Maximization of pellet density by rats in a two-choice operant situation

Coulson, Grant; Koffer, Kenneth; Coulson, V.

doi:10.3758/bf03331793

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The case where the stimuli are perfectly discriminable may be idealized by a second form of either maximizing or matching. According to conditional maximizing, p(LIS)* = I.5 Rel EP(L Si) where i = lean, rich, one response alternative is always chosen on trials where a particular stimulus is presented (Coulson, Koffer, & Coulson, 1971;Herrnstein & Loveland, 1975). This is the same as matching the probability of a response to the stimulus presentation probability, p(LjSi)* = p(Sj), a degenerate form of matching to relative expected payoff when relative reinforcement amount is disregarded.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At the molar level, empirical evidence of Terman and Terman (1972), Coulson et al (1971), and Herrnstein and Loveland (1975) suggests that an alternative will be maximized in a noncorrection situation as long as relative reinforcement rate for alternative responses differs significantly from .5. Also, the same key should be pecked following events with the same value, where value is measured along a critical dimension such as reinforcement density.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, rats maximized p(L) when Rel EP(L) = .6 in a situation where a left-bar press led to a variable-interval delay of 10 sec followed by a differential-reinforcement-of-otherbehavior 5-sec schedule (tand VID 10 DRO 5), and a right-bar press led to a tand VID 25 DRO 5-sec schedule (Coulson et al, 1971). In the present case, for low-reinforcement density substimuli, p(L) should tend toward 0 and for high density substimuli, toward 1, since correct choices were differentially reinforced, and differences in the temporal location of reinforcement for a substimulus were irrelevant, as were the variations in the comparison stimuli in the Coulson et al experiment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Decision Rules and Signal Detect Ability in a Reinforcement‐density Discrimination

Commons

1979

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two probabilistic schedules of reinforcement, one richer in reinforcement, the other leaner, were overlapping stimuli to be discriminated in a choice situation. One of two schedules was in effect for 12 seconds. Then, during a 6-second choice period, the first left-key peck was reinforced if the richer schedule had been in effect, and the first right-key peck was reinforced if the leaner schedule had been in effect. The two schedule stimuli may be viewed as two binomial distributions of the number of reinforcement opportunities. Each schedule yielded different frequencies of 16 substimuli. Each substimulus had a particular type of outcome pattern for the 12 seconds during which a schedule was in effect, and consisted of four consecutive light-cued 3-second T-cycles, each having 0 or 1 reinforced center-key pecks. Substimuli therefore contained 0 to 4 reinforcers. On any 3-second cycle, the first center-key peck darkened that key and was reinforced with probability .75 or .25 in the richer or leaner schedules, respectively. In terms of the theory of signal detection, detectability neared the maximum possible d' for all four pigeons. Left-key peck probability increased when number of reinforcers in a substimulus increased, when these occurred closer to choice, or when pellets were larger for correct left-key pecks than for correct right-key pecks. Averaged over different temporal patterns of reinforcement in a substimulus, substimuli with the same number of reinforcers produced choice probabilities that matched relative expected payoff rather than maximized one alternative.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%