Literature DB >> 3746190

Choice, foraging, and reinforcer duration.

M Ito, E Fantino.   

Abstract

Pigeons were exposed to a foraging schedule characterized by three different states, beginning with a search state in which completion of a variable interval on a white key led to a choice state. In the choice state the subject could, by appropriate responding on a fixed ratio of three, either accept or reject the schedule offered. If the subject accepted the schedule, it entered a handling state in which the appropriate reinforcer amount was presented according to a variable-interval schedule. In Experiment 1 the shorter duration reinforcer was more likely to be accepted the longer the duration of the search state and the shorter the equal durations of the handling states. In Experiment 2 the shorter duration reinforcer was more likely to be accepted the longer the handling time preceding the longer duration reinforcer. All of the results were in qualitative--and some were in quantitative--agreement with those predicted by the delay-reduction hypothesis and the optimal-diet model.

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3746190      PMCID: PMC1348259          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-93

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


  9 in total

1.  Choice: Some quantitative relations.

Authors:  E Fantino; M Davison
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1983-07       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Some effects of interreinforcement time upon choice.

Authors:  E Fantino; B Duncan
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1972-01       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Reinforcer effectiveness as a function of reinforcer rate and magnitude: a comparison of concurrent performances.

Authors:  J W Schneider
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1973-11       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.  Choice behavior and the accessibility of the reinforcer.

Authors:  E Fantino; N Squires; N Delbrück; C Peterson
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1972-07       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Choice, changeover, and travel.

Authors:  W M Baum
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Choice and foraging.

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

8.  A model for choice in simple concurrent and concurrent-chains schedules.

Authors:  N Squires; E Fantino
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1971-01       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  Choice behavior of rats in a concurrent-chains schedule: Amount and delay of reinforcement.

Authors:  M Ito; K Asaki
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1982-05       Impact factor: 2.468

  9 in total
  7 in total

1.  Response-dependent prechoice effects on foraging-related choice.

Authors:  W A Williams; E Fantino
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Effects of different accessibility of reinforcement schedules on choice in humans.

Authors:  U Stockhorst
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Choice between constant and variable alternatives by rats: effects of different reinforcer amounts and energy budgets.

Authors:  M Ito; S Takatsuru; D Saeki
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  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

Review 5.  Delay reduction: current status.

Authors:  E Fantino; R A Preston; R Dunn
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Delay reduction and optimal foraging: variable-ratio search in a foraging analogue.

Authors:  W A Williams; E Fantino
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Rats (Rattus norvegicus) and pigeons (Columbia livia) are sensitive to the distance to food, but only rats request more food when distance increases.

Authors:  Mark P Reilly; Diana Posadas-Sánchez; Lauren C Kettle; Peter R Killeen
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2012-09-16       Impact factor: 1.777

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.