extended level across sessions was strongly and significantly decreased by increasing the negative slope of the feedback function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Using data from two conditions of an experiment that arranged response-contingent foods and red keylight illuminations, we compared time-indexed and response-indexed preference pulses. The interpretation of red keylight effects (relative to food effects) differed according to whether time or behaviour was used to index choice in the post-event period: preference after a red keylight was more extreme than after a food in the response pulses while preference after a food was more extreme than after a keylight in the time pulses. This was due to different response latencies following the two events in combination with a tendency for initial preference to decrease as latency increased: responding began sooner after non-foods and responding that began later, after any event, tended towards indifference. Our finding suggests that preference pulses ought to be indexed according to time since the last event delivery, particularly if the response-contingent events may result in systematically different response latencies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Rapid behavioral adaptation is advantageous to the survival of a species, in that it aids in the continued attainment of resources, and in the avoidance of adverse consequences. Adaptation occurs rapidly when disparities between resources obtained at different locations are large, and appears enhanced when resources are obtained more frequently. These effects may result because such conditions make the relation between location and resource availability more discriminable, and hence the structure of the environment less ambiguous. We investigated whether differences in the discriminability of environmental stimuli that signaled differences in the likely location of resources had the same effect on the speed of adaptation. Adaptation occurred more rapidly, and behavior came under stronger control by the relation between stimuli, responses and resources, when the stimulus conditions following a change were more discriminable. Adaptation appeared attenuated when multiple stimuli signaled the likely availability of food with differing degrees of apparent reliability. We suggest that these effects of stimulus conditions on adaptation result from differences in the perceived relation between events in the environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Stimuli signaling reinforcement reduce responding on one alternative of a concurrent schedule. • We asked how signal reliability affects choice between signaled and unsignaled alternatives. • Signal reliability changed responding on the signaled alternative, but not the unsignaled alternative. • These results are consistent with matching theories, but not with research showing changes in responding on both alternatives. • Response competition and local reinforcer rates may modulate effects of signaled reinforcement in concurrent schedules. When reinforcer availability on one alternative of a concurrent schedule is signaled by a discriminative stimulus, responding on that alternative decreases. We investigated how the correlation between signal presentation and reinforcement (signal reliability) affects choice between signaled and unsignaled alternatives. Six pigeons responded in a concurrent schedule, in which reinforcers on one alternative were signaled by a key-color change. Across conditions, the probability of reinforcement following signal presentation varied (the probability in its absence was the complement). As signal reliability increased, response rates and latencies following signal onset on the signaled alternative decreased, whereas responding on the unsignaled alternative remained unchanged. Because the signal did not alter overall reinforcer rates, these findings are consistent with matching theories and research suggesting that responding on one alternative of a concurrent schedule depends on reinforcer, but not response, rates on other alternatives. However, these findings are inconsistent with others demonstrating concomitant changes in responding on signaled and unsignaled alternatives. We consider whether a response-competition account of concurrent performance can explain these discrepancies, and suggest avenues for future studies to investigate the mechanisms underlying effects of signaled reinforcement in concurrent schedules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]