Literature DB >> 17725052

Choice in a successive-encounters procedure and hyperbolic decay of reinforcement.

James E Mazur1.   

Abstract

Pigeons responded in a successive-encounters procedure that consisted of a search state, a choice state, and a handling state. The search state was either a fixed-interval or mixed-interval schedule presented on the center key of a three-key chamber. Upon completion of the search state, the choice state was presented, in which the center key was off and the two side keys were lit. A pigeon could either accept a delay followed by food (by pecking the right key) or reject this option and return to the search state (by pecking the left key). During the choice state, a red right key represented the long alternative (a long handling delay followed by food), and a green right key represented the short alternative (a short handling delay followed by food). In some conditions, both the short and long alternatives were fixed-time schedules, and in other conditions both were mixed-time schedules. Contrary to the predictions of both optimal foraging theory and delay-reduction theory, the percentage of trials on which pigeons accepted the long alternative depended on whether the search and handling schedules were fixed or mixed. They were more likely to accept the long alternative when the search states were fixed-interval rather than mixed-interval schedules, and more likely to reject the long alternative when the handling states were fixed-time rather than mixed-time schedules. This pattern of results was in qualitative agreement with the predictions of the hyperbolic-decay model, which states that the value of a reinforcer is inversely related to the delay between a choice response and reinforcer delivery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17725052      PMCID: PMC1918085          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2007.87-06

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


  13 in total

1.  APERIODICITY AS A FACTOR IN CHOICE.

Authors:  R J HERRNSTEIN
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1964-03       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  The effects of number of responses on pause length with temporal variables controlled.

Authors:  E K Crossman; R S Heaps; D L Nunes; L A Alferink
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1974-07       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Preference for mixed versus constant delays of reinforcement: Effect of probability of the short, mixed delay.

Authors:  D P Rider
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Choice and rate of reinforcement.

Authors:  E Fantino
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1969-09       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Reporting contingencies of reinforcement in concurrent schedules.

Authors:  B Jones; M Davison
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Choice and foraging.

Authors:  N Abarca; E Fantino
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1982-09       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Choice between delayed reinforcers and fixed-ratio schedules requiring forceful responding.

Authors:  J E Mazur; J D Kralik
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Fixed and variable ratios and delays: further tests of an equivalence rule.

Authors:  J E Mazur
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  1986-04

9.  A comparison of delays and ratio requirements in self-control choice.

Authors:  C L Grossbard; J E Mazur
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1986-05       Impact factor: 2.468

10.  Choice and foraging: the effects of accessibility on acceptability.

Authors:  E Fantino; R A Preston
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 2.468

View more
  4 in total

1.  Effects of pre-trial response requirements on self-control choices by rats and pigeons.

Authors:  James E Mazur
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.468

Review 2.  Reinforcement learning, conditioning, and the brain: Successes and challenges.

Authors:  Tiago V Maia
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.282

3.  Distributed versus exclusive preference in discrete-trial choice.

Authors:  James E Mazur
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2010-07

4.  Effects of reinforcer delay and variability in a successive-encounters procedure.

Authors:  James E Mazur
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.986

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.