STIMULUS CONTROL WITH FIXED‐RATIO REINFORCEMENT<sup>1</sup>

Zeiler, Michael D.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1968.11-107

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The other consistency was that FR produced as steep or steeper gradients than FI, VI, VR, and DRL. This observation fits with several others showing that stimuli correlated with reinforcement on a fixed ratio rapidly obtain a high degree of control over behavior (Dews, 1963;Ferster, 1960;Morse, 1955;Zeiler, 1968 (Hearst et al, 1965), but did not change with the size of fixed-ratio schedules (Zeiler, 1968 The effects of various schedules do not appear to be integrated by reference to frequency of reinforcement (reinforcements per second), probability of reinforcement (reinforcements per response), or rate of responding (responses per second). The order of schedules, from highest to lowest, in frequency of reinforcement was DRL, FR, VR, VI, FI; in probability of reinforcement, the order was DRL, FR and VR, Fl, VI; in average rate of responding, the order was FR, VI or VR depending on particular values, Fl, and DRL.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

REPEATED MEASUREMENTS OF REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE EFFECTS ON GRADIENTS OF STIMULUS CONTROL¹

Zeiler

1969

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments studied the effects of reinforcement schedules on generalization gradients. In Exp. 1, after pigeons' responding to a vertical line was reinforced, the pigeons were tested with 10 lines differing in orientation. Reconditioning and the redetermination of generalization gradients were repeated from 8 to 11 times with the schedule of reinforcement varied in the reconditioning phase. Stable gradients could not be observed because the successive reconditionings and tests steepened the gradients and reduced responding. Experiment 2 overcame these effects by first training the birds to respond to all of the stimuli. Then, brief periods of reinforced responding to the stimulus correlated with reinforcement alternated with the presentation of the 10 lines in extinction. The development of stimulus control was studied eight times with each bird, twice with each of four schedules of reinforcement. Gradients were similar each time a schedule was imposed; the degree of control by the stimulus correlated with reinforcement varied with particular schedules. Behavioral contrast occurred when periods of reinforcement and extinction alternated and was more durable with fixedinterval, variable-interval, and variable-ratio schedules than with fixed-ratio or differentialreinforcement-of-low-rate schedules.Although generalization gradients-the gradients used to depict the relation between environmental stimuli and a quantifiable property of responses-vary with the schedule of reinforcement used in training (Hearst, 1965;Thomas and Switalski, 1966)

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

REPEATED MEASUREMENTS OF REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE EFFECTS ON GRADIENTS OF STIMULUS CONTROL¹

Zeiler

1969

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The present results and the literature on fixed-ratio size and control of matching accuracy appear equivocal between species and discrimination tasks (Bigelow, 1971;Ferster, 1960;and Zeiler, 1968). For example, Ferster found matching accuracy at the 50% level under continuous reinforcement, and his birds showed a steady increase under FR 4, FR 8, and FR 10.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 78%

“…Similar patterns were not produced on variable-interval schedules of equal reinforcement density. Schedule control of complex discriminated operants in children resembles control over similar responses of nonhuman animals.Fixed-ratio and fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement have been shown to exert control over the accuracy of nonhuman free-operant performance (Bigelow, 1971;Birch, 1964;Zeiler, 1968;and Zeiler, 1970), discrete-trial behavior (Nevin, 1967) and complex discriminated operants (Boren and Gollub, 1972; …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

FIXED‐RATIO AND FIXED‐INTERVAL SCHEDULE CONTROL OF MATCHING‐TO‐SAMPLE ERRORS BY CHILDREN¹

Davidson

Osborne

1974

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nine children, ages 4 through 7 yr, matched-to-sample on fixed-ratio, fixed-interval, variable-ratio, and variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. Simultaneous, zero-delay, and 2-sec delay matching were employed. Distributions of errors, in which the greatest number of errors occurred at the ordinal position immediately after reinforcement with fewer errors occurring at subsequent positions in the ratio, were produced by six of six children on fixed-ratio schedules for zero-delay and both of two children for 2-sec delay matching. Only two children of seven produced similar error distributions on simultaneous matching for fixed-ratio reinforcement. Variable-ratio schedules produced slightly lower accuracy for most subjects and no systematic error patterns for any subject. Error distributions occurred for all of the five children who experienced fixed-interval schedules for zero-delay matching. Peak error production occurred in the second fourth of the interval. Similar patterns were not produced on variable-interval schedules of equal reinforcement density. Schedule control of complex discriminated operants in children resembles control over similar responses of nonhuman animals.Fixed-ratio and fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement have been shown to exert control over the accuracy of nonhuman free-operant performance (Bigelow, 1971;Birch, 1964;Zeiler, 1968;and Zeiler, 1970), discrete-trial behavior (Nevin, 1967) and complex discriminated operants (Boren and Gollub, 1972;

show abstract

“…And PA performance was affected by the trial's location within the The upper data point on the f"ust trial for S-2750 is based on all latencies during the last half of each of the f"ma1 10 sessions; the lower data point excludes one of the latencies that had a duration of more than 13 min. 364 ratio; performance on the PA trials, in agreement with that on various other discrimination tasks [such as, a simple three-choice discrimination (Zeiler, 1968) and a matching-to-sample task (Nevin, Cumming, & Berryman, 1963;Mintz, Mourer, & Weinberg, 1966») was poorest early in the ratio.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…As with simple operants (e.g., Ferster & Skinner, 1957) and various other types of discrimination problems (e.g., Zeiler, 1968;Nevin, et al, 1963;Mintz et al, 1966), the fIrst response of the ratio had the longest latency. In contrast with these previous FR studies, which, in general, have found a constant response rate or latency once the flIst response is executed, subsequent response latencies in the present study gradually decreased (this was most clearly seen in S-2750) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reinforcement of ambiguous-cue problem performance under various across trial fixed-ratio schedules

Richards¹

1973

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two pigeons were trained on the two-choice ambiguous-cue problem that contained two types of trials. On PA trials, choice of P (the positive stimulus) is reinforced and choice of A (the ambiguous stimulus) is not reinforced; on NA trials, choice of A is reinforced and choice of N (the negative stimulus) is not reinforced. Under the various across-trial fixed-ratio (FR) schedules of reinforcement, NA performance remained superior to P A performance. P A performance was poorer under FR 12 than FR 1; NA performance, however, was not affected by the size of the FR. Similarly, only P A performance showed any change as a function of the trial's location within the ratio-it was poorest early in the ratio.The. most widely studied simultaneous discrimination task presents a S with only two stimuli. Choice of one stimulus, the positive stimulus (P), is reinforced and choice of the other stimulus, the negative stimulus (N), is not reinforced. An interesting variant of this two-choice problem, the ambiguous-cue problem, involves a third stimulus, an ambiguous stimulus (A). Specifically, the ambiguous-cue problem contains two types of trials-PA trials and NA trials. On PA trials, P and A are simultaneously presented; the choice of Pis reinforced and the choice of A is not reinforced. On NA trials, N and A are simultaneously presented; the choice of A is reinforced and the choice of N is not reinforced. The consistent finding, when the stimuli possess distinctive features, has been that NA trials are learned more quickly and are learned to a higher terminal level than PA trials. This finding has been reported in monkeys (Leary, 1958;Boyer, Polidora, Fletcher, & Woodruff, 1966;Fletcher, Grogg, & Garske, 1968; Retcher & Garske, 1972;Boyer & Polidora, 1972), retarded children (Zeaman & House, 1962; Retcher et al, 1968), normal children (Fletcher et aI, 1968), and most recently in pigeons (Richards, 1973).In all previous ambiguous-cue studies, the across-trial schedule of reinforcement has been continuous reinforcement. That is, reinforcement was received on every trial if the correct response was made. The present study examined ambiguous-cue problem performance as a function of various fixed ratio (FR) schedules; an FR schedule reinforces every nth response. Within the context of the ambiguous-cue problem, an FR across-trial schedule of reinforcement makes reinforcement available on every nth trial. The present experiment attempted to determine if ambiguous-cue *This research was supported in part by BSSG Grant 5 SO 5 RR 07127-03. The author would like to thank David Schwanz and William M. Hittesdorf for their assistance in collecting the data. The paper is sponsored by Henry A. Cross. who takes full editorial responsibility for it. 362 problem performance could be maintained by such an intermittent schedule and, if so, at what level. Also of interest were possible changes in accuracy and response latency as a function of the trial's location within the ratio, as well as possible differential schedule effects on PA and NA per...

show abstract

STIMULUS CONTROL WITH FIXED‐RATIO REINFORCEMENT¹

Cited by 17 publications

References 6 publications

REPEATED MEASUREMENTS OF REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE EFFECTS ON GRADIENTS OF STIMULUS CONTROL¹

REPEATED MEASUREMENTS OF REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE EFFECTS ON GRADIENTS OF STIMULUS CONTROL¹

FIXED‐RATIO AND FIXED‐INTERVAL SCHEDULE CONTROL OF MATCHING‐TO‐SAMPLE ERRORS BY CHILDREN¹

Reinforcement of ambiguous-cue problem performance under various across trial fixed-ratio schedules

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

STIMULUS CONTROL WITH FIXED‐RATIO REINFORCEMENT1

Cited by 17 publications

References 6 publications

REPEATED MEASUREMENTS OF REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE EFFECTS ON GRADIENTS OF STIMULUS CONTROL1

REPEATED MEASUREMENTS OF REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE EFFECTS ON GRADIENTS OF STIMULUS CONTROL1

FIXED‐RATIO AND FIXED‐INTERVAL SCHEDULE CONTROL OF MATCHING‐TO‐SAMPLE ERRORS BY CHILDREN1

Reinforcement of ambiguous-cue problem performance under various across trial fixed-ratio schedules

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

STIMULUS CONTROL WITH FIXED‐RATIO REINFORCEMENT¹

REPEATED MEASUREMENTS OF REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE EFFECTS ON GRADIENTS OF STIMULUS CONTROL¹

REPEATED MEASUREMENTS OF REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE EFFECTS ON GRADIENTS OF STIMULUS CONTROL¹

FIXED‐RATIO AND FIXED‐INTERVAL SCHEDULE CONTROL OF MATCHING‐TO‐SAMPLE ERRORS BY CHILDREN¹