Literature DB >> 16812577

Sensitivity of time allocation to an overall reinforcer rate feedback function in concurrent interval schedules.

M Davison, A Kerr.   

Abstract

Six pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules in which feedback functions arranged that the overall reinforcer rate either (a) was independent of preference, (b) decreased with increasing absolute preference, or (c) increased with increasing absolute preference. In Experiment 1, the reinforcer rate in an interreinforcement interval was determined by the absolute time-allocation ratio in the previous interval. When arranged reinforcer ratios were varied, there was no evidence of control over preference by overall reinforcer rate. In Experiment 2, the feedback function arranged that reinforcer rates were an inverse function of absolute preference, and window durations were fixed times. In Phase 1, using schedules that provided a four-to-one reinforcer ratio, the window duration was decreased from 20 s to 5 s over four conditions. Then, in Phases 2 and 3, the arranged reinforcer ratios were varied. In Phase 2, the reinforcer rate in the current 5-s time window was determined by preference in the previous 5-s window, and in Phase 3, the window durations were 20 s. Again, there was no indication of control by obtained overall reinforcer rate. These data call into question theories that suggest that the process underlying matching is one of maximizing overall reinforcer rates, or that preference in concurrent aperiodic schedules is controlled to any extent by overall reinforcer rate. They also question the notion that concurrent-schedule preference is controlled by molecular maximizing.

Year:  1989        PMID: 16812577      PMCID: PMC1338852          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-215

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav        ISSN: 0022-5002            Impact factor:   2.468


  13 in total

1.  Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement.

Authors:  R J HERRNSTEIN
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1961-07       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Independence of response force and reinforcement rate on concurrent variable-interval schedule performance.

Authors:  I Hunter; M Davison
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1982-03       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching.

Authors:  W M Baum
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1974-07       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Molecular maximizing characterizes choice on Vaughan's (1981) procedure.

Authors:  A Silberberg; J M Ziriax
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1985-01       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Sensitivity to reinforcement in concurrent arithmetic and exponential schedules.

Authors:  R Taylor; M Davison
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1983-01       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Quasi-dynamic choice models: Melioration and ratio invariance.

Authors:  J E Staddon
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Reply to silberberg and ziriax.

Authors:  W Vaughan
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Melioration, matching, and maximization.

Authors:  W Vaughan
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1981-09       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  Performance in concurrent interval schedules: a systematic replication.

Authors:  B Lobb; M C Davison
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1975-09       Impact factor: 2.468

10.  Concurrent-schedule performance: Effects of relative and overall reinforcer rate.

Authors:  B Alsop; D Elliffe
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 2.468

View more
  5 in total

1.  Experimental design: Problems in understanding the dynamical behavior-environment system.

Authors:  M Davison
Journal:  Behav Anal       Date:  1998

2.  How to teach a pigeon to maximize overall reinforcement rate.

Authors:  G M Heyman; L Tanz
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  The effects of a local negative feedback function between choice and relative reinforcer rate.

Authors:  Michael Davison; Douglas Elliffe; M Jackson Marr
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Bayesian analysis of foraging by pigeons (Columba livia).

Authors:  P R Killeen; G M Palombo; L R Gottlob; J Beam
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  1996-10

5.  When does reward maximization lead to matching law?

Authors:  Yutaka Sakai; Tomoki Fukai
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-11-24       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.