Inhibitory Stimulus Control Under Conditions of Signalled and Unsignalled Delay of Reinforcement

Richards, Ralph W.; Hittesdorf, W. M.

doi:10.1007/bf03394579

Cited by 12 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results are also consistent with a recent study of delayed reinforcement that also compared signaled and unsignaled delay procedures, but with the two conditions presented over successive blocks of sessions rather than as alternate components of a multiple schedule (Richards, 1981). As in the present study, Richards found that the unsignaled procedure produced substantially greater response decrements with long delays for all subjects.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…This possibility is suggested by the increase in response rate during the unsignaledcomponent when the condition was changed from 0 delay to .S-sec delay. Such an increase is similar to previous findings with the unsignaled delay procedure in which the delay gradient has been determined for a larger set of delay values (Richards, 1981;Sizemore & Lattal, 1978). The nonmonotonic gradient is important to the present discussion because its best interpretation appears to be in terms FREE-OPERANT BLOCKING 75 of changes in response topography that are engendered by very short delays.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…If an unsignaled delay is imposed between a response and a contingent reinforcer, responding will decrease substantially (Williams, 1976). However, presentation of a stimulus during the delay interval will counteract the detrimental effects of the delay and will maintain responding at a rate comparable to that when reinforcement is presented immediately (Pierce, Hanford, & Zimmerman, 1972;Richards, 1972;Richards & Hittesdorf, 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Multiple determinants of “blocking” effects on operant behavior

Williams

Heyneman

1982

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Blocking was investigated in a free-operant procedure by presenting a response-contingent signal prior to reinforcer delivery. At issue was the way in which blocking effects previously reported with this procedure are related to conditioned reinforcement effects. also previously found with similar procedures. Signal presentation decreased response rate when delay of reinforcement was 0 or .5 sec, but the signal increased response rate when the delay of reinforcement was increased to 3 sec. Thus, which effect (blocking or conditioned reinforcement) occurred depended critically on the response-reinforcer interval.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multiple determinants of “blocking” effects on operant behavior

Williams

Heyneman

1982

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given this diversity, it would be surprising if all such manipulations had identical effects. Yet, few researchers have actually compared different types of delayed reinforcement suggestion, Richards and Hittesdorf (1978) found that a 10-sec signaled delay maintained much higher response rates than a 10-sec unsignaled delay when pigeons' responding was reinforced according to a VI schedule.The purpose of the present experiment was to assess the generality of Richards and Hittesdorf's finding by comparing the effects of various durations of signaled and unsignaled delay. To assess the generality of any effect, the present experiment also included two different types of reinforcement schedules.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Signaled and Unsignaled Delay of Reinforcement

Richards

1981

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

116

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons were trained on either a variable-interval 60-second schedule, or on a schedule that differentially reinforced responses that were spaced at least 20 seconds apart. The birds were then exposed to several durations of reinforcement delay, with comparisons between signaled and unsignaled delays. Although unsignaled delays of 5 and 10 seconds produced large decreases in response rate, signaled delays of up to 10 seconds produced only moderate decreases in response rates. In addition, some subjects responded more rapidly with a .5 or 1.0 second duration of unsignaled delay than with immediate reinforcement. These response rate changes occurred regardless of whether the rate of reinforcement concomitantly decreased or increased.Key words: reinforcement delay, variable-interval schedule of reinforcement, differentialreinforcement-of-low-rates schedule of reinforcement, key peck, pigeonsOne of the most widely discussed parameters of reinforcement is delay of reinforcement (e.g., Bolles, 1975;Hulse, Deese, & Egeth, 1975;Mackintosh, 1974). While much of the early empirical and theoretical work examined the manner in which delayed reinforcement influenced the learning of new behavior or discriminations (e.g., Grice, 1948;Perin, 1943;Spence. 1947;Wolfe, 1934), the more recent emphasis, especially in the area of operant conditioning, has been on how it affects behavior maintained by various schedules of reinforcement (e.g., Azzi, Fix, Keller, & Rocha e Silva, 1964;Dews, 1960;Ferster, 1953;Ferster & Hammer, 1965;Morgan, 1972;Pierce, Hanford, & Zimmerman, 1972;Silver & Pierce, 1969;Sizemore & Lattal, 1977Williams, 1976).Delayed reinforcement actually refers to a collection of very different manipulations. For example, the delay period may be signaled or unsignaled; if signaled, the opportunity to respond may or may not be withdrawn during the delay. In addition, responding during the delay interval may be nonfunctional or it may be penalized, e.g., by resetting the delay interval. Given this diversity, it would be surprising if all such manipulations had identical effects. Yet, few researchers have actually compared different types of delayed reinforcement suggestion, Richards and Hittesdorf (1978) found that a 10-sec signaled delay maintained much higher response rates than a 10-sec unsignaled delay when pigeons' responding was reinforced according to a VI schedule.The purpose of the present experiment was to assess the generality of Richards and Hittesdorf's finding by comparing the effects of various durations of signaled and unsignaled delay. To assess the generality of any effect, the present experiment also included two different types of reinforcement schedules. Variable-interval 60-sec and differential-reinforcement-oflow-response-rates (DRL) 20-sec schedules were selected because it seemed possible that delayed reinforcement might produce similar effects on the behavior maintained by these 145 1981, 35,[145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152] NUMBER 2 (MARCH)

show abstract

Effects of signaled and unsignaled delays of reinforcement on response maintenance in zebrafish (Danio rerio)

Kuroda¹,

Cançado

Lattal

2022

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of delays of reinforcement on zebrafish behavior were examined following training with immediate reinforcement. The delay was either signaled by an exteroceptive stimulus present for the entire delay period (fully signaled), signaled briefly only at delay onset (partial signal), or without a stimulus (unsignaled). Unsignaled delays consistently resulted in low response rates. Fully signaled delays resulted in higher response rates than unsignaled delays when the delay was 3 s, but this difference in response rates disappeared at 6‐s delays. Partially signaled delays were less effective in maintaining responding than fully signaled delays, but more effective than unsignaled delays, although these results were only suggestive. These results indicate that stimulus changes that occur during delays to reinforcement have similar effects with zebrafish as with other species, but also that responding of zebrafish has a relatively low tolerance to the delay duration. A vast majority of experiments examining zebrafish behavior suggests that the fish have potential to serve as an interface between biological and behavioral science, but this may not be the case in some research areas involving delays, such as delay discounting.

show abstract

Inhibitory Stimulus Control Under Conditions of Signalled and Unsignalled Delay of Reinforcement

Cited by 12 publications

References 16 publications

Multiple determinants of “blocking” effects on operant behavior

Multiple determinants of “blocking” effects on operant behavior

A Comparison of Signaled and Unsignaled Delay of Reinforcement

Effects of signaled and unsignaled delays of reinforcement on response maintenance in zebrafish (Danio rerio)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About