SCHEDULES OF RESPONSE‐INDEPENDENT CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT¹

Abstract

Rates and patterns of responding of pigeons under response-independent and responsedependent schedules of brief-stimulus presentation were compared by superimposing 3-min brief-stimulus schedules on a 15-min fixed-interval schedule of food presentation. The brief-stimulus schedules were fixed time, fixed interval, variable time, and variable interval. When the brief stimulus was paired with food presentation, its effects depended upon the schedule and ongoing rates. Fixed-and variable-interval brief-stimulus schedules enhanced the low rates normally occurring early in the 15-min interval, whereas fixed-and variable-time schedules suppressed these rates. Although the overall rates later in the interval were not affected to any great extent, the fixed brief-stimulus schedules generated patterns of positively accelerated responding between stimulus presentations. These patterns appeared less frequently under the variable brief-stimulus schedules. Initially, when not paired with food delivery, presentations of the brief stimulus produced relatively little effect on either response rate or patterning. However, once the stimulus had accompanied food presentation, the original performance under the nonpaired condition was not recovered. The effects were more like those occurring when the stimulus was paired with food.

A Comparison of Responding Maintained Under Second‐order Schedules of Intramuscular Cocaine Injection or Food Presentation in Squirrel Monkeys

“…extensively investigated (reviewed by Gollub, 1977). While many investigators have found lower response rates and disrupted temporal patterns of responding with nonpaired stimuli (e.g., Kelleher, 1966b), others have found no differences in performance with paired and nonpaired brief stimuli (e.g., Stubbs, 1971 (Marr & Zeiler, 1974 Increasing the duration of the stimulus following each unit of second-order schedules has been reported to decrease response rates (Byrd, 1972;Cohen, Hughes, & Stubbs, 1973). A view that the effects of changes in stimulus duration are due primarily to delay in presentation of the maintaining event could explain those findings and the descending portions of the functions in Figure 8 (cf.…”

Fixed‐time Schedule Effects as a Function of Baseline Reinforcement Rate

“…However, FT schedules were more effective in reducing response rates if the FT reinforcer rate was dissimilar to baseline reinforcer rates. Possible reasons for this difference were evaluated with data analysis methods designed to identify adventitious response-reinforcer relations.DESCRIPTORS: noncontingent reinforcement, fixed-time schedules, developmental disabilities A time-based schedule is defined as a schedule during which the reinforcer is delivered response independently on either a periodical (fixed-time, FT) or an aperiodical (variable-time, VT) schedule (Marr & Zeiler, 1974). Because time-based schedules disrupt response-reinforcer relations, the effects can be similar to extinction (Catania, 1969).…”

Component transition and anticipatory contrast

“…Given that the stimulus correlated with the following component can be regarded as a conditioned reinforcer (when the following component has a higher value), this suggests that the response suppression that occurs in a target component followed by a higher valued component is due to the response-independent presentation of a conditioned reinforcer. Evidence that responseindependent conditioned reinforcers can suppress behavior in the same way as response-independent primary reinforcement was provided by Marr and Zeiler (1974).The present experiment provides an assessment of the role of response-independent conditioned reinforcers as a component of anticipatory contrast. The critical test is whether anticipatory contrast occurs differently as a function of whether the transitions between components of a multiple schedule are response dependent or response independent .…”

“…The failure to detect any effect of response contingency on the degree of anticipatory contrast is somewhat surpri sing, given theresults of Marr and Zeiler (1974) , who found substantial differences in the rates of responding to a VI food schedule as a function of whether a brief stimulus otherwise paired with food was presented on a response-independent or response-dependent basis. Substantially higher response rates occurred in their study when the conditioned reinforcer was response dependent; moreover, when the conditioned reinforcer was response independent, the rates of responding were lower than during baseline, when no conditioned reinforcers were presented (but with clear effects for only I of2 subjects) .…”

“…Given that the stimulus correlated with the following component can be regarded as a conditioned reinforcer (when the following component has a higher value), this suggests that the response suppression that occurs in a target component followed by a higher valued component is due to the response-independent presentation of a conditioned reinforcer. Evidence that responseindependent conditioned reinforcers can suppress behavior in the same way as response-independent primary reinforcement was provided by Marr and Zeiler (1974).…”