Information on Response Requirements Compared With Information on Food Density as a Rein Forcer of Observing in Pigeons

Four experiments examined the free-operant observing behavior of rats. In Experiment 1, observing was a bitonic function of random-ratio schedule requirements for the primary reinforcer. In Experiment 2, decreases in the magnitude of the primary reinforcer decreased observing. Experiment 3 examined observing when a random-ratio schedule or a yoked random-time schedule of primary reinforcement was in effect across conditions. Removing the response requirement for the primary reinforcer increased observing, suggesting that the effects of the random-ratio schedule in Experiment 1 likely were due to an interaction between observing and responding for the primary reinforcer. In Experiment 4, decreasing the rate of primary reinforcement by increasing the duration of a random-time schedule decreased observing monotonically. Overall, these results suggest that observing decreases with decreases in the rate or magnitude of the primary reinforcer, but that behavior related to the primary reinforcer can affect observing and potentially affect measurement of conditioned reinforcing value.

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 78%

Observing Behavior: Effects of Rate and Magnitude of Primary Reinforcement

Shahan

2002

“…Although, significantly, noncontingent schedules of reinforcement can transform temporally correlated stimuli into conditioned reinforcers (e.g., Autor, 1969;W. Baum & Rachlin, 1969;Brownstein & Pliskoff, 1968;Kelleher & Gollub, 1962;but especially Browne & Dinsmoor, 1974;Dinsmoor, Bowe, Green, & Hanson, 1988;Jenkins & Boakes, 1973), they are not effective procedures for selectively increasing the frequency of an arbitrarily chosen class of behavior.…”

Section: Absence Of Temporal Locus For Frequency Reductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimuli Inevitably Generated by Behavior That Avoids Electric Shock Are Inherently Reinforcing

Dinsmoor¹

2001

Self Cite

151

153

A molecular analysis based on the termination of stimuli that are positively correlated with shock and the production of stimuli that are negatively correlated with shock provides a parsimonious count for both traditional discrete-trial avoidance behavior and the data derived from more recent free-operant procedures. The necessary stimuli are provided by the intrinsic feedback generated by the subject's behavior, in addition to those presented by the experimenter. Moreover, all data compatible with the molar principle of shock-frequency reduction as reinforcement are also compatible with a delay-of-shock gradient, but some data compatible with the delay gradient are not compatible with frequency reduction. The delay gradient corresponds to functions relating magnitude of behavioral effect to the time between conditional and unconditional stimuli, the time between conditioned and primary reinforcers, and the time between responses and positive reinforcers.

“…This general finding supports the basic conception proposed here because it shows that behavior may be reinforced by the presentation of reinforcer-correlated stimuli even when that behavior does not produce the reinforcer itself. Further, Dinsmoor, Bowe, Green, and Hanson (1988) showed that pigeons observed schedule-correlated stimuli even when the positive reinforcement schedule was a response-independent VT schedule (see also Badia, Ryan, & Harsh, 1981). These authors noted that ''the function of [observing behavior] is to bring the subject into contact with the relevant stimuli, rather than to produce the ultimate reinforcer'' (Dinsmoor et al, 1988, p. 229).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms Underlying the Effects of Unsignaled Delayed Reinforcement on Key Pecking of Pigeons Under Variable‐interval Schedules

Schaal

Shahan

Kovera

et al. 1998

Three experiments were conducted to test an interpretation of the response-rate-reducing effects of unsignaled nonresetting delays to reinforcement in pigeons. According to this interpretation, rates of key pecking decrease under these conditions because key pecks alternate with hopper-observing behavior. In Experiment 1, 4 pigeons pecked a food key that raised the hopper provided that pecks on a different variable-interval-schedule key met the requirements of a variable-interval 60-s schedule. The stimuli associated with the availability of the hopper (i.e., houselight and keylight off, food key illuminated, feedback following food-key pecks) were gradually removed across phases while the dependent relation between hopper availability and variable-interval-schedule key pecks was maintained. Rates of pecking the variable-interval-schedule key decreased to low levels and rates of food-key pecks increased when variable-interval-schedule key pecks did not produce hopper-correlated stimuli. In Experiment 2, pigeons initially pecked a single key under a variable-interval 60-s schedule. Then the dependent relation between hopper presentation and key pecks was eliminated by arranging a variable-time 60-s schedule. When rates of pecking had decreased to low levels, conditions were changed so that pecks during the final 5 s of each interval changed the keylight color from green to amber. When pecking produced these hopper-correlated stimuli, pecking occurred at high rates, despite the absence of a peck-food dependency. When peck-produced changes in keylight color were uncorrelated with food, rates of pecking fell to low levels. In Experiment 3, details (obtained delays, interresponse-time distributions, eating times) of the transition from high to low response rates produced by the introduction of a 3-s unsignaled delay were tracked from session to session in 3 pigeons that had been initially trained to peck under a conventional variable-interval 60-s schedule. Decreases in response rates soon after the transition to delayed reinforcement were accompanied by decreases in eating times and alterations in interresponse-time distributions. As response rates decreased and became stable, eating times increased and their variability decreased. These findings support an interpretation of the effects of delayed reinforcement that emphasizes the importance of hopper-observing behavior.