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

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 variable-interval 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).     

Noncontingent and contingent no-choice intervals and concurrent performance

Pigeons responded to changeover-key concurrent variable-interval variable-interval reinforcement schedules while there were intervals during which the changeover key was inoperative (no-choice intervals). In Experiment 1, a multiple schedule on the changeover key signaled choice and no-choice intervals. All subjects showed near-perfect discrimination during initial discrimination training and rapid reacquisition of discrimination following contingency reversals. In Experiment 2, the onset of no-choice intervals was unsignaled and contingent on interchangeover time. The temporal distribution of changeover-key responses conformed to the temporal distribution of choice intervals. The results of both experiments suggest that changeover responding is modifiable as a function of its immediate consequences. The results of Experiment 2, in particular, suggest that time or some correlate of time since the last changeover response can determine subsequent changeover behavior.     

Prediction of concurrent keypeck treadle-press responding from simple schedule performance

Four pigeons pecked keys and pressed treadles for food reinforcers delivered by several variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. Then the subjects responded on several concurrent schedules. Keypecking produced reinforcers in one component, and treadle-pressing produced reinforcers in the other. The changeover delay, which prevented reinforcement after all switches from one response to the other, was 0, 5, or 20 sec long. An equation proposed by Kerrnstein (1970) described the rates of treadle-pressing and keypecking emitted during the variable-interval schedules. The k parameter of this equation was larger for keypecking than for treadle-pressing. The R₀ parameters were not systematically different for the two responses. The rates of keypecking and treadle-pressing emitted during the components of the concurrent schedules correlated with, but were not equal to, the rates of responding predicted by Herrnstein’s equation and the subject’s simple schedule responding. The ratios of the rates of responding emitted during, and the ratios of the time spent responding on, the components of the concurrent schedules conformed to an equation proposed by Baum (1974), but not to Herrnstein’s equation.     

Effects of changeover contingencies on auditory stimulus control of two responses

Rats were exposed to a procedure in which auditory stimuli signaled which of two levers was associated with a variable-interval 60-sec schedule of food presentation. Presses on the lever that was not associated with the variable-interval schedule (“errors”) postponed availability of reinforcement on the other lever by either a fixed number of responses or a fixed amount of time. Increasing the number of responses by which “errors” postponed food availability enhanced the level of stimulus control, and. alter a relatively high degree of control had been achieved, reduction of the requirement had no effect. Control experiments ruled out extended exposure to the discrimination procedure as a factor in the increase in stimulus control and suggested that the time of introduction of a changeover contingent is an important determinant of its effect.     

Optimization of reward rate on concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules

Six rats were placed on concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules with a 15-sec changeover delay (COD). The variable-interval schedules were varied such that the COD comprised between 25% and 100% of the average interreinforcement interval of the more favorable alternative. The obtained reinforcement rate and the rate of changing from one schedule to the other were compared to predictions of Houston and McNamara’s (1981) optimality model of concurrent choice. The pattern of behavioral allocation was consistent with the predictions of the model, although none of the animals was able to achieve optimal performance on any of the presented schedules. Observed behavior reliably tracked optimal behavior in that the ratio of obtained reinforcers to the optimum predicted by Houston and McNamara did not vary as the underlying schedule parameters was changed.     

Matching when the number of response alternatives is large

Pigeons could choose between five concurrently available response keys, each associated with a different variable-interval schedule of reinforcement. A 2-sec changeover delay was also in effect on each key. In almost all cases, the relative number of responses to a key and the relative time spent at it were nearly equivalent to the relative number of reinforcements it produced. In addition, matching was observed between the relative number of reinforcements at a key and the relative number of changeovers to it.     

Behavioral contrast in pigeons and rats: A comparative analysis

The effects of reinforcement rate on behavioral contrast were examined in pigeons and rats. Each species was exposed to a series of 12 multiple variable-interval schedules, divided into four 3-schedule series. Each series consisted of a standard contrast manipulation, and baseline schedules provided a different rate of reinforcement in each of the series. The functions relating reinforcement rate to the magnitude of contrast were different across species. Rats showed a U-shaped function, with reliable contrast occurring only at high reinforcement rates. Pigeons showed an inverted U-shaped function, with contrast occurring on all schedules except the schedule providing the lowest rate of reinforcement. Pigeons discriminated between schedule components better than rats did, although differences in discrimination were probably not responsible for the differences in contrast. The results suggest that behavioral contrast in rats may be a different phenomenon from behavioral contrast in pigeons. The results cannot be explained by current theories, which view contrast as the product of a single general process.     

Adjunctive drinking during variable and random-interval food reinforcement schedules

Rats were trained to leverpress for food and subsequently exposed to either arithmetic series or random variable-interval reinforcement schedules. Adjunctive drinking developed in all subjects exposed to arithmetic variable-interval reinforcement, but did not develop in six of the eight animals trained on the random schedule. The results suggest that adjunctive drinking is the result of an interaction between the tendency of rats to drink after eating and the ability of locally low probabilities of reinforcement within schedules to induce conditioned behavioral states.     

Inhibitory control by one stimulus after an increase in the frequency of reinforcement associated with another stimulus

Pigeons were trained on a multiple variable-interval 5-min variable-interval 5-min schedule and then shifted to either a multiple variable-interval 1-min variable-interval 5-min or a multiple variable-interval 30-sec variable-interval 5-min schedule. A generalization test was subsequently administered along the dimension containing the stimulus associated with the variable-interval 5-min component. The generalization gradients for subjects that received multiple variable-interval 1-min variable-interval 5-min training were not consistent in shape. However, an incremental gradient was obtained from each subject that received multiple variable-interval 30-sec variable-interval 5-min training. Thus, a sufficiently large reduction in merely the relative frequency of reinforcement during a stimulus resulted in that stimulus’ acquiring inhibitory control over responding.     

Changeover contingencies and choice on concurrent schedules

Pigeons were trained on a multiple concurrent schedule with two components per session. In one component, changing schedules required the completion of a small fixed ratio on the switching key (a fixed-ratio changeover, or FRCO), and in the other component, changing schedules required only one switching response but engaged a changeover delay (COD) during which keypecks were not reinforced. Response ratios overmatched reinforcer ratios under the FRCO but undermatched under the COD. There was no difference in time allocation. In addition to these molar regularities in behavior, there were characteristic differences in performance at the molecular level. These local patterns of behavior, which can be explained within the context of contingencies created by the different changeover requirements, appear to underlie differences in performance at the molar level. Obtained molar differences in performance are not compatible with the assumption that there is a “general outcome” on concurrent schedules; and explaining these molar differences in performance in terms of the local contingencies of reinforcement is contrary to the assumption that behavior is allocated as a function of molar distributions of reinforcers.     

Time and response matching with topographically different responses

Four pigeons were exposed to several nonindependent concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. One schedule component required a keypecking response; the other component required a treadlepressing response. The birds matched the ratio of their behavior (as measured by responses and time) between the two topographically different responses to the ratio of reinforcement in those two components. When additional foods not contingent on a keypeck or treadle-press were then added, the birds matched time spent in the components to total rates of food delivered in those components; response matching was somewhat disrupted. The matching law, developed under concurrent variable-interval schedules requiring similar responses, can thus account for choice behavior involving topographically different responses.     

Postdiscrimination generalization as a function of interresponse time

Following 20 sessions of variable-interval 20-sec reinforcement in the presence of a single 45-deg line-tilt stimulus, three pigeons were trained to discriminate between line tilts of 45 deg correlated with variable-interval 20-sec reinforcement and line tilts of 15 deg correlated with extinction. A generalization test along the line-tilt dimension was administered following a criterion discrimination performance. Gradients derived in terms of relative frequency of response as a function of line tilt indicated strong external stimulus control and exhibited clear peak shift. From the interresponse time (IRT) distributions generated for responding to each test stimulus, probability of response conditional upon IRT (IRTs/Op) was derived as a joint function of line tilt and IRT. The IRTs/Op functions for responses following IRTs in 0.2-sec-wide classes from 0.2 to 1.0 sec and for responses following IRTs in the interval of 1.0 to 2.0 sec were similar to the relative generalization gradients and also exhibited peak shift. Few IRTs were greater than 2.0 sec. External stimulus control was established over responses terminating IRTs both longer and shorter than 1.0 sec.     

The sensitivity of the pigeon’s keypeck to the differential reinforcement of long interresponse times

Keypecking of pigeons was studied under differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) and variable-interval (VI) schedules in which the interreinforcement times on the two schedules were equated by a yoking procedure. Each schedule was available for half of every session and a change of schedule was signaled by a change of key color. The value of the DRL schedule was varied from .5 to 300 sec. Response rates were always higher in the VI schedule, but within sessions there was a sharp change in response rate coincident with the change in schedule only under lower schedule values. A group without prior training was tested with a 180-sec schedule value, and it, too, developed a higher response rate during the VI schedule, showing that the effect was not dependent on prior experience under low schedule values. In all conditions except the .5- and 1-sec values of the schedule, the mean proportion of responses emitted during the VI schedule was approximately .85 of the responses emitted during both schedules. The conclusion was that the requirement of a minimum interresponse time for reinforcement may work its effect by determining which responses may occur just prior to the reinforced response and thus receive delayed reinforcement.     

Behavioral contrast and type of reward: Role of elicited response topography

Groups of pigeons were exposed to multiple variable-interval variable-interval and multiple variable-interval extinction schedules of either food or water reinforcement for keypecking. Discriminative stimuli associated with component schedules were located either on the operant key or on a second “signal” key. When the stimuli were projected on the operant key, positive contrast appeared during discrimination conditions with either food or water as the reinforcer. When the stimuli were projected on the signal key, overall responding to the operant and signal keys showed contrast with food, but negative induction with water as the reinforcer. In the latter condition, the signal for the variable-interval shcedule of water reinforcement elicited a variety of water-related behavior, only some of which was directed at the signal. Thus, the type of reward and location of discriminative stimuli interacted to determine the presence or absence of behavioral contrast effects. In large part, these results support and extend the autoshaping view of contrast.     

Variations of two temporal parameters in observing response procedures

Temporal parameters were varied in two different observing response procedures. In Experiment I, concurrent variable-interval chain schedules were employed. Responding on one key led to either a stimulus correlated with reinforcement or a stimulus correlated with time-out. Responding on the other key led to a stimulus which ended either in reinforcement or time-out. The duration of the delay to reinforcement or time-out was varied, the delays for all three stimuli always remaining equal in a given phase. It was found that the longer the delay, the greater the preference for the observing response. In Experiment II a procedure was employed in which birds pecked during a “trial” to produce stimuli correlated with reinforcement or time-out at the end of the trial. The duration of the trial ending in time out was varied while the positive trial duration remained constant. It was found that the longer the duration of the negative trial, the greater the strength of observing responses. The results were interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that the value of a positive stimulus is a function of time spent in stimuli correlated with nonreinforcement.

     

Stimulus control of topographically tagged responding

Pigeons’ responses on an operant key were reinforced according to either multiple variable-interval variable-interval or multiple variable-interval extinction schedules. The multiple-schedule components were signaled by line-tilt stimuli on a second key (signal key). Signal-key responses never produced reinforcement, and operant-key responses were not reinforced if they followed within 1 sec of a signal-key response. Behavioral contrast was not observed on the operant key, although there was a small, but reliable, increase in signal-key responding in the variable-interval component of the multiple variable-interval extinction condition. Generalization tests were interspersed between sessions of multiple variable-interval extinction training. Generalization gradients along the line-tilt dimension exhibited peak shift for both operant-key and signal-key responding following intradimensional (line tilt) discrimination training. Line-tilt generalization gradients following interdimensional discrimination did not exhibit peak shift. Gradients following intradimensional discrimination were sharper than gradients following interdimensional discrimination for both operant-key and signal-key responding. It was concluded that dimensional stimulus control of topographically tagged responding maintained by the stimulusreinforcer relation parallels that maintained by the response-reinforcer relation.     

Interactions of numerical and temporal stimulus characteristics on the control of response location by brief flashes of light

Pigeons pecked on three keys, responses to one of which could be reinforced after 3 flashes of the houselight, to a second key after 6, and to a third key after 12. The flashes were arranged according to variable-interval schedules. Response allocation among the keys was a function of the number of flashes. When flashes were omitted, transitions occurred very late. Increasing flash duration produced a leftward shift in the transitions along a number axis. Increasing reinforcement probability produced a leftward shift, and decreasing reinforcement probability produced a rightward shift. Intermixing different flash rates within sessions separated allocations: Faster flash rates shifted the functions sooner in real time, but later in terms of flash count, and conversely for slower flash rates. A model of control by fading memories of number and time was proposed.     

Choice responding following multiple schedule training

Pigeons’ choice responding on 10-sec interpolated probes was studied after baseline training on multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedules of food reinforcement. Unreinforced choice following training with three different relative reinforcement rates (Experiment 1), with a 3-ply multiple schedule (Experiment 2), and with three different relative reinforcement durations (Experiment 3) was examined. Least squares lines were fit to choice relative response rate and schedule relative response rate as functions of training relative reinforcement rate; choice slope was significantly greater than schedule slope in all three experiments. This result is counter to the prediction of Herrnstein’s (1970) theory that these slopes should not differ. Luce’s (1959) theory also failed to account for the data. It was concluded that choice responding was controlled by both approach to the stimulus associated with the smaller mean interreinforcer interval or the longer duration, and avoidance of the other stimulus.     

Acquisition with partial and continuous reinforcement in pigeon autoshaping

Contemporary time accumulation models make the unique prediction that acquisition of a conditioned response will be equally rapid with partial and continuous reinforcement, if the time between conditioned stimuli is held constant. To investigate this, acquisition of conditioned responding was examined in pigeon autoshaping under conditions of 100% and 25% reinforcement, holding intertrial interval constant. Contrary to what was predicted, evidence for slowed acquisition in partially reinforced animals was observed with several response measures. However, asymptotic performance was superior with 25% reinforcement. A switching of reinforcement contingencies after initial acquisition did not immediately affect responding. After further sessions, partial reinforcement augmented responding, whereas continuous reinforcement did not, irrespective of an animal's reinforcement history. Subsequent training with a novel stimulus maintained the response patterns. These acquisition results generally support associative, rather than time accumulation, accounts of conditioning.     

The maintenance of matching behavior when contrast occurs in multiple concurrent concurrent schedules of reinforcement

Pigeons were trained on a multiple schedule of reinforcement in which each component was a concurrent schedule. The concurrent schedules were programmed by the changeover-key procedure. The primary purpose was to determine if the relative behavior allocated to two response alternatives is affected when absolute changes in these behaviors occur; i.e., to determine if matching is affected when positive behavioral contrast occurs. Results showed that (1) relative behavior in the unaltered component of the multiple schedule is not disrupted when positive contrast occurs in that component, (2) positive contrast occurred when the overall frequency of reinforcement in the reinforcement-correlated component(s) was high, but not when it was low, (3) changeover behavior was susceptible to positive contrast effects, and (4) changeover contrast and food-key contrast are independent phenomena.