Search

In concurrent schedules with a changeover delay (COD), choice often strongly favours the just-reinforced alternative immediately after a reinforcer delivery. These ‘preference pulses’ may be caused by a change in reinforcer availability created by the COD, and/or because the COD decreases the overall probability of switching. We investigated which explanation better accounts for preference pulses by arranging concurrent schedules that allowed us to separate the COD’s effects on reinforcer availability from its effects on the probability of switching. When the reinforcer ratio was 1:1, pulses were inconsistently accompanied by changes in reinforcer availability, but consistently accompanied by longer visits. These pulses appeared to be related only to the decreased probability of switching caused by the COD, providing the first evidence of pulses after reinforcers caused by the probability of switching alone. When the reinforcer ratio was 1:5 or 5:1; preference pulses were accompanied by changes in reinforcer availability and by longer visits. These pulses appeared to be related to the COD’s effects on reinforcer availability, although a small portion appeared to be related to low probability of switching. These findings suggest that the COD affects preference pulses by both decreasing the probability of switching and creating a change in reinforcer availability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In concurrent schedules, reinforcers are often followed by a brief period of heightened preference for the just-productive alternative. Such 'preference pulses' may reflect local effects of reinforcers on choice. However, similar pulses may occur after nonreinforced responses, suggesting that pulses after reinforcers are partly unrelated to reinforcer effects. McLean, Grace, Pitts, and Hughes (2014) recommended subtracting preference pulses after responses from preference pulses after reinforcers, to construct residual pulses that represent only reinforcer effects. Thus, a reanalysis of existing choice data is necessary to determine whether changes in choice after reinforcers in previous experiments were actually related to reinforcers. In the present paper, we reanalyzed data from choice experiments in which reinforcers served different functions. We compared local choice, mean visit length, and visit-length distributions after reinforcers and after nonreinforced responses. Our reanalysis demonstrated the utility of McLean et al.'s preference-pulse correction for determining the effects of reinforcers on choice. However, visit analyses revealed that residual pulses may not accurately represent reinforcer effects, and reinforcer effects were clearer in visit analyses than in local-choice analyses. The best way to determine the effects of reinforcers on choice may be to conduct visit analyses in addition to local-choice analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Stimuli signaling reinforcement reduce responding on one alternative of a concurrent schedule. • We asked how signal reliability affects choice between signaled and unsignaled alternatives. • Signal reliability changed responding on the signaled alternative, but not the unsignaled alternative. • These results are consistent with matching theories, but not with research showing changes in responding on both alternatives. • Response competition and local reinforcer rates may modulate effects of signaled reinforcement in concurrent schedules. When reinforcer availability on one alternative of a concurrent schedule is signaled by a discriminative stimulus, responding on that alternative decreases. We investigated how the correlation between signal presentation and reinforcement (signal reliability) affects choice between signaled and unsignaled alternatives. Six pigeons responded in a concurrent schedule, in which reinforcers on one alternative were signaled by a key-color change. Across conditions, the probability of reinforcement following signal presentation varied (the probability in its absence was the complement). As signal reliability increased, response rates and latencies following signal onset on the signaled alternative decreased, whereas responding on the unsignaled alternative remained unchanged. Because the signal did not alter overall reinforcer rates, these findings are consistent with matching theories and research suggesting that responding on one alternative of a concurrent schedule depends on reinforcer, but not response, rates on other alternatives. However, these findings are inconsistent with others demonstrating concomitant changes in responding on signaled and unsignaled alternatives. We consider whether a response-competition account of concurrent performance can explain these discrepancies, and suggest avenues for future studies to investigate the mechanisms underlying effects of signaled reinforcement in concurrent schedules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]