Key‐peck Probability and Topography in a Concurrent Variable‐interval Variable‐interval Schedule With Food and Water Reinforcers

Abstract

The relation between variables that modulate the probability and the topography of key pecks was examined using a concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedule with food and water reinforcers. Measures of response probability (response rates, time allocation) and topography (peck duration, gape amplitude) were obtained in 5 water- and food-deprived pigeons. Key color signaled reinforcer type. During baseline, response rates and time allocations were greater to the food key than to the water key, and food-key pecks had larger gapes and shorter durations. Relative probability measures (for the food key) were increased by prewatering and decreased by prefeeding. Deprivation effects upon topography measures were apparent only when food- and water-key pecks were analyzed separately. Food-key gape amplitudes increased with prewatering and decreased with prefeeding. The clearest effect occurred with prewatering. There were no consistent effects upon water-key gapes. The key color-reinforcer relation was reversed for 3 pigeons to determine how response topography was modulated during the transition from food- to water-key pecks. Reacquisition was faster for the probability than for the topography measures. Analysis of gape-amplitude distributions during reversal indicated that response-form modulation proceeded through the generation of intermediate gape sizes.

Falsification of Matching Theory's Account of Single‐alternative Responding: Herrnstein's K Varies With Sucrose Concentration

“…Future research should address some of the important objections raised by Monaghan (1987, 1994). In particular, the possibility that responses go unrecorded could be examined by using an observational method (e.g., Ploog & Ziegler, 1996, 1997. The data obtained from the observational method could be compared to the data obtained by the equipment (i.e., registered responses).…”

“…Their final explanation, that different concentrations of a liquid reinforcer engender different response topographies, requires empirical confirmation. Indeed, other methods of manipulating reinforcer magnitude elicit different response topographies (Ploog & Ziegler, 1996, 1997. Because response topography possibly varied, Heyman and Monaghan (1994) state, ''it may be more reasonable to classify Bradshaw et al's experiment as a study of changes in reinforcer quality rather than reinforcer amount' ' (p. 513).…”

Effects of Primary Reinforcement on Pigeons' Initial‐link Responding Under a Concurrent‐chains Schedule With Nondifferential Terminal Links

“…This is potentially troublesome because, when studying choice with concurrent-chains schedules, it is usually assumed that response rates in the initial links are a pure measure of preference for a given conditioned reinforcer, independent of specific parameters inherent in the primar y reinforcer (except primar y reinforcement rate). It is known, however, that both reinforcer quality (e.g., Allan & Zeigler, 1994;Jenkins & Moore, 1973;LaMon & Zeigler, 1988;Ploog & Zeigler, 1997) and reinforcer size (e.g., Allan & Zeigler, 1994;Ploog & Zeigler, 1996) affect response topography. Response topography, in turn, may affect response rates (cf.…”

From Molecular to Molar: A Paradigm Shift in Behavior Analysis

“…A pigeon's food peck, when examined in detail, constitutes an individual with parts: forward head motion, eye closing, opening of the beak, head withdrawal, closing of the beak, eye opening (Ploog & Zeigler, 1997;Smith, 1974). It is a stereotyped pattern that researchers almost never seek to change, although other sorts of pecks, containing different parts, exist, such as water-reinforced pecks and explorator y pecks ( Jenkins & Moore, 1973;Schwartz & Williams, 1972;Wolin, 1948Wolin, /1968.…”

“…Key pecks or lever presses may be parts of key pecking or lever pressing reinforced, say, on a VI schedule. Key pecking or lever pressing on two different keys or levers may be parts of an allocation of behavior between two sources of reinforcement (Ploog & Zeigler, 1997). We usually measure the responding on one of the keys or levers as a response rate.…”