Bouts of Responding From Variable‐interval Reinforcement of Lever Pressing by Rats

Shull, Richard L.; Grimes, Julie A.

doi:10.1901/jeab.2003.80-159

Cited by 55 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our conclusion seems similar to recent findings from Shull and colleagues (Shull, Gaynor, & Grimes, 2001;Shull & Grimes, 2003;Shull, Grimes, & Bennett, 2004). They reported that responses (or IRTs) under single reinforcement schedules can be classified into bouts of responses or pauses, and molar reinforcement rate mainly affects the start of a bout (bout initiation rate), whereas molecular IRT reinforcement affects only the speed of responding within a bout (within-bout response rate).…”

Section: Relation To the Single-schedule Situationsupporting

confidence: 92%

Concurrent VR VI schedules: Primacy of molar control of preference and molecular control of response rates

Tanno

Silberberg

Sakagami

2010

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

382Many operant accounts of behavioral output and choice can be classified in terms of whether reinforcement is thought to affect behavior at a molecular level, such as the time between two responses (interresponse time, or IRT) or the order in which choices occur, or at a more molar level, such as the relation between reinforcement rate and the rate of response emission or the frequency with which choices occur. Theorists who have applied molecular or molar models to single and concurrent operants have tended to favor the same type of account, be it molar or molecular, for both operant tasks. For example, Shimp (1966Shimp ( , 1973 and Herrnstein (1970) have advanced molecular and molar levels of analysis, respectively, to accommodate single-and choice-schedule performances.Although it seems unsurprising that theorists favor a single level of analysis in modeling single-and concurrentschedule effects, nothing besides parsimony forces this approach. Indeed, the present report entertains the possibility that control by reinforcement may differ in its level of action in single versus concurrent schedules. Our review of extant findings supports the view that behavioral sensitivity to reinforcement is best explained molecularly for single operants, but in a molar fashion for concurrent operants. Evidence Supporting Molecular Accounts of Single-Schedule PerformanceTanno and Sakagami (2008; see also Peele, Casey, & Silberberg, 1984) have suggested that the response rate difference between variable ratio (VR) and variable interval (VI) schedules with equated reinforcer rates may be largely attributable to a molecular factor: On VI schedules, the probability of reinforcement grows with time between successive responses, but on VR schedules, it does not. This between-schedule difference may account for the lower response rates VI schedules support.Tanno and Sakagami (2008) made their case by comparing response rates on a VR schedule with those maintained by other schedule types that were purpose-built to alter the molar relationship between response rate and reinforcement rate. Although their between-schedule comparisons permitted the emergence of molar control over response rate (i.e., on the basis of the feedback relation between response rate and reinforcement rate), it did not appear. Instead, the sole factor that seemed responsible for rate differences between VR and all comparison schedules was differences in the reinforced IRT distributions. They interpreted this result as establishing the primacy of a molecular account of the VR-VI rate difference based on between- AND TAKAYUKI SAKAGAMIKeio University, Tokyo, JapanIn the first condition in Experiment 1, 6 rats were exposed to concurrent variable ratio (VR) 30, variable interval (VI) 30-sec schedules. In the next two conditions, the subjects were exposed to concurrent VI VI schedules and concurrent tandem VI-differential-reinforcement-of-high-rate VI schedules. For the latter conditions, the overall and relative reinforcer rates equaled those in the first conditio...

show abstract

Section: Relation To the Single-schedule Situationsupporting

confidence: 92%

Concurrent VR VI schedules: Primacy of molar control of preference and molecular control of response rates

Tanno

Silberberg

Sakagami

2010

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As was discussed in Tanno et al (2010), if we accept Herrnstein's (1970) notion that single schedules can be viewed as a choice situation between experimentally reinforced behavior and endogenously reinforced behavior, our conclusion is consistent with findings from Shull and colleagues (Shull, 2011;Shull, Gaynor, & Grimes, 2001;Shull & Grimes, 2003;Shull, Grimes, & Bennett, 2004) in single-schedule situations. They reported that responses (or IRTs) under single reinforcement schedules can be classified into bouts of responses or pauses, and that reinforcement frequency mainly affects the start of a bout (bout-initiation rate), whereas types of reinforcement schedule (VI and tandem VI-FR or tandem VI-VR) mainly affect the speed of responding within a bout (withinbout response rate).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Inter-response-time reinforcement and relative reinforcer frequency control choice

Tanno

Silberberg

2014

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Conditions 1 and 3 of our Experiment 1, rats pressed levers for food in a two-component multiple schedule. The first component was concurrent variable-ratio (VR) 20 variable-interval (VI) 90 s, and the second was concurrent yoked VI (its reinforcement rate equaled that of the prior component's VR) VI 90 s. In Condition 2, the VR was changed to tandem VR 20, differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL) 0.8 s. Local response rates were higher in the VR than in the yoked VI schedule, and this difference disappeared between tandem VR DRL and yoked VI. The relative time allocations to VR and yoked VI, as well as to tandem VR DRL and yoked VI, were approximately the same across conditions. In Experiment 2, rats chose in a single session between five different VI pairs, each lasting for 12 reinforcer presentations (variable-environment procedure). The across-schedule hourly reinforcement rates were 120 and 40, respectively, in Conditions 1-3 and 4-6. During Conditions 2 and 5, one lever's VI was changed to tandem VI, DRL 2 s. High covariation between relative time allocations and relative reinforcer frequencies, as well as invariance in local response rates to the schedules, was evident in all conditions. In addition, the relative local response rates were biased toward the unchanged VI in Conditions 2 and 5. These results demonstrate two-process control of choice: Inter-response-time reinforcement controls the local response rate, and relative reinforcer frequency controls relative time allocations.Keywords Matching law . Inter-response-time reinforcement . Time allocation . Local response rate . Rat . Lever pressHerrnstein and Heyman (1979) exposed pigeons to concurrent variable-ratio (VR) variable-interval (VI) schedules. They recorded the number of responses and reinforcers to each schedule, as well as the cumulative time that pigeons allocated to responding to a given schedule. Two of their findings were of note. First, manipulations of schedule values that produced changes in the relative VI rate of reinforcement were closely followed by similar changes in the relative time allocationsan outcome termed "matching" (see Baum, 1974). Second, they found that the local response rate (responses to a schedule/ time making consecutive responses to a schedule) was higher to the VR than to the VI schedule, a result often found when VR and VI schedules are presented individually (e.g., Peele, Casey, & Silberberg, 1984;Tanno & Sakagami, 2008). Tanno, Silberberg, and Sakagami (2010) suggested that these two results might be due to the operation of separate processes. Preference, expressed in terms of relative time allocations, might be controlled by the relative frequency of reinforcement, just as Herrnstein and Heyman (1979) suggested. Local response rate, on the other hand, might be controlled by the relation between the duration of the interval between two successive responses to a schedule (the interresponse time, or IRT) and the probability of reinforcement. Support for the latter attribution of the control ...

show abstract

“…Therefore, it was hypothesized that the previously observed differences in resistance to change of responding maintained by immediate and delayed reinforcement (Bell, 1999;Grace et al, 1998) may have been due to the differential effects of conditions of disruption on underlying response structure. Examining underlying response structure using log survivor plots and a double-exponential model (Shull & Grimes, 2003) failed because responding was not consistently composed of two separate modes (see Figure 3). Even when responding did appear to occur in bouts (e.g., for Pigeon 217), the log survivor functions did not conform to simple double exponential functions that previously have been observed with rats lever pressing and nose poking for food (e.g., Shull & Grimes, 2003;Shull et al, 2001Shull et al, , 2002Shull et al, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Responding maintained by VI schedules has been shown to occur in two modes-bout initiations (i.e., visits) and within-bout responding (i.e., response engagement; Baum, 2002;Baum & Rachlin, 1969;Blough, 1963;Davison, 2004;Mellgren & Elsmore, 1991;Nevin & Baum, 1980;Pear & Rector, 1979;Shull, Gaynor, & Grimes, 2001). In rats nose poking and lever pressing for food, differences in reinforcement rates have been shown to affect bout-initiation rates, whereas adding a small ratio response requirement to the end of a VI schedule increases within-bout responding (Shull, Gaynor, & Grimes, 2001Shull & Grimes, 2003). Conditions of disruption have been shown to decrease boutinitiation rates relative to baseline, whereas within-bout responding tends to be less affected (Shull, 2004;Shull et al, 2002).…”

Section: ____________________________________________________________mentioning

confidence: 99%

Resistance to Change of Responding Maintained by Unsignaled Delays to Reinforcement: A Response‐bout Analysis

Podlesnik

Jimenez‐Gomez

Ward

et al. 2006

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous experiments have shown that unsignaled delayed reinforcement decreases response rates and resistance to change. However, the effects of different delays to reinforcement on underlying response structure have not been investigated in conjunction with tests of resistance to change. In the present experiment, pigeons responded on a three-component multiple variable-interval schedule for food presented immediately, following brief (0.5 s), or following long (3 s) unsignaled delays of reinforcement. Baseline response rates were lowest in the component with the longest delay; they were about equal with immediate and briefly delayed reinforcers. Resistance to disruption by presession feeding, response-independent food during the intercomponent interval, and extinction was slightly but consistently lower as delays increased. Because log survivor functions of interresponse times (IRTs) deviated from simple modes of bout initiations and within-bout responding, an IRT-cutoff method was used to examine underlying response structure. These analyses suggested that baseline rates of initiating bouts of responding decreased as scheduled delays increased, and within-bout response rates tended to be lower in the component with immediate reinforcers. The number of responses per bout was not reliably affected by reinforcer delay, but tended to be highest with brief delays when total response rates were higher in that component. Consistent with previous findings, resistance to change of overall response rate was highly correlated with resistance to change of bout-initiation rates but not with within-bout responding. These results suggest that unsignaled delays to reinforcement affect resistance to change through changes in the probability of initiating a response bout rather than through changes in the underlying response structure.

show abstract

Bouts of Responding From Variable‐interval Reinforcement of Lever Pressing by Rats

Cited by 55 publications

References 27 publications

Concurrent VR VI schedules: Primacy of molar control of preference and molecular control of response rates

Concurrent VR VI schedules: Primacy of molar control of preference and molecular control of response rates

Inter-response-time reinforcement and relative reinforcer frequency control choice

Resistance to Change of Responding Maintained by Unsignaled Delays to Reinforcement: A Response‐bout Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About