Response rates are typically higher under variable‐ratio than under variable‐interval schedules of reinforcement, perhaps because of differences in the dependence of reinforcement rate on response rate or because of differences in the reinforcement of long interresponse times. A variable‐interval‐with‐added‐linear‐feedback schedule is a variable‐interval schedule that provides a response rate/reinforcement rate correlation by permitting the minimum interfood interval to decrease with rapid responding. Four rats were exposed to variable‐ratio 15, 30, and 60 food reinforcement schedules, variable‐interval 15‐, 30‐, and 60‐s food reinforcement schedules, and two versions of variable‐interval‐with‐added‐linear‐feedback 15‐, 30‐, and 60‐s food reinforcement schedules. Response rates on the variable‐interval‐with‐added‐linear‐feedback schedule were similar to those on the variable‐interval schedule; all three schedules led to lower response rates than those on the variable‐ratio schedules, especially when the schedule values were 30. Also, reinforced interresponse times on the variable‐interval‐with‐added‐linear‐feedback schedule were similar to those on variable interval and much longer than those produced by variable ratio. The results were interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that response rates on variable‐interval schedules in rats are lower than those on comparable variable‐ratio schedules, primarily because the former schedules reinforce long interresponse times.
Tell rats were given extended lever-press training on a fixed-interval (FI) 30-s food reinforcement schedule from the outset or following exposure to one or two previous reinforcement schedules. For 4 rats the previots schedule was either fixed-ratio 20, which generated high response rates, or differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 20 s, which produced low response rates. For 4 additional rats the extended training on FI 30 s was preceded by experience with two schedules: fixed-ratio 20 followed by differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 20 s; or the same two schedules in the reverse order. Fixed-interval response rates were initially affected by the immediately preceding schedule, but after 80 to 100 sessions, all traces of prior schedule history had disappeared. The results also showed no long-term effect of schedule history on the interfood-interval patterns of responding on the FI 30-s schedule. These results support one of the most central tenets of the experimental analysis of behavior: control by the immediate consequences of behavior.
In Experiment 1, a variable-ratio 10 schedule became, successively, a variable-interval schedule with only the minimum interreinforcement intervals yoked to the variable ratio, or a variable-interval schedule with both interreinforcement intervals and reinforced interresponse times yoked to the variable ratio. Response rates in the variable-interval schedule with both interreinforcement interval and reinforced interresponse time yoking fell between the higher rates maintained by the variable-ratio schedule and the lower rates maintained by the variable-interval schedule with only interreinforcement interval yoking. In Experiment 2, a tandem variable-interval 15-s variable-ratio 5 schedule became a yoked tandem variable-ratio 5 variable-interval x-s schedule, and a tandem variable-interval 30-s variable-ratio 10 schedule became a yoked tandem variable-ratio 10 variable-interval x-s schedule. In the yoked tandem schedules, the minimum interreinforcement intervals in the variable-interval components were those that equated overall interreinforcement times in the two phases. Response rates did not decline in the yoked schedules even when the reinforced interresponse times became longer. Experiment 1 suggests that both reinforced interresponse times and response rate-reinforcement rate correlations determine response-rate differences in variable-ratio 10 and yoked variable-interval schedules in rats. Experiment 2 suggests a minimal role for the reinforced interresponse time in determining response rates on tandem variable-interval 30-s variable-ratio 10 and yoked tandem variable-ratio 10 variable-interval x-s schedules in rats.Key words: variable-ratio schedule, variable-interval schedule, tandem schedule, yoked schedule, reinforced interresponse time, response rate-reinforcement rate correlation, molar feedback function, lever press, rats It has been observed repeatedly that when the overall rates and patterns of reinforcement are equated on variable-interval (VI) and variable-ratio (VR) schedules, VR schedules generate higher response rates than VI schedules do (Catania, Matthews, Silverman, & Yohalem, 1977;Ferster & Skinner, 1957;Reed, Schachtman, & Hall, 1988;Skinner, 1938;Zuriff, 1970). Two quite different explanations have been provided to account for this difference. Some writers (e.g., Anger, 1956;Platt, 1979;Shimp, 1969) to predominate on VI schedules because VI schedules tend to reinforce long IRTs. On the other hand, a number of writers (cf. Baum, 1973Baum, , 1981Rachlin, 1978;Rachlin & Burkhard, 1978;Staddon, 1979) have suggested that VR schedules lead to relatively higher response rates than VI schedules do because on VR schedules there is a direct correlation between rate of responding and rate of reinforcement, whereas on VI schedules there is little relationship between rate of responding and rate of reinforcement except at very low response rates. The claim is that organisms are sensitive to such molar feedback and respond accordingly-at a high rate on VR schedules and at a lower rate on VI schedule...
Metacognition refers to humans' ability to monitor the state of their own learning and to judge the correctness of information retrieved from memory. Inferences about metacognition-like processes in non-human animals have been made from studies in which subjects judge the adequacy of previously presented information and from information seeking studies in which no prior knowledge exists. This article briefly reviews the former type of experiments but focuses on studies of information seeking. A number of studies now indicate that apes and monkeys will look down opaque tubes or under opaque containers to see the location of a hidden reward. They less often make looking responses when other information indicates the location of reward, such as visible baiting, transparent tubes or containers, or logical inference. Studies of information seeking in pigeons, rats, and dogs are reported that indicate they do not readily show the types of looking responses seen in primates. If given a forced choice between stimuli that do and do not yield information about the location of reward, however, these non-primates make the informative choice. It is suggested that the choice of information in these pigeon, rat, and dog experiments may be a form of secondary sign-tracking and thus different from the metacognition-like processes used by primates.
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.
hi@scite.ai
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.