Automaintenance without stimulus-change reinforcement: Temporal control of key pecks (original) (raw)
Related papers
Key pecking of 4 pigeons was maintained under a multiple variable-interval 20-s variable-interval 120-s schedule of food reinforcement. When rates of key pecking were stable, a 5-s unsignaled, nonresetting delay to reinforcement separated the first peck after an interval elapsed from reinforcement in both components. Rates of pecking decreased substantially in both components. When rates were stable, the situation was changed such that the peck that began the 5-s delay also changed the color of the keylight for 0.5 s (i.e., the delay was briefly signaled). Rates increased to near-immediate reinforcement levels. In subsequent conditions, delays of 10 and 20 s, still briefly signaled, were tested. Although rates of key pecking during the component with the variable-interval 120-s schedule did not change appreciably across conditions, rates during the variable-interval 20-s component decreased greatly in 1 pigeon at the 10-s delay and decreased in all pigeons at the 20-s delay. In a control condition, the variable-interval 20-s schedule with 20-s delays was changed to a variable-interval 35-s schedule with 5-s delays, thus equating nominal rates of reinforcement. Rates of pecking increased to baseline levels. Rates of pecking, then, depended on the value of the briefly signaled delay relative to the programmed interfood times, rather than on the absolute delay value. These results are discussed in terms of similar findings in the literature on conditioned reinforcement, delayed matching to sample, and classical conditioning.
Decreased Key Pecking in Response to Reward Uncertainty and Surprising Delay Extension in Pigeons
International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 2021
The Pavlovian autoshaping paradigm has often been used to assess the behavioral effects of reward omission on behavior. We trained pigeons to receive a food reward (unconditioned stimulus or UCS) following illumination of a response key (conditioned stimulus or CS). In Experiment 1, one group of pigeons was trained with two 100% predictive CS-UCS associations (reward certainty) and another group with two 25% predictive CS-UCS associations (reward uncertainty) for 12 sessions. In both groups, the two CS durations were 8 s. Then, in each group, the duration of one CS remained unchanged and that of the other CS was suddenly extended from 8 to 24 s for 6 sessions. In Experiment 2, some experienced individuals (from Experiment 1) and naïve individuals formed two groups trained with a 24-s CS throughout for 18 sessions. Our results show that pigeons (a) pecked less at the uncertain than the certain CS, (b) decreased and then increased CS-pecking after extending CS duration, especially in ...
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1998
Three experiments were conducted to test an interpretation of the response‐rate‐reducing effects of unsignaled nonresetting delays to reinforcement in pigeons. According to this interpretation, rates of key pecking decrease under these conditions because key pecks alternate with hopper‐observing behavior. In Experiment 1, 4 pigeons pecked a food key that raised the hopper provided that pecks on a different variable‐interval‐schedule key met the requirements of a variable‐interval 60‐s schedule. The stimuli associated with the availability of the hopper (i.e., houselight and keylight off, food key illuminated, feedback following food‐key pecks) were gradually removed across phases while the dependent relation between hopper availability and variable‐interval‐schedule key pecks was maintained. Rates of pecking the variable‐interval‐schedule key decreased to low levels and rates of food‐key pecks increased when variable‐interval‐schedule key pecks did not produce hopper‐correlated stim...
Journal of the Experimental …, 1992
Key pecking of 4 pigeons was maintained under a multiple variable-interval 20-s variable-interval 120-s schedule of food reinforcement. When rates of key pecking were stable, a 5-s unsignaled, nonresetting delay to reinforcement separated the first peck after an interval elapsed from reinforcement in both components. Rates of pecking decreased substantially in both components. When rates were stable, the situation was changed such that the peck that began the 5-s delay also changed the color of the keylight for 0.5 s (i.e., the delay was briefly signaled). Rates increased to near-immediate reinforcement levels. In subsequent conditions, delays of 10 and 20 s, still briefly signaled, were tested. Although rates of key pecking during the component with the variable-interval 120-s schedule did not change appreciably across conditions, rates during the variable-interval 20-s component decreased greatly in 1 pigeon at the 10-s delay and decreased in all pigeons at the 20-s delay. In a control condition, the variable-interval 20-s schedule with 20-s delays was changed to a variable-interval 35-s schedule with 5-s delays, thus equating nominal rates of reinforcement. Rates of pecking increased to baseline levels. Rates of pecking, then, depended on the value of the briefly signaled delay relative to the programmed interfood times, rather than on the absolute delay value. These results are discussed in terms of similar findings in the literature on conditioned reinforcement, delayed matching to sample, and classical conditioning.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1977
The joint control of rate of key pecking in pigeons by stimulus-reinforcer and responsereinforcer relationships was studied in the context of a two-component multiple schedule of reinforcement. Food presentation was always associated with one component and extinction with the other. The stimulus-reinforcer relationship was manipulated by varying the relative durations of the two components. In the food-presentation component, a fixed rate of reinforcement, independent of rate of responding, was generated by a schedule referred to as "T*". One aspect of the response-reinforcer relationship, contiguity, was manipulated by varying the percentage of delayed reinforcers. With the multiple T extinction schedule, stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relationships could be varied independently of one another. Rate of key pecking was sensitive to manipulations of both relationships. However, significant differential effects due to either the stimulus-reinforcer or response-reinforcer relationship were obtained only when the other relationship was weak: stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relationships interacted in the joint control of responding.
Journal of The Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1975
Pecks on an operant key were reinforced on either multiple variable-interval variable-interval or multiple variable-interval extinction schedules of reinforcement. The stimuli that signalled the multiple-schedule components were located on a second key (signal key), and a changeover delay prevented reinforcement of signal key-peck-operant key-peck sequences. No behavioral contrast was observed on the operant key, and appreciable responding to the signal key occurred during the variable-interval component of the multiple variable-interval extinction procedure. Peck durations on the signal key were markedly shorter than peck durations on the operant key. Moreover, most responses on the signal key occurred just after the multiple-schedule components changed. These data support an account of behavioral contrast in terms of the summation of pecks that are separately controlled by stimulusreinforcer and response-reinforcer dependencies, and suggest that the stimulus-reinforcer dependency is responsible primarily for local contrast. In addition, the data suggest that pecks that are controlled by these two dependencies may belong to topographically different classes.
The role of contingencies and “principles of behavioral variation” in pigeons' pecking
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1980
Staddon and Simzmelhag's proposal that behavior is produced by "principles of behavioral variation" instead of contingencies of reinforcement was tested in two experiments. In the first experiment pigeons were exposed to either a fixed-interval schedule of response-contingent reinforcement, an autoshaping schedule of stimulus-contingent reinforcement, or a fixed-time schedule of noncontingent reinforcement. Pigeons exposed to contingent reinforcement came to peck more rapidly than those exposed to noncontingent reinforcement. Staddon and Simmelhag's "principles of behavioral variation" included the proposal that patterns (interim and terminal) were a function of momentary probability of reinforcement. In the seconid experiment pigeons were exposed to either a fixed-time or a randomtime schedule of noncontingent reinforcement. Pecking showed a constant frequency of occurrence over postfood time on the random-time schedule. Most behavior showed patterns on the fixed-time schedule that differed in overall shape (i.e., interim versus terminal) from those shown on the random-time schedule. It was concluded that both the momentary probability of reinforcement and postfood time can affect patterning.
2021
Pigeons pecking a key on a fixed-ratio schedule pause after receiving a reinforcer. This interruption in operant responding is defined solely by the absence of the responding. The purpose of the present study was to find out what a pigeon does during the pause in key pecking, and whether non-pecking behavior is different across transitions between the rich and lean components of a multiple schedule. Using videos of four pigeons, the duration of several non-pecking behaviors was recorded during the pauses that occurred after the end of a reinforcer and the start of responding in the next component. The pigeons spent the most time looking away from the key, distancing from the key, and looking at the key. All pigeons only preened during lean-lean and rich-lean transitions. Select pigeons only side stepped and paced during the rich-lean and lean-lean transitions
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1990
Two experiments with pigeons examined the relation of the duration of a signal for delay ("delay signal") to rates of key pecking. The first employed a multiple schedule comprised of two components with equal variable-interval 60-s schedules of 27-s delayed food reinforcement. In one component, a short (0.5-s) delay signal, presented immediately following the key peck that began the delay, was increased in duration across phases; in the second component the delay signal initially was equal to the length of the programmed delay (27 s) and was decreased across phases. Response rates prior to delays were an increasing function of delay-signal duration. As the delay signal was decreased in duration, response rates were generally higher than those obtained under identical delay-signal durations as the signal was increased in duration. In Experiment 2 a single variable-interval 60-s schedule of 27-s delayed reinforcement was used. Delay-signal durations were again increased gradually across phases. As in Experiment 1, response rates increased as the delay-signal duration was increased. Following the phase during which the signal lasted the entire delay, shorter delay-signal-duration conditions were introduced abruptly, rather than gradually as in Experiment 1, to determine whether the gradual shortening of the delay signal accounted for the differences observed in response rates under identical delay-signal conditions in Experiment 1. Response rates obtained during the second exposures to the conditions with shorter signals were higher than those observed under identical conditions as the signal duration was increased, as in Experiment 1. In both experiments, rates and patterns of responding during delays varied greatly across subjects and were not systematically related to delay-signal durations. The effects of the delay signal may be related to the signal's role as a discriminative stimulus for adventitiously reinforced intradelay behavior, or the delay signal may have served as a conditioned reinforcer by virtue of the temporal relation between it and presentation of food.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2012
Six pigeons key-pecked under a fixed-interval (FI) 3-min schedule of food presentation. Each pigeon was studied for 200 daily sessions with 15 intervals per session (3,000 total food presentations). Analyses included the examination of latency to first peck (pause), mean rate of key pecking, and ambulation. Characterizations of stable performance were assessed across measures of behavior and evaluated using commonly employed stability criteria. Stability of response rate and pause was identified better by assessments that evaluated variability and trend, rather than just variability. Between-subject differences in rate of acquisition and terminal values of steady-state performance of pause were observed, and stable pause durations took longer to develop than did stable key-pecking rates. Relative variability in response rate and pause duration decreased as the means increased. A temporally organized pattern of keypecking (the so-called FI scallop) developed within 50 sessions of exposure to the schedule. Overall ambulation decreased during the early sessions of exposure and further analyses showed greater rates of ambulation during the pause than after it for 4 of the 6 pigeons. Performance under the FI 3-min schedule developed relatively slowly, and key-pecking, pause, and ambulation developed at different rates.