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]

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]

When short-term memory is assessed in the delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) procedure, performance is better when cues signal larger reinforcer magnitudes or higher reinforcer probabilities for correct responding. Previous studies demonstrating signaled-magnitude or signaled-probability effects presented cues for a prolonged period during the sample stimulus and/or retention interval. The present study asked whether a signaled-probability effect would occur with brief post-sample cues that signaled the presence or absence of reinforcement. Five pigeons responded in a DMTS task in which sample stimuli were sometimes followed by a 0.5-s cue signaling that reinforcers would either be available or not available in the current trial, and the retention interval varied from 0.5 s to 20 s. A reliable signaled-probability effect was found when reinforcers were arranged independently and for all correct responses, whereas a smaller, less systematic effect was found when reinforcers were arranged dependently and probabilistically. These findings highlight the importance of reinforcement contingencies and contingency discriminability in remembering, and add to the evidence showing that cues signaling differential reinforcement in DMTS may affect processes during the retention interval and comparison phase, rather than attention to the sample stimulus. • We investigated how brief cues signaling the presence or absence of reinforcers affect memory performance. • Cues were presented for 0.5 s after the sample in a delayed matching-to-sample procedure. • In reinforced trials, reinforcers were arranged with p =.5 (Expt 1) or for all correct responses (Expt 2). • Accuracy was lower when cues signaled reinforcer absence in Expt 2. This effect was smaller and less systematic in Expt 1. • These findings highlight the role of discriminated reinforcement contingencies in remembering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]