Response duration is sensitive to both immediate and delayed reinforcement

Abstract

We investigated the duration of lever pressing by rats when the delivery of appetitive reinforcers was contingent upon response duration. In the first experiment, response durations increased when duration requirements were imposed, and they decreased when duration requirements were removed. This effect occurred whether reinforcers were immediate or delayed by 8 s. In order to maintain the integrity of the delay intervals, reinforcer delivery was dependent upon both lever depression and release. In a second experiment, lever depression only and a response duration of at least 4 s were required for reinforcer delivery. Compared to immediate reinforcement conditions, delayed reinforcers increased both variability and the length of the maximum response durations. In a third experiment, immediate reinforcers were delivered contingent upon lever depression and release under a variety of duration requirements. Median lever‐press durations tracked the contingencies rapidly. Across all three experiments, rats emitted numerous response durations that were too short to satisfy the reinforcer requirements, and bimodal distributions similar to those produced by differential reinforcement of low rate schedules were evident for most rats. In many aspects, response duration responds to reinforcement parameters in a fashion similar to rate of discrete responding, but an examination of this continuous dimension of behavior may provide additional information about environment–behavior relationships.

Longer operant lever-press duration requirements induce fewer but longer response bouts in rats

“…A secondary goal of this study was to characterize the distribution of response durations emitted under a VI schedule. Whereas the motoric hypothesis of δ assumes that the time to emit a response is fixed, direct measurements of lever-press durations have found them to vary between responses (Byrne & Sarno, 2019;Fowler, Filewich, & Leberer, 1977;Roberts & Gharib, 2006; see Fig. 1c).…”