No abstract

Gharib, Derby, and Roberts (2001) proposed that reducing reward expectation increases variation of response form. We tested this rule in a new situation and asked if it also applied to variation of response location and timing. In 2 discrete-trial experiments, pigeons pecked colored circles for food. The circles were of 6 possible colors, each associated with a different probability of reward. Reducing reward expectation did not affect peck duration (a measure of form) but did increase horizontal variation of peck location and interpeck-interval variation. The effect of reward probability on the standard deviation of interpeck intervals was clearer (larger t value) than its effect on mean interpeck interval. Two datasets from rats had similar interresponse-interval effects.

Recent studies have demonstrated that the expectation of reward delivery has an inverse relationship with operant behavioral variation (e.g., Stahlman, Roberts, & Blaisdell, 2010). Research thus far has largely focused on one aspect of reinforcement – the likelihood of food delivery. In two experiments with pigeons, we examined the effect of two other aspects of reinforcement: the magnitude of the reward and the temporal delay between the operant response and outcome delivery. In the first experiment, we found that a large reward magnitude resulted in reduced spatiotemporal variation in pigeons’ pecking behavior. In the second experiment, we found that a 4-s delay between response-dependent trial termination and reward delivery increased variation in behavior. These results indicate that multiple dimensions of the reinforcer modulate operant response variation.

No abstract

Instrumental response variation is inversely related to reward probability. Gharib, Derby, and Roberts (2001) theorized that individuals behave more variably when their expectation of reward is low. They postulate that this behavioral rule assists the discovery of alternative actions when a target response is unlikely to be reinforced. This suggests that response variability may be unaffected in a situation in which an animal's behavior is inconsequential to outcome delivery. We trained 6 pigeons in a within-subjects Pavlovian autoshaping procedure. On any given trial, the pigeons were presented with one of six colored discs on a touchscreen; each stimulus was associated with a particular probability of food, ranging from 100% to 0.6%. Pecking was more variable with low probabilities of food delivery, thus extending the rule relating variability and expectation to a Pavlovian situation.