A study of some relations among aperiodic reinforcement, discrimination training, and secondary reinforcement.

Notterman, Joseph M.

doi:10.1037/h0061644

Cited by 47 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The probability of reinforcement given a positive stimulus (white or green) was the same in Experiment I and in most cases in Experiment II, so that this variable could not account for any preference. An experiment by Notterman (1950) provides a basis for a possible line of attack on the question. Notterman trained rats in a runway, giving them either reinforcement in the presence of a light or no reinforcement in the absence of light.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

PREFERENCE FOR INTERMITTENT REINFORCEMENT¹

Kendall

1974

J Exper Analysis Behavior

134

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments were conducted demonstrating that under certain conditions pigeons may peck at a higher rate on a key that produces intermittent reinforcement following a delay than on one that always produces reinforcement following the same delay duration. In both experiments, concurrent chain schedules were employed. In Experiment I, a single peck on one key led to a white light and a delay of 15 sec, which always terminated with food. A peck on the other key led to its illumination by one of two colored lights and a delay period of 15 sec. The delay was followed by either food presentation or timeout, either one lasting 3 sec. In a control group, the lights on this key were not correlated with food or timeout. Under the correlated stimuli, birds more often pecked the key leading to intermittent reinforcement, whereas with uncorrelated stimuli they pecked the key leading to the white light and 100% reinforcement. In Experiment II, concurrent variable-interval schedules were employed in the first link. The results showed generally that the relative rate was higher on the key leading to intermittent reinforceimient when the stimuli were correlated with reinforcement and timeout than on the key leading to 100% reinforcement. There was some indication that this performance was affected by (1) the duration of the delay, (2) the percentage of reinforcement on the key yielding the higher percentage of reinforcement (the key with the white light), and (3) prior experimental conditions. Using a modified chain schedule procedure, Wilton and Clements (197 la) correlated with only one of the two stimuli in the terminal link; the other stimulus was followed by a short timeout. In another condition, food was delivered at the end of half of the terminal links, but neither stimulus was reliably correlated with its delivery. In the third condition, each terminal link, regardless of the stimulus, terminated with food delivery. The response rate in the initial component was highest in the first of these conditions, without much difference between the last two conditions. A study by Kendall (1972) replicated these findings with terminal links of two different durations and reinforcement in each. Response rates were higher in the initial component followed by one long and one short terminal component than in the component followed by two short terminal components. This effect disappeared, however, when the two stimuli for the terminal components were no longer reliably correlated with the duration of the terminal components. Wilton and Clements (1971a) and Wilton (1972) interpreted the findings of the Wilton and Clements experiments in terms of an information hypothesis.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

PREFERENCE FOR INTERMITTENT REINFORCEMENT¹

Kendall

1974

J Exper Analysis Behavior

134

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The phenomenon is, of course, well known in vertebrates, primarily from freeoperant experiments (in which reinforcements typically are equated) but also from discrete-trials experiments (in which trials usually are equated). In Notterman's (1951) work with rats in a runway, for example, asymptotic running speed in acquisition increased with the number of added N trials, and so also did resistance to extinction. The improvement of performance in acquisition by added N trials has been explained in terms of secondary reinforcement (Denny, 1946) and on the assumption that associative strength increases with frequency of response per se (Humphreys, 1943).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acquisition and extinction of a shuttling response in honeybees (Apis mellifera) as a function of the probability of reward.

Ishida

Couvillon²,

Bitterman³

1992

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of partial (intermittent) versus consistent reward on the acquisition and extinction of a shuttling response were studied in 3 experiments with foraging honeybees (Apis mellifera). Adding nonrewarded trials to rewarded trials (the equated-reinforcements design) improved performance in acquisition and increased resistance to extinction. Substituting nonrewarded trials for some rewarded trials (the equated-trials design), which had little effect on acquisition, also increased resistance to extinction but to a lesser extent than adding nonrewarded trials. Marked variations in the schedule of partial reward (the sequence of rewarded and nonrewarded trials) were without effect. The results are compared with those of analogous experiments on vertebrates.

show abstract

“…In a straightforward parametric study, Phil Bersh (1951) explored two of the most important variables determining the potency of a stimulus as a conditioned reinforcer: (a) the number of pairings and (b) the time between the onset of the stimulus and the delivery of the reinforcer. Using very different techniques, Joe Notterman (1951) and I both examined the relationship between the discriminative and the reinforcing functions of the stimulus. Joe used a runway.…”

Section: Discriminative and Reinforcing Functionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic Roots: Columbia University, 1943–1951

Dinsmoor¹

1990

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A study of some relations among aperiodic reinforcement, discrimination training, and secondary reinforcement.

Abstract: Data bearing on this procedure are reported elsewhere (12).

Cited by 47 publications

References 13 publications

PREFERENCE FOR INTERMITTENT REINFORCEMENT¹

PREFERENCE FOR INTERMITTENT REINFORCEMENT¹

Acquisition and extinction of a shuttling response in honeybees (Apis mellifera) as a function of the probability of reward.

Academic Roots: Columbia University, 1943–1951

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A study of some relations among aperiodic reinforcement, discrimination training, and secondary reinforcement.

Abstract: Data bearing on this procedure are reported elsewhere (12).

Cited by 47 publications

References 13 publications

PREFERENCE FOR INTERMITTENT REINFORCEMENT1

PREFERENCE FOR INTERMITTENT REINFORCEMENT1

Acquisition and extinction of a shuttling response in honeybees (Apis mellifera) as a function of the probability of reward.

Academic Roots: Columbia University, 1943–1951

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

PREFERENCE FOR INTERMITTENT REINFORCEMENT¹

PREFERENCE FOR INTERMITTENT REINFORCEMENT¹