Search

We investigated the effects of differential and nondifferential reinforcers on divided control by compound‐stimulus dimensions. Six pigeons responded in a delayed matching‐to‐sample procedure in which a blue or yellow sample stimulus flashed on/off at a fast or slow rate, and subjects reported its color or alternation frequency. The dimension to report was unsignaled (Phase 1) or signaled (Phase 2). Correct responses were reinforced with a probability of.70, and the probability of reinforcers for errors varied across conditions. Comparison choice depended on reinforcer ratios for correct and incorrect responding; as the frequency of error reinforcers according to a dimension increased, control (measured by log d) by that dimension decreased and control by the other dimension increased. Davison and Nevin's (1999) model described data when the dimension to report was unsignaled, whereas model fits were poorer when it was signaled, perhaps due to carryover between conditions. We are the first to test this quantitative model of divided control with reinforcers for errors and when the dimension to report is signaled; hence, further research is needed to establish the model's generality. We question whether divided stimulus control is dimensional and suggest it may instead reflect joint control by compound stimuli and reinforcer ratios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organisms may sometimes behave as if a contingency exists between behavior and consequences, even if this is not actually the case. Killeen (1978) suggested that such superstition occurs because of factors that bias subjects to behave "superstitiously" rather than because of failures of discrimination. We systematically replicated Killeen's experiment and compared contingency discrimination between different consequences. Six pigeons responded in a matching‐to‐sample procedure in which a response‐independent or response‐dependent stimulus change, food delivery, or blackout occurred. The pigeons reported whether the consequence was response dependent or response independent by choosing between two side keys. Discrimination was strongest after stimulus changes, weaker after blackouts, and weakest after food deliveries. These differences persisted even after additional training, suggesting asymmetries that may reflect differences in the disruptive effects of different consequences on remembering and/or behavioral mnemonics. Importantly, the pigeons were not biased to report response‐dependent consequences unless that response was consistent with locational biases; that is, they behaved "superstitiously" when there was a reason to be biased to do so. These findings corroborate Killeen's and demonstrate that behavior may deviate from contingencies not necessarily because subjects cannot discriminate those contingencies but because they are biased to behave otherwise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research suggests that organisms allocate more attention to stimuli associated with higher reinforcer rates. This finding has been replicated several times when stimuli are trained together as compounds, but not in other procedures. Thus, the generality of the relation between relative reinforcer rates and divided attention is not well established. Therefore, we investigated whether relative reinforcer rates determine attention allocation when stimuli are trained separately and then encountered together. Pigeons learned to associate two colors and two frequencies of key light on/off alternation with a left or right comparison key in a symbolic 0-s delayed matching-to-sample task. Across conditions, we varied the probability of reinforcement associated with each stimulus dimension during training. After training, we introduced test trials in which a color and flash-frequency stimulus were presented simultaneously. During sample-stimulus presentation in test trials, all pigeons preferred the stimulus associated with the higher reinforcer rate, suggesting that more attention was allocated to that stimulus. Interestingly, such attention allocation did not result in preference for the comparison that matched that stimulus. Instead, all pigeons preferred the comparison that was physically closer to the stimulus associated with the higher reinforcer rate, suggesting that comparison choice was controlled by the location of that stimulus. Nevertheless, overall, our results provide the first evidence that relative reinforcer rates determine divided attention between separately trained stimuli and thus demonstrate the generality of the relation between relative reinforcement and attention allocation. We suggest several avenues for future research to establish further the generality of this relation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • We studied stimulus generalization of response patterns in a multiple peak procedure. • Two training stimuli differentially signaled an FI 5-s and FI 20-s schedule. • Response-rate patterns to one training stimulus generalized nearly exclusively. • This research provides a strong starting point for future studies of generalization under FI schedules. • A thorough understanding of generalization under FI schedules requires analyzing a range of dependent variables. Abstract Stimulus generalization is typically assessed by analyzing overall response rates. Studies of generalization of response-rate patterns across time are less common, despite the ubiquitous nature of time and the strong temporal control over behavior in the natural world. Thus, we investigated generalization of response-rate patterns across time using a multiple peak procedure in pigeons. The frequency (fast or slow) at which the color of a keylight changed signaled a fixed-interval (FI) 5-s or 20-s schedule, counterbalanced across subjects. In peak trials, the frequency of keylight-color changes was varied. For the fast and slow training stimuli, response rates in peak trials were controlled by the arranged FI schedule value; they increased as the arranged reinforcer time approached, and decreased thereafter. Response-rate patterns to all test stimuli were similar to response-rate patterns to the slow training stimulus for all subjects. Thus, overall, strong generalization from the slow training stimulus to all test stimuli was evident, whereas there was little to no generalization from the fast training stimulus. These findings extend past research examining generalization of temporally controlled response-rate patterns, and provide a useful starting point for future investigations of generalization of fixed-interval responding. A thorough understanding of generalization processes requires analysis of dependent variables other than overall response rates, especially when responding is likely to be temporally controlled. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]