Stimulus control following response reduction with signaled reinforcement

Lander, D. G.

doi:10.3758/bf03336155

Cited by 4 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, contrary to earlier experiments, response rate did not increase in the unaltered component in four of six pigeons. This absence of behavioral contrast is somewhat perplexing, since the procedure was similar to Lander's (1971) in which contrast occurred in two of three pigeons. Further, the procedural differences that did exist such as discrimination difficulty (cf., Hearst, 1969;Mackintosh, Little, and Lord, 1972) and simple alternation versus random component sequence (see Results section of this paper; Amsel, 1971;Rachlin, 1973;Wilton and Clements, 1972) cannot easily account for the lack of contrast.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is, in a mult VI SIGVI schedule, if the unsignalled portion of SIGVI (S-) and the unsignalled VI schedule (S+) are associated with orthogonal dimensions, a subsequent generalization test with the S-dimension should yield a U-shaped, inhibitory gradient centered at the S-. Lander (1971), however, reported an excitatory gradient, i.e., responding was peaked at S-. This experiment, along with methodological issues that temper the interpretation, is examined in detail in the discussion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, since the interreinforcement interval is not affected, Brownstein and Hughes (1970) and Brownstein and Newsom (1970) have suggested that the signalled-reinforcer procedure provides a method of reducing response rate without concomitantly reducing frequency of reinforcement. Lander (1971) and Thompson and Corn, (1974), however, have proposed an alternative interpretation of the suppressive effects of signalled reinforcement. They suggested that response rate declines because the absence of the 1We wish to thank K. A. Lattal for many helpful manuscript suggestions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This procedure typically reduces response rate if it is imposed on either variable-interval (VI) schedules (Brownstein and Hughes, 1970;Lander, 1971;Thompson and Corr, 1974;Wilkie, 1973) or fixed-interval schedules (Brownstein and Newsom, 1970). Further, since the interreinforcement interval is not affected, Brownstein and Hughes (1970) and Brownstein and Newsom (1970) have suggested that the signalled-reinforcer procedure provides a method of reducing response rate without concomitantly reducing frequency of reinforcement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This procedure typically reduces response rate if it is imposed on either variable-interval (VI) schedules (Brownstein and Hughes, 1970;Lander, 1971;Thompson and Corr, 1974;Wilkie, 1973) or fixed-interval schedules (Brownstein and Newsom, 1970 signal is correlated with extinction (EXT). For example, if the signalled-reinforcer procedure is imposed on a VI schedule, it segments the schedule into EXT and fixed ratio 1 (FR 1) components.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Line‐orientation Generalization Following Signalled‐reinforcer Training

Griffin

Stewart

1977

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three naive and three nonnaive pigeons key pecked for food on a multiple variable-interval 1-minute variable-interval 1-minute schedule with a black zero-degree vertical line on a white surround associated with one component and a black line shifted 30 degrees to the right (+30 degree) associated with the other component. Subsequently, a signalledreinforcer procedure was introduced in the +30 degree component, i.e., whenever the reinforcer was available for the next response, the key changed to blank white. Following this training, the original unsignalled-reinforcer condition was re-instated. Line orientation generalization tests were given at the end of signalled-reinforcer training and after the second unsignalled-reinforcer condition. The signalled-reinforcer procedure reduced response rate in the +30-degree conmponent in all subjects but facilitated responding during the zerodegree component (behavioral contrast) for two of the naive subjects only. However, average generalization gradients following signalled-reinforcer training indicated peak shift in two subjects and area shift in all five subjects that completed the experiment. There was no apparent relation between contrast and peak shift or degree of area shift. The data were interpreted as supporting the notion that the signalled-reinforcer procedure segments a variable-interval schedule into extinction and fixed ratio 1 segments.Key words: signalled reinforcement, area shift, peak shift, behavioral contrast, key peck, pigeonsSignalled reinforcement refers to a procedure in which a signal occurs whenever the reinforcer will be produced by the subject's next response. This procedure typically reduces response rate if it is imposed on either variable-interval (VI) schedules (Brownstein and Hughes, 1970;Lander, 1971;Thompson and Corr, 1974;Wilkie, 1973) or fixed-interval schedules (Brownstein and Newsom, 1970 signal is correlated with extinction (EXT). For example, if the signalled-reinforcer procedure is imposed on a VI schedule, it segments the schedule into EXT and fixed ratio 1 (FR 1) components. That is, the unsignalled portion of the signalled VI schedule (SIGVI) functions like EXT because the reinforcer does not occur, and the signalled portion functions like FR 1 because the reinforcer always follows the response. Thus, although total reinforcement frequency remains unchanged, the relative frequency in the unsignalled portion of SIGVI is reduced to zero.The preceding account of the suppressive effects of signalled reinforcement also bears upon explanations of positive behavioral contrast. In the paradigmatic procedure for producing such contrast (e.g., Reynolds, 1961), one component (S-) of a multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule (mult VI VI) is changed to EXT, which results in a decrease in response rate in that component. Contrast occurs if a concomitant increase in response rate is observed in the unchanged VI component (S+). Reynolds (1961)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This procedure typically reduces response rate if it is imposed on either variable-interval (VI) schedules (Brownstein and Hughes, 1970;Lander, 1971;Thompson and Corr, 1974;Wilkie, 1973) or fixed-interval schedules (Brownstein and Newsom, 1970 signal is correlated with extinction (EXT). For example, if the signalled-reinforcer procedure is imposed on a VI schedule, it segments the schedule into EXT and fixed ratio 1 (FR 1) components.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Line‐orientation Generalization Following Signalled‐reinforcer Training

Griffin

Stewart

1977

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Concurrent Responses with Multiple Schedules

Iversen¹

1978

Classical Conditioning and Operant Conditioning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stimulus control and delayed outcomes in a human causality judgment task.

Reed

2023

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments examined the impact of delayed outcomes on stimulus control of causal judgments using an interdimensional generalization procedure. Human participants rated the causal effectiveness of responses on multiple schedules, and then underwent a generalization test. In Experiment 1, a 3 s unsignaled outcome delay reduced ratings of causal effectiveness, relative to an immediate outcome, but had higher ratings compared to a component lacking outcomes. In a generalization test, incremental generalization gradients, indicating inhibitory control, were found for the stimulus associated with delayed outcomes when comparison was with immediate outcomes; but decremental gradients, indicating excitatory control, were found when the comparator lacked outcomes. In Experiment 2, signaled 3 s outcome delays produced higher causal ratings than unsignaled delays; with unsignaled delays producing incremental (inhibitory) and signaled delays producing decremental (excitatory), generalization gradients when compared against each other. In Experiment 3, relative to immediate outcomes, unsignaled delays produced incremental (inhibitory) gradients and signaled delays produced no gradient. These findings suggest similar factors may control judgments of causality as control conditioned responding.

show abstract

Stimulus control following response reduction with signaled reinforcement

Cited by 4 publications

References 6 publications

Line‐orientation Generalization Following Signalled‐reinforcer Training

Line‐orientation Generalization Following Signalled‐reinforcer Training

Concurrent Responses with Multiple Schedules

Stimulus control and delayed outcomes in a human causality judgment task.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About