Contingent Magnitude of Reward in a Human Operant IRT >15-S-LH Schedule

Abstract

In an IRT>15-s schedule, either the number of points was fixed or a lesser number was awarded the later a response occu rred during the 5-s LH. As an additional means for enhancing feedback about performance, a response that exceeded the LH yielded minimal reward (vs. no reinforcer and clock reset), thus allowing differentiation between excessively long IRTs and anticipatory responses. It was expected that the "graded" scale of reward magnitude, coupled with delivery of one point for exceeding the LH , would increase precision of performance. Providing a point for overestimations did increase the percentage of IRTs falling within the LH , and graded magnitude of reward did enhance the proportion of IRTs taking place earlier within the LH . It was suggested that contingent incentive value, as incorporated in the present laborato ry paradigms, effectively influenced performance and , in general, represents the nature of contingencies that prevail in the "real world ."

Human choice among five alternatives when reinforcers decay

“…This contingency is similar to limitedhold procedures, where reinforcers are available only for a limited period of time following set-up (see Buskist and Morgan, 1987;Morse, 1966). Also similar are contingent magnitudeof-reinforcement schedules in which magnitudes depend upon response latencies or other attributes of the response (Buskist et al, 1988;Lippman and Tragesser, 2003). One advantage of this type of contingency is that sensitivity to reinforcement is relatively high, as demonstrated by previous work and corroborated by the present results.…”

The Transformation of Consequential Functions in Accordance With the Relational Frames of More-Than and Less-Than

“…When the participant pressed this button, the generalization task began. Participants were exposed to a two-component multiple schedule (see Figure 3 for a schematic representation) in which the consequential stimulus produced was contingent on the number of responses emitted in a preceding 15-s interval and on the background color of the computer screen, which was either blue or yellow (see Lippman, 2000, Experiment 2 for a similar procedure; Lippman & Tragesser, 2003). The background color on the first trial was counterbalanced across participants, and each color appeared on 5 of every 10 trials thereafter.…”