Literature DB >> 9540229

Mechanisms underlying the effects of unsignaled delayed reinforcement on key pecking of pigeons under variable-interval schedules.

D W Schaal1, T A Shahan, C A Kovera, M P Reilly.   

Abstract

Three experiments were conducted to test an interpretation of the response-rate-reducing effects of unsignaled nonresetting delays to reinforcement in pigeons. According to this interpretation, rates of key pecking decrease under these conditions because key pecks alternate with hopper-observing behavior. In Experiment 1, 4 pigeons pecked a food key that raised the hopper provided that pecks on a different variable-interval-schedule key met the requirements of a variable-interval 60-s schedule. The stimuli associated with the availability of the hopper (i.e., houselight and keylight off, food key illuminated, feedback following food-key pecks) were gradually removed across phases while the dependent relation between hopper availability and variable-interval-schedule key pecks was maintained. Rates of pecking the variable-interval-schedule key decreased to low levels and rates of food-key pecks increased when variable-interval-schedule key pecks did not produce hopper-correlated stimuli. In Experiment 2, pigeons initially pecked a single key under a variable-interval 60-s schedule. Then the dependent relation between hopper presentation and key pecks was eliminated by arranging a variable-time 60-s schedule. When rates of pecking had decreased to low levels, conditions were changed so that pecks during the final 5 s of each interval changed the keylight color from green to amber. When pecking produced these hopper-correlated stimuli, pecking occurred at high rates, despite the absence of a peck-food dependency. When peck-produced changes in keylight color were uncorrelated with food, rates of pecking fell to low levels. In Experiment 3, details (obtained delays, interresponse-time distributions, eating times) of the transition from high to low response rates produced by the introduction of a 3-s unsignaled delay were tracked from session to session in 3 pigeons that had been initially trained to peck under a conventional variable-interval 60-s schedule. Decreases in response rates soon after the transition to delayed reinforcement were accompanied by decreases in eating times and alterations in interresponse-time distributions. As response rates decreased and became stable, eating times increased and their variability decreased. These findings support an interpretation of the effects of delayed reinforcement that emphasizes the importance of hopper-observing behavior.

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9540229      PMCID: PMC1284652          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1998.69-103

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


  18 in total

1.  A progression for generating variable-interval schedules.

Authors:  M FLESHLER; H S HOFFMAN
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1962-10       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  The role of observing responses in discrimination learning.

Authors:  L B WYCKOFF
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1952-11       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  Contrast and reallocation of extraneous reinforcers between multiple-schedule components.

Authors:  A P McLean
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Dependency, temporal contiguity, and response-independent reinforcement.

Authors:  O J Sizemore; K A Lattal
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1977-01       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  The effects of unsignalled delayed reinforcement.

Authors:  B A Williams
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1976-11       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Unsignalled delay of reinforcement in variable-interval schedules.

Authors:  O J Sizemore; K A Lattal
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1978-09       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Briefly delayed reinforcement: An interresponse time analysis.

Authors:  K A Lattal; D R Ziegler
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1982-05       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Reinforcement rate and interresponse time differentiation.

Authors:  D O Kuch; J R Platt
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1976-11       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  Responding of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of unsignaled, briefly signaled, and completely signaled delays to reinforcement.

Authors:  D W Schaal; M N Branch
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 2.468

10.  Sign- versus goal-tracking: effects of conditioned-stimulus-to-unconditioned-stimulus distance.

Authors:  F J Silva; K M Silva; J J Pear
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 2.468

View more
  9 in total

1.  Pigeons may not remember the stimuli that reinforced their recent behavior.

Authors:  D W Schaal; A L Odum; T A Shahan
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Determinants of reinforcer accumulation during an operant task.

Authors:  J M McFarland; K A Lattal
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Resistance to change of operant variation and repetition.

Authors:  A H Doughty; K A Lattal
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 2.468

Review 4.  Delayed reinforcement of operant behavior.

Authors:  Kennon A Lattal
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Unsignaled delay of reinforcement, relative time, and resistance to change.

Authors:  Timothy A Shahan; Kennon A Lattal
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Resistance to change of responding maintained by unsignaled delays to reinforcement: a response-bout analysis.

Authors:  Christopher A Podlesnik; Corina Jimenez-Gomez; Ryan D Ward; Timothy A Shahan
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  The effects of delayed reinforcement on variability and repetition of response sequences.

Authors:  Amy L Odum; Ryan D Ward; Christopher A Barnes; K Anne Burke
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  The Modulation of Operant Variation by the Probability, Magnitude, and Delay of Reinforcement.

Authors:  W David Stahlman; Aaron P Blaisdell
Journal:  Learn Motiv       Date:  2011-08-01

9.  A quantitative analysis of the effects of qualitatively different reinforcers on fixed ratio responding in inbred strains of mice.

Authors:  Blake A Hutsell; M Christopher Newland
Journal:  Neurobiol Learn Mem       Date:  2013-01-26       Impact factor: 2.877

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.