Preference for mixed versus constant delays of reinforcement was studied with a concurrentchain procedure. Lever pressing by rats in concurrently available variable-interval 60-second initial links occasionally produced mutually exclusive terminal-link reinforcement delays. A constant delay of reinforcement (either 15 seconds or 30 seconds) composed one terminal link and mixed delays (.2 second and twice the value of the constant delay) were arranged in the other terminal link. The proportion of .2-second delays in the mixed-delay terminal link took on values of 0, .1, .25, .5, .75, .9, and 1.0 over experimental conditions. Based on relative rates of responding in the initial links, preference for the mixed delays was a negatively accelerated function of the proportion of short, mixed delays. Three of five rats preferred the mixed delays to the constant delays when the proportion of short, mixed delays was .1 or higher, and all five rats preferred the mixed delays when the proportion of short, mixed delays was .25 or higher. Neither Squires and Fantino's (1971) delay-reduction model of choice nor a model based on the harmonic mean reinforcelnent delay provided a close estimate of choice proportions over the range of short-delay proportions studied. The delayreduction model underestimated choice for the mixed delays at low and intermediate proportions of short delays, and the harmonic-mean-delay model overestimated choice for the mixed delays at intermediate and high proportions of short delays.
Six rats were trained with food deliveries contingent upon their pressing a lever and holding it down for fixed, cumulative durations. Hold requirements were varied from 7.5 seconds to 120 seconds. Lever holding was maintained reliably at hold requirements as long as 30 seconds to 105 seconds for different rats. At longer hold requirements, lever holding was erratic and tended to occur only early in sessions. At shorter and intermediate requirements, the patterns of lever holding resembled those of responding under fixedratio schedules for discrete responses, with breaks in responding immediately after reinforcement alternating with relatively continuous lever holding until the next reinforcement. At longer hold requirements, postpause lever holding frequently was interrupted with additional pauses. The duration of postreinforcement pauses increased linearly with the scheduled hold requirement. However, for five of six rats, the hold requirement, which represents the actual time spent lever holding per reinforcer, accounted for somewhat less variance in pause duration than did interreinforcement time.Key words: postreinforcement pause, interreinforcement time, work time, continuous response, lever holding, rats Performance under schedules that provide reinforcement periodically, such as fixedinterval (FI) and fixed-ratio (FR) schedules, is characterized by a period of time immediately following reinforcement during which no responding occurs. The duration of this postreinforcement pause increases monotonically as the fixed interval (e.g., Harzem, 1969;Innis & Staddon, 1971;Lowe & Harzem, 1977;Schneider, 1969;Shull, 1970Shull, , 1971Skinner, 1938;Wilson, 1954) pause durations were approximately the same under FR schedules and yoked-interval schedules in which interreinforcement times matched those obtained from the FR schedules. Nevin (1973) analyzed data obtained by Berryman and Nevin (1962) and found that pause duration was a linear function of the average interreinforcement times obtained under FI, FR, and interlocking FI FR schedules. Rider (1980) found that pause duration was linearly related to average interreinforcement times obtained under alternative FI FR schedules over a broad range of schedule parameters.The good linear fit between pause duration and interreinforcement time across simple Fl and FR schedules and complex interlocking and alternative schedules raises the possibility that interreinforcement time controls pausing independently of the particular schedule of reinforcement. However, in a direct comparison of FI and FR schedules with comparable interreinforcement times, Capehart, Eckerman, Guilkey, and Shull (1980)
Rats were trained on concurrent fixed-ratio variable-ratio or concurrent fixed-ratio mixed-ratio schedules of food reinforcement. The variable-ratio schedule was composed of an arithmetic sequence of 11 ratios that averaged 50; the mixed-ratio schedule consisted of equiprobable ratios of 1 and 99. Fixed-ratio values, varied over experimental conditions, included 25, 35, 50, 60, and 99. The proportion of responses and time allocated to the variable- or mixed-ratio schedule increased as the size of the fixed ratio increased. For most subjects, higher proportions of responses and time were maintained on the fixed-ratio schedule at fixed-ratio values of 25 and 35; higher proportions of responses and time were maintained on the variable- or mixed-ratio schedule at fixed-ratio values of 50 or higher. On concurrent variable-ratio fixed-ratio schedules, the tendency for responding to be maintained exclusively by one schedule was related to the difference in local reinforcement rates obtained from those schedules. Exclusive responding was approximated when the difference in local reinforcement rates obtained from those schedules was large; responding was more evenly distributed between the schedules as the difference in the rates at which reinforcement was obtained from each decreased.
Five rats responded under concurrent fixed-interval variable-ratio schedules of food reinforcement. Fixed-interval values ranged from 50-seconds to 300-seconds and variable-ratio values ranged from 30 to 360; a five-second changeover delay was in effect throughout the experiment. The relations between reinforcement ratios obtained from the two schedules and the ratios of responses and time spent on the schedules were described by Baum's (1974) generalized matching equation. All subjects undermatched both response and time ratios to reinforcement ratios, and all subjects displayed systematic bias in favor of the variable-ratio schedules. Response ratios undermatched reinforcement ratios less than did time ratios, but response ratios produced greater bias than did time ratios for every subject and for the group as a whole. Local rates of responding were generally higher on the variable-ratio than on the fixed-interval schedules. When responding was maintained by both schedules, a period of no responding on either schedule immediately after fixedinterval reinforcement typically was followed by high-rate responding on the variableratio schedule. At short fixed-interval values, when a changeover to the fixed-interval schedule was made, responding usually continued until fixed-interval reinforcement was obtained; at longer values, a changeover back to the variable-ratio schedule usually occurred when fixed-interval reinforcement was not forthcoming within a few seconds, and responding then alternated between the two schedules every few seconds until fixedinterval reinforcement finally was obtained.
Choice between mixed-ratio schedules, consisting of equiprobable ratios of 1 and 99 responses per reinforcement, and fixed-ratio schedules of food reinforcement was assessed by two commonly used procedures: concurrent schedules and concurrent-chains schedules. Rats were trained under concurrent fixed-ratio mixed-ratio schedules, in which both ratio schedules were simultaneously available, and under a concurrent-chains schedule, in which access to one of the mutually exclusive ratio schedules comprising the terminal links was contingent on a single "choice" response. The distribution of responses between the two ratio schedules was taken as the choice proportion under the concurrent procedure, and the distribution of "choice" responses was taken as the choice proportion under the concurrent-chains procedure. Seven of eight rats displayed systematic choice; of those, each displayed nearly exclusive choice for fixed-ratio 35 to the mixed-ratio schedule under the concurrent procedure, but each displayed nearly exclusive choice for the mixed-ratio schedule to fixed-ratio 35 under the concurrent-chains procedure. Thus, preference for a fixed or a mixed schedule of reinforcement depended on the procedure used to assess preference.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.