Acquisition of a Spatially Defined Operant With Delayed Reinforcement

Abstract

Two experiments investigated the role of an immediate, response-produced auditory stimulus during acquisition, via delayed reinforcement, of a response selected to control for possible unprogrammed, operandum-related sources of response feedback. Experimentally naive rats were exposed to a delayedfood reinforcement condition, specifically a tandem fixed-ratio 1 differential-reinforcement-of-otherbehavior 30-s schedule. The response was defined as breaking a photocell beam located near the ceiling at the rear of the operant conditioning chamber. In Experiment 1, rates of photobeam breaking by each rat increased from near zero, regardless of the presence or absence of a tone that immediately followed the response initiating the delay interval. Though not essential, the tone facilitated response acquisition and resulted in more efficient response patterns at stability. Experiment 2 demonstrated that photobeam-breaking response rates under the delayed reinforcement contingency exceeded those in a preceding baseline condition in which no food was delivered. In addition, upon introduction of the delayed reinforcement procedure, correspondence between response patterns and the requirements of the reinforcement schedule increased over baseline levels in the absence of a food contingency. Together with a previous report of Lattal and Gleeson (1990), the present results suggest that response acquisition with delayed reinforcement is a robust phenomenon that may not depend on a mechanically defined response or an immediate external stimulus change to mediate the temporal gap between response and reinforcer.

Response Acquisition by Humans With Delayed Reinforcement

“…Delayed ( of-reinforcement gradients obtained from the present experiment have a limitation: the resetting delay contingency can restrict rates of responding (Critchfield & Lattal, 1993;Sutphin et al, 1998). Under such a contingency, the most efficient performance is to respond once immediately after the prior reinforcement, then to pause until a reinforcer occurs.…”

“…those under response-independent-yoked reinforcement (e.g., Dickinson et al, 1992;Galuska & Woods, 2005;Lattal & Gleeson, 1990), and (c) rates of different responses that produce no reinforcer (e.g., Critchfield & Lattal, 1993;Galuska & Woods, 2005;Keely et al, 2007;Wilkenfield et al, 1992). In terms of the present experiment, a response may be considered acquired by delayed reinforcement when the number of the target sequences per min and the number of target sequences as percentage of all two-response sequences are higher (a) when the target sequences were reinforced than when they were not reinforced, and (b) for participants delivered reinforcers depending on their performance than for participants delivered reinforcers independently.…”

“…By contrast, any response with an operant level at zero can not be acquired without shaping. Thus, an examination of the generality of response acquisition with delayed reinforcement using human participants requires a class of response with low but nonzero baseline rates (Critchfield & Lattal, 1993;Sidman, 1960, pp. 117-119), and it is unlikely that single responses to an operandum would meet this requirement.…”

“…Pecking a key (Lattal & Gleeson, 1990), pressing a lever (e.g., Lattal & Gleeson, 1990;Wilkenfield et al, 1992), and breaking a photocell beam (Critchfield & Lattal, 1993;Lattal & Metzger, 1994) have been acquired in previous experiments. The present experiment found that not only single responses but more complex classes of response (i.e., touching two circles in a particular sequence) also can be acquired with delayed reinforcement.…”

Designing Interventions That Include Delayed Reinforcement: Implications of Recent Laboratory Research

“…This phenomenon has been demonstrated across several species, including rats and pigeons (Lattal & Gleeson, 1990;Wilkenfield, Nickel, Blakely, & Poling, 1992), Siamese fighting fish (Lattal & Metzger, 1994), and human infants (Reeve, Reeve, Brown, Brown, & Poulson, 1992). The findings of such studies consistently demonstrate that unsignaled delayed reinforcement produces low but persistent rates of responding (Critchfield & Lattal, 1993;Lattal & Gleeson, 1990;Wilkenfield et al, 1992). A recent study by A. M. Williams and Lattal (1999) with pigeons contributes to the basic literature on delayed reinforcement and provides some potential avenues of research for the application of delayed reinforcement.…”