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., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.)

When short-term memory is assessed in the delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) procedure, performance is better when cues signal larger reinforcer magnitudes or higher reinforcer probabilities for correct responding. Previous studies demonstrating signaled-magnitude or signaled-probability effects presented cues for a prolonged period during the sample stimulus and/or retention interval. The present study asked whether a signaled-probability effect would occur with brief post-sample cues that signaled the presence or absence of reinforcement. Five pigeons responded in a DMTS task in which sample stimuli were sometimes followed by a 0.5-s cue signaling that reinforcers would either be available or not available in the current trial, and the retention interval varied from 0.5 s to 20 s. A reliable signaled-probability effect was found when reinforcers were arranged independently and for all correct responses, whereas a smaller, less systematic effect was found when reinforcers were arranged dependently and probabilistically. These findings highlight the importance of reinforcement contingencies and contingency discriminability in remembering, and add to the evidence showing that cues signaling differential reinforcement in DMTS may affect processes during the retention interval and comparison phase, rather than attention to the sample stimulus., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Previous research suggests that when multiple stimuli signal the location of future reinforcers, the extent of control by each stimulus depends on the relative reinforcer probability associated with that stimulus. In this experiment, we asked whether relative reinforcer probabilities also divide control between stimuli that signal the time to future reinforcers. Six pigeons responded in a multiple peak procedure in which 2 dimensions of a compound stimulus-a color (red or green) and a frequency of on/off alternation (fast or slow)-signaled a fixed-interval 2- or 8-s schedule. Across conditions, we varied the probability of reinforcer deliveries associated with each dimension from .1 to .9. Relative reinforcer probabilities determined the degree of control by each stimulus dimension; as the probability of reinforcer deliveries associated with one dimension increased, a peak in response rates at the time signaled by that dimension became apparent while a peak at the time signaled by the other dimension diminished. However, these effects of relative reinforcers were smaller than in previous research, probably because elapsed time also competed for control over behavior. These findings extend the relation between relative reinforcers and divided stimulus control from spatial to temporal discriminations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

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., (© 2020 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.)

From a model that generates event records, we may generate predictions for any dependent variable computable from those event records. In the present paper, we examined an implementation of Shimp's (1978) Associative Learner for two-alternative concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules in transition. In general, our Associative Learner implementation had difficulty accounting for the inter-response times as a function of the reinforcer ratio, the general frequency of inter-response times, the acquisition of consecutive reinforcers from the same alternative, and the response rates to the not-just-reinforced alternative after a reinforcer. An extended Associative Learner implementation was designed with provisions for increasing responding to the just-reinforced alternative after a reinforcer and organising bout-like responses. The extended implementation rectified many of the weaknesses of the base implementation., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

In concurrent schedules with a changeover delay (COD), choice often strongly favours the just-reinforced alternative immediately after a reinforcer delivery. These 'preference pulses' may be caused by a change in reinforcer availability created by the COD, and/or because the COD decreases the overall probability of switching. We investigated which explanation better accounts for preference pulses by arranging concurrent schedules that allowed us to separate the COD's effects on reinforcer availability from its effects on the probability of switching. When the reinforcer ratio was 1:1, pulses were inconsistently accompanied by changes in reinforcer availability, but consistently accompanied by longer visits. These pulses appeared to be related only to the decreased probability of switching caused by the COD, providing the first evidence of pulses after reinforcers caused by the probability of switching alone. When the reinforcer ratio was 1:5 or 5:1; preference pulses were accompanied by changes in reinforcer availability and by longer visits. These pulses appeared to be related to the COD's effects on reinforcer availability, although a small portion appeared to be related to low probability of switching. These findings suggest that the COD affects preference pulses by both decreasing the probability of switching and creating a change in reinforcer availability., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2017 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.)

In concurrent schedules, reinforcers are often followed by a brief period of heightened preference for the just-productive alternative. Such 'preference pulses' may reflect local effects of reinforcers on choice. However, similar pulses may occur after nonreinforced responses, suggesting that pulses after reinforcers are partly unrelated to reinforcer effects. McLean, Grace, Pitts, and Hughes (2014) recommended subtracting preference pulses after responses from preference pulses after reinforcers, to construct residual pulses that represent only reinforcer effects. Thus, a reanalysis of existing choice data is necessary to determine whether changes in choice after reinforcers in previous experiments were actually related to reinforcers. In the present paper, we reanalyzed data from choice experiments in which reinforcers served different functions. We compared local choice, mean visit length, and visit-length distributions after reinforcers and after nonreinforced responses. Our reanalysis demonstrated the utility of McLean et al.'s preference-pulse correction for determining the effects of reinforcers on choice. However, visit analyses revealed that residual pulses may not accurately represent reinforcer effects, and reinforcer effects were clearer in visit analyses than in local-choice analyses. The best way to determine the effects of reinforcers on choice may be to conduct visit analyses in addition to local-choice analyses., (© 2017 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.)

Catania's Operant Reserve (COR; Catania, 2005) is a computational model of operant behaviour. In COR, responding depletes the reserve while reinforcement replenishes the reserve. The replenishment to the reserve depends on the location of responses within the most recent inter-reinforcement interval. The rule that maps replenishment to the responses within an inter-reinforcement interval is given by a delay-of-reinforcement gradient (DOR). Previous research (Berg and McDowell, 2011) found that non-linear DORs produce sigmoidal response rates on single variable-interval schedules while a linear DOR produces hyperbolic response rates. Berg and McDowell took these sigmoidal response rates as evidence against the viability of COR for modelling variable-interval performance. However, Berg and McDowell did not consider the effect of the slope of each DOR. The present conjecture is that the response rates from COR can be made hyperbolic by manipulating the area under the DOR. Our results show that the manipulation of the area under the DOR allows COR to produce hyperbolic response rates regardless of the parametric form of the DOR. Hence, if COR is to be used to model single variable-interval performance, the reinforcement effect over time should be taken into consideration through the manipulation of the area under the DOR., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Both the response-reinforcer and stimulus-reinforcer relation are important in discrimination learning; differential responding requires a minimum of two discriminably-different stimuli and two discriminably-different associated contingencies of reinforcement. When elapsed time is a discriminative stimulus for the likely availability of a reinforcer, choice over time may be modeled by an extension of the Davison and Nevin (1999) model that assumes that local choice strictly matches the effective local reinforcer ratio. The effective local reinforcer ratio may differ from the obtained local reinforcer ratio for two reasons: Because the animal inaccurately estimates times associated with obtained reinforcers, and thus incorrectly discriminates the stimulus-reinforcer relation across time; and because of error in discriminating the response-reinforcer relation. In choice-based timing tasks, the two responses are usually highly discriminable, and so the larger contributor to differences between the effective and obtained reinforcer ratio is error in discriminating the stimulus-reinforcer relation. Such error may be modeled either by redistributing the numbers of reinforcers obtained at each time across surrounding times, or by redistributing the ratio of reinforcers obtained at each time in the same way. We assessed the extent to which these two approaches to modeling discrimination of the stimulus-reinforcer relation could account for choice in a range of temporal-discrimination procedures. The version of the model that redistributed numbers of reinforcers accounted for more variance in the data. Further, this version provides an explanation for shifts in the point of subjective equality that occur as a result of changes in the local reinforcer rate. The inclusion of a parameter reflecting error in discriminating the response-reinforcer relation enhanced the ability of each version of the model to describe data. The ability of this class of model to account for a range of data suggests that timing, like other conditional discriminations, is choice under the joint discriminative control of elapsed time and differential reinforcement. Understanding the role of differential reinforcement is therefore critical to understanding control by elapsed time., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Reinforcing an alternative response in the same context as a target response reduces the rate of occurrence but increases the persistence of that target response. Applied researchers who use such techniques to decrease the rate of a target problem behavior risk inadvertently increasing the persistence of the same problem behavior. Behavioral momentum theory asserts that the increased persistence is a function of the alternative reinforcement enhancing the Pavlovian relation between the target stimulus context and reinforcement. A method showing promise for reducing the persistence-enhancing effects of alternative reinforcement is to train the alternative response in a separate stimulus context before combining with the target stimulus in extinction. The present study replicated previous findings using pigeons by showing that combining an "alternative" richer VI schedule (96 reinforcers/hr) with a "target" leaner VI schedule (24 reinforcers/hr) reduced resistance to extinction of target responding compared with concurrent training of the alternative and target responses (totaling 120 reinforcers/hr). We also found less relapse with a reinstatement procedure following extinction with separate-context training, supporting previous findings that training conditions similarly influence both resistance to extinction and relapse. Finally, combining the alternative stimulus context was less disruptive to target responding previously trained in the concurrent schedule, relative to combining with the target response trained alone. Overall, the present findings suggest the technique of combining stimulus contexts associated with alternative responses with those associated with target responses disrupts target responding. Furthermore, the effectiveness of this disruption is a function of training context of reinforcement for target responding, consistent with assertions of behavioral momentum theory.

Reinforcers may increase operant responding via a response-strengthening mechanism whereby the probability of the preceding response increases, or via some discriminative process whereby the response more likely to provide subsequent reinforcement becomes, itself, more likely. We tested these two accounts. Six pigeons responded for food reinforcers in a two-alternative switching-key concurrent schedule. Within a session, equal numbers of reinforcers were arranged for responses to each alternative. Those reinforcers strictly alternated between the two alternatives in half the conditions, and were randomly allocated to the alternatives in half the conditions. We also varied, across conditions, the alternative that became available immediately after a reinforcer. Preference after a single reinforcer always favored the immediately available alternative, regardless of the local probability of a reinforcer on that alternative (0 or 1 in the strictly alternating conditions, .5 in the random conditions). Choice then reflected the local reinforcer probabilities, suggesting some discriminative properties of reinforcement. At a more extended level, successive same-alternative reinforcers from an alternative systematically shifted preference towards that alternative, regardless of which alternative was available immediately after a reinforcer. There was no similar shift when successive reinforcers came from alternating sources. These more temporally extended results may suggest a strengthening function of reinforcement, or an enhanced ability to respond appropriately to "win-stay" contingencies over "win-shift" contingencies.

It has long been understood that food deliveries may act as signals of future food location, and not only as strengtheners of prefood responding as the law of effect suggests. Recent research has taken this idea further--the main effect of food deliveries, or other "reinforcers", may be signaling rather than strengthening. The present experiment investigated the ability of food deliveries to signal food contingencies across time after food. In Phase 1, the next food delivery was always equally likely to be arranged for a left- or a right-key response. Conditions were arranged such that the next food delivery was likely to occur either sooner on the left (or right) key, or sooner on the just-productive (or not-just-productive) key. In Phase 2, similar contingencies were arranged, but the last-food location was signaled by a red keylight. Preference, measured in 2-s bins across interfood intervals, was jointly controlled by the likely time and location of the next food delivery. In Phase 1, when any food delivery signaled a likely sooner next food delivery on a particular key, postfood preference was strongly toward that key, and moved toward the other key across the interreinforcer interval. In other conditions in which food delivery on the two keys signaled different subsequent contingencies, postfood preference was less extreme, and quickly moved toward indifference. In Phase 2, in all three conditions, initial preference was strongly toward the likely-sooner food key, and moved to the other key across the interfood interval. In both phases, at a more extended level of analysis, sequences of same-key food deliveries caused a small increase in preference for the just-productive key, suggesting the presence of a "reinforcement effect", albeit one that was very small.

Conditioned reinforcer effects may be due to the stimulus' discriminative rather than its strengthening properties. While this was demonstrated in a frequently-changing choice procedure, a single attempt to replicate in a relatively static choice environment failed. We contend that this was because the information provided by the stimuli was nonredundant in the frequently-changing preparation, and redundant in the steady-state arrangement. In the present experiments, 6 pigeons worked in a steady-state concurrent schedule procedure with nonredundant informative stimuli (red keylight illuminations). When a response-contingent red keylight signaled that the next food delivery was more likely on one of the two alternatives, postkeylight choice responding was reliably for that alternative. This effect was enhanced after a history of extended informative red keylight presentation (Experiment 2). These results lend support to recent characterizations of conditioned reinforcer effects as reflective of a discriminative, rather than a reinforcing, property of the stimulus.

We aimed to investigate whether novel stimulus relations would emerge from stimulus correlations when those relations explicitly conflicted with reinforced relations. In a symbolic matching-to-sample task using kanji characters as stimuli, we arranged class-specific incorrect comparison stimuli in each of three classes. After presenting either Ax or Cx stimuli as samples, choices of Bx were reinforced and choices of Gx or Hx were not. Tests for symmetry, and combined symmetry and transitivity, showed the emergence of three 3-member (AxBxCx) stimulus classes in 5 of 5 human participants. Subsequent tests for all possible emergent relations between Ax, Bx, Cx and the class-specific incorrect comparisons Gx and Hx showed that these relations emerged for 4 of 5 the participants after extended overtraining of the baseline relations. These emergent relations must have been based on stimulus-stimulus correlations, and were not properties of the trained discriminated operants, because they required control by relations explicitly extinguished during training. This result supports theoretical accounts of emergent relations that emphasize stimulus correlation over operant contingencies.

Four pigeons were trained on a conditional discrimination. The conditional stimuli were compounds of pairs of stimuli from two different dimensions, fast versus slow cycles of red or green stimuli, and short- versus long-duration presentations of these cycles. Across conditions, the probability of reinforcers for correctly responding to each dimension was varied from 0 to 1. Discriminability, measured by log d, for stimuli on a dimension increased as the relative frequency of reinforcers for that dimension increased, replicating the results of Shahan and Podlesnik (2006). Two further conditions showed that discriminability between stimuli on each dimension was unaffected by whether the stimuli on the other dimension varied or were constant. Finally, maximal discriminability was unchanged in a redundant-relevant cues condition in which either of the stimuli comprising a compound signaled the same correct response. Davison and Nevin's (1999) model provided an excellent quantitative account of the effect of relative reinforcer frequency on discriminability, and thus of the way in which divided stimulus control is itself controlled by relative reinforcement.

Six pigeons responded on a four-key concurrent variable-interval schedule in which a 27:9:3:1 distribution of reinforcers between the keys changed every 10 reinforcers. Their behaviour quickly came under the control of this changing four-way reinforcer ratio. However, preference between a pair of keys depended not only on the relative reinforcer rates on those keys, but also on the absolute levels of those rates. This contradicts the constant-ratio rule that underpins the matching approach to choice, but is predicted by a contingency-discriminability model that assumes that organisms may occasionally misattribute reinforcers to a response that did not produce them. Reinforcers produced strong preference pulses, or transient increases in responding on the just-reinforced key. Despite accurate tracking of the reinforcer ratio, reinforcers obtained late in components and from leaner keys still produced strong pulses, suggesting both extended and local control of behaviour. Patterns of switching between keys were graded and similarly controlled by the reinforcer rates on each key. Whether considered in terms of switching, local preference pulses, or extended preference, behaviour was controlled by a rapidly changing four-way reinforcer ratio in a graduated, continuous manner that is unlikely to be explained by a simple heuristic such as fix-and-sample., (Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Five pigeons responded on steady-state concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules of food presentation in which half of the foods were removed and replaced with nonfood stimuli. Across conditions, the stimuli were either paired or unpaired with food, and the correlation between the ratio of food deliveries on the two alternatives and the ratio of nonfood stimuli was either -1, 0, or +1. Neither the pairing of stimuli with food, nor the correlation between stimuli and food, affected generalized-matching performance, but paired stimuli had a demonstrable effect at a local level of analysis. This effect was independent of the food-stimulus correlation. These results differ from results previously obtained in a frequently changing environment. We attribute this difference in results to differences in the information value of response-contingent stimuli in frequently changing versus relatively constant environments, as well as to differences between forward pairing and simultaneous pairing of the stimuli with food.

One assumption of the matching approach to choice is that different independent variables control choice independently of each other. We tested this assumption for reinforcer rate and magnitude in an extensive parametric experiment. Five pigeons responded for food reinforcement on switching-key concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules. Across conditions, the ratios of reinforcer rates and of reinforcer magnitudes on the two alternatives were both manipulated. Control by each independent variable, as measured by generalized-matching sensitivity, changed significantly with the ratio of the other independent variable. Analyses taking the model-comparison approach, which weighs improvement in goodness-of-fit against increasing number of free parameters, were inconclusive. These analyses compared a model assuming constant sensitivity to magnitude across all reinforcer-rate ratios with two alternative models. One of those alternatives allowed sensitivity to magnitude to vary freely across reinforcer-rate ratios, and was less efficient than the common-sensitivity model for all pigeons, according to the Schwarz-Bayes information criterion. The second alternative model constrained sensitivity to magnitude to be equal for pairs of reinforcer-rate ratios that deviated from unity by proportionately equal amounts but in opposite directions. This model was more efficient than the common-magnitude-sensitivity model for 2 of the pigeons, but not for the other 3. An analysis of variance, carried out independently of the generalized-matching analysis, also showed a significant interaction between the effects of reinforcer rate and reinforcer magnitude on choice. On balance, these results suggest that the assumption of independence inherent in the matching approach cannot be maintained. Relative reinforcer rates and magnitudes do not control choice independently.

Six pigeons were trained in a procedure in which sessions included seven unsignaled components, each offering two pecking keys, and each providing a potentially different reinforcer ratio between the two keys. Across conditions, various combinations of reinforcer ratios and reinforcer-magnitude ratios were used to create unequal reinforcer distributions between the two alternatives when averaged across a session. The results extended previous research using the same basic procedure that had included only reinforcer distributions symmetrical around 1:1. Data analyses suggested that the variables controlling choice operated at a number of levels: First, individual reinforcers had local effects on choice; second, sequences of successive reinforcers obtained at the same alternative (continuations) had cumulative effects; and, third, when these sequences themselves occurred with greater frequency, their effects further cumulated. A reinforcer obtained at the other alternative following a sequence of continuations (a discontinuation) had a large effect and apparently reset choice to levels approximating the sessional reinforcer ratio.