Biomedical subjects

J E Mazur

Publications and source records attributed to J E Mazur.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1996

Procrastination by pigeons: preference for larger, more delayed work requirements.

In three experiments, pigeons chose between alternatives that required the completion of a small ratio schedule early in the trial or a larger ratio schedule later in the trial. Completion of the ratio requirement did not lead to an immediate reinforcer, but simply allowed the events of the trial to continue. In Experiment 1, the ratio requirements interrupted periods in which food was delivered on a variable-time schedule. In Experiments 2 and 3, each ratio requirement was preceded and followed by a delay, and only one reinforcer was delivered, at the end of each trial. Two of the experiments used an adjusting-ratio procedure in which the ratio requirement was increased and decreased over trials so as to estimate an indifference point--a ratio size at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. These experiments found clear evidence for "procrastination"--the choice of a larger but more delayed response requirement. In some cases, subjects chose the more delayed ratio schedule even when it was larger than the more immediate alternative by a factor of four or more. The results suggest that as the delay to the start of a ratio requirement is increased, it has progressively less effect on choice behavior, in much the same way that delaying a positive reinforcer reduces it effect on choice.

Animals↗

PubMed1995

Conditioned reinforcement and choice with delayed and uncertain primary reinforcers.

In an adjusting-delay choice procedure, pigeons could peck on either a red key or a green key. A peck on the red key always led to a delay associated with red houselights and then food. The delay was adjusted over trials to estimate an indifference point--a delay at which the two keys were chosen about equally often. In some conditions, a peck on the green key led to food on all trials after delays of either 10 s or 30 s, and green houselights were lit during the delays. In other conditions, food was presented on only half of the green-key trials. If the green houselights continued to occur on both reinforcement and nonreinforcement trials, preference for the green key always decreased. Preference for the green key also decreased if half of the trials had 30-s houselights followed by food and the other half had no green houselights and no food. However, preference for the green key actually increased if half of the trials had 10-s green houselights followed by food and the other half had no green houselights followed by no food. The latter condition therefore demonstrated a case in which preference for an alternative increased when food was removed from half of the trials. The results suggest that the red and green houselights served as conditioned reinforcers. A hyperbolic decay model (Mazur, 1989) provided good predictions for all conditions by assuming that the strength of a conditioned reinforcer is inversely related to the total time spent in its presence before food is delivered.

Animals↗

PubMed1994

Effects of intertrial reinforcers on self-control choice.

In three experiments, pigeons chose between a small amount of food delivered after a short delay and a larger amount delivered after a longer delay. A discrete-trial adjusting-delay procedure was used to estimate indifference points--pairs of delay-amount combinations that were chosen about equally often. In Experiment 1, when additional reinforcers were available during intertrial intervals on a variable-interval schedule, preference for the smaller, more immediate reinforcer increased. Experiment 2 found that this shift in preference occurred partly because the variable-interval schedule started sooner after the smaller, more immediate reinforcer, but there was still a small shift in preference when the durations and temporal locations of the variable-interval schedules were identical for both alternatives. Experiment 3 found greater increases in preference for the smaller, more immediate reinforcer with a variable-interval 15-s schedule than with a variable-interval 90-s schedule. The results were generally consistent with a model that states that the impact of any event that follows a choice response declines according to a hyperbolic function with increasing time since the moment of choice.

Animals↗

PubMed1993

Comparison of intermittent and continuously nebulized albuterol for treatment of asthma in an urban emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare continuously nebulized albuterol with intermittent bolus nebulization of albuterol. DESIGN: Consecutive block enrollment in groups of ten to continuous or intermittent therapy. SETTING: Urban emergency department. TYPE OF PARTICIPANTS: Patients who presented to the ED with moderate to severe asthma and did not improve after one treatment with nebulized albuterol. INTERVENTIONS: All patients received an initial nebulized treatment with 2.5 mg albuterol followed by 125 mg solumedrol. Patients in the intermittent group received 2.5 mg nebulized albuterol at 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after the initial treatment. Patients in the continuous group received 10 mg albuterol nebulized in 70 mL over two hours. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups in age, sex, or initial peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR). Ninety-nine patients were included in the study (47 continuous and 52 intermittent). There was no statistically significant difference in PEFRs or admission rate between groups over the two-hour study period. One subgroup analysis was performed on patients with PEFRs on presentation to the ED of 200 L/min or less. Mean +/- SD baseline PEFR at presentation to the ED was 135 +/- 35 in the 35 patients in the continuous group and 137 +/- 45 in the 34 patients in the intermittent group). At 120 minutes, PEFR was 296 +/- 98 in the continuous group and 244 +/- 81 in the intermittent group (P = .01). Admission: discharge ratios for this subgroup analysis were 11:24 in the continuous group and 19:14 in the intermittent group (P = .03). Mean +/- SD heart rate in the subgroup analysis was 102 +/- 21 at baseline for the continuous group and 109 +/- 22 at baseline in the intermittent group. At 120 minutes, heart rate was 90 +/- 18 in the continuous group and 104 +/- 16 in the intermittent group (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Continuous nebulization offers no benefit over intermittent therapy in patients with an initial PEFR of more than 200 L/min. In PEFRs of 200 or less, continuous nebulization may decrease admission rate and improve PEFRs when compared with standard therapy.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed1992

Choice behavior in transition: development of preference with ratio and interval schedules.

In Experiment 1, the choice responses of 8 pigeons were observed during 50 periods of transition. Each condition began with equal probabilities of reinforcement on 2 response keys and switched to unequal probabilities. With the ratio of the 2 probabilities held constant, preference for the higher probability developed more rapidly when the 2 probabilities were high than when they were low. In Experiment 2, each condition began with 2 equal variable-interval schedules, but later 1 key delivered 60%, 75%, or 90% of the reinforcers. The rate of approach to asymptotic performance was roughly the same with all 3 reinforcement percentages. These and previous results pose difficulties for some well-known models of acquisition, but the results are well described by a simple model that states that the strength of each response is independently increased by reinforcement and decreased by nonreinforcement.

Animals↗

PubMed1992

Choice with delayed and probabilistic reinforcers: effects of variability, time between trials, and conditioned reinforcers.

In a discrete-trials procedure with pigeons, a response on a green key led to a 4-s delay (during which green houselights were lit) and then a reinforcer might or might not be delivered. A response on a red key led to a delay of adjustable duration (during which red houselights were lit) and then a certain reinforcer. The delay was adjusted so as to estimate an indifference point--a duration for which the two alternatives were equally preferred. Once the green key was chosen, a subject had to continue to respond on the green key until a reinforcer was delivered. Each response on the green key, plus the 4-s delay that followed every response, was called one "link" of the green-key schedule. Subjects showed much greater preference for the green key when the number of links before reinforcement was variable (averaging four) than when it was fixed (always exactly four). These findings are consistent with the view that probabilistic reinforcers are analogous to reinforcers delivered after variable delays. When successive links were separated by 4-s or 8-s "interlink intervals" with white houselights, preference for the probabilistic alternative decreased somewhat for 2 subjects but was unaffected for the other 2 subjects. When the interlink intervals had the same green houselights that were present during the 4-s delays, preference for the green key decreased substantially for all subjects. These results provided mixed support for the view that preference for a probabilistic reinforcer is inversely related to the duration of conditioned reinforcers that precede the delivery of food.

Animals↗

PubMed1991

Choice with probabilistic reinforcement: effects of delay and conditioned reinforcers.

Two experiments measured pigeons' choices between probabilistic reinforcers and certain but delayed reinforcers. In Experiment 1, a peck on a red key led to a 5-s delay and then a possible reinforcer (with a probability of .2). A peck on a green key led to a certain reinforcer after an adjusting delay. This delay was adjusted over trials so as to estimate an indifference point, or a duration at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. In all conditions, red houselights were present during the 5-s delay on reinforced trials with the probabilistic alternative, but the houselight colors on nonreinforced trials differed across conditions. Subjects showed a stronger preference for the probabilistic alternative when the houselights were a different color (white or blue) during the delay on nonreinforced trials than when they were red on both reinforced and nonreinforced trials. These results supported the hypothesis that the value or effectiveness of a probabilistic reinforcer is inversely related to the cumulative time per reinforcer spent in the presence of stimuli associated with the probabilistic alternative. Experiment 2 tested some quantitative versions of this hypothesis by varying the delay for the probabilistic alternative (either 0 s or 2 s) and the probability of reinforcement (from .1 to 1.0). The results were best described by an equation that took into account both the cumulative durations of stimuli associated with the probabilistic reinforcer and the variability in these durations from one reinforcer to the next.

Animals↗

PubMed1990

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

This experiment measured pigeons' choices between delayed reinforcers and fixed-ratio schedules in which a force of approximately 0.48 N was needed to operate the response key. In ratio-delay conditions, subjects chose between a fixed-ratio schedule and an adjusting delay. The delay was increased or decreased several times a session in order to estimate an indifference point--a delay duration at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. Each ratio-delay condition was followed by a delay-delay condition in which subjects chose between the adjusting delay and a variable-time schedule, with the components of this schedule selected to match the ratio completion times of the preceding ratio-delay condition. The adjusting delays at the indifference point were longer when the alternative was a fixed-ratio schedule than when it was a matched variable-time schedule, which indicated a preference for the matched variable-time schedules over the fixed-ratio schedules. This preference increased in a nonlinear manner with increasing ratio size. This nonlinearity was inconsistent with a theory that states that indifference points for both time and ratio schedules can be predicted by multiplying the choice response-reinforcer intervals of the two types of schedules by different multiplicative constants. Two other theories, which predict nonlinear increases in preference for the matched variable-time schedules, are discussed.

Animals↗

PubMed1990

Choice behavior in transition: development of preference for the higher probability of reinforcement.

Ten acquisition curves were obtained from each of 4 pigeons in a two-choice discrete-trial procedure. In each of these 10 conditions, the two response keys initially had equal probabilities of reinforcement, and subjects' choice responses were about equally divided between the two keys. Then the reinforcement probabilities were changed so that one key had a higher probability of reinforcement (the left key in half of the conditions and the right key in the other half), and in nearly every case the subjects developed a preference for this key. The rate of acquisition of preference for this key was faster when the ratio of the two reinforcement probabilities was higher. For instance, acquisition of preference was faster in conditions with reinforcement probabilities of .12 and .02 than in conditions with reinforcement probabilities of .40 and .30, even though the pairs of probabilities differed by .10 in both cases. These results were used to evaluate the predictions of some theories of transitional behavior in choice situations. A trial-by-trial analysis of individual responses and reinforcers suggested that reinforcement had both short-term and long-term effects on choice. The short-term effect was an increased probability of returning to the same key on the one or two trials following a reinforcer. The long-term effect was a gradual increase in the proportion of responses on the key with the higher probability of reinforcement, an increase that usually continued for several hundred trials.

Animals↗

PubMed1989

Theories of probabilistic reinforcement.

In three experiments, pigeons chose between two alternatives that differed in the probability of reinforcement and the delay to reinforcement. A peck at a red key led to a delay of 5 s and then a possible reinforcer. A peck at a green key led to an adjusting delay and then a certain reinforcer. This delay was adjusted over trials so as to estimate an indifference point, or a duration at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. In Experiments 1 and 2, the intertrial interval was varied across conditions, and these variations had no systematic effects on choice. In Experiment 3, the stimuli that followed a choice of the red key differed across conditions. In some conditions, a red houselight was presented for 5 s after each choice of the red key. In other conditions, the red houselight was present on reinforced trials but not on nonreinforced trials. Subjects exhibited greater preference for the red key in the latter case. The results were used to evaluate four different theories of probabilistic reinforcement. The results were most consistent with the view that the value or effectiveness of a probabilistic reinforcer is determined by the total time per reinforcer spent in the presence of stimuli associated with the probabilistic alternative. According to this view, probabilistic reinforcers are analogous to reinforcers that are delivered after variable delays.

Animals↗

PubMed1988

Estimation of indifference points with an adjusting-delay procedure.

In a series of conditions, pigeons chose between 1.5 s and 3 s of access to grain, each preceded by some delay. The delay that preceded the small reinforcer was constant throughout a condition. The delay that preceded the large reinforcer was increased or decreased a number of times each session in order to estimate an "indifference point," a delay at which the subject chose each alternative about equally often. The experiment was designed to determine whether variations in any of four features of this adjusting-delay procedure would systematically alter the estimated indifference points. The four features were the total trial duration, the number of center-key responses necessary to begin a trial, the number of choice trials that preceded each change in the adjusting delay, and step size--the size of each increment and decrement in the delay. Manipulation of the first three features had no systematic effects on the indifference points. As step size was increased from 0.5 s to 6 s, within-session variability of the adjusting delay steadily increased, and the 6-s step size produced larger indifference-point estimates for some subjects. The results suggest that, within certain limits, these procedural features can be altered without affecting the indifference-point estimates, but that the use of a large step size can distort the estimates. Some theoretical implications of the relative constancy of indifference points across these procedural variations are discussed.

Animals↗

PubMed1987

Tests of transitivity in choices between fixed and variable reinforcer delays.

This experiment tested for transitivity in pigeons' choices between variable-time (VT) and fixed-time (FT) schedules. In a discrete-trials procedure, a subject chose between two alternatives by making a single key peck. Each choice was between a "standard alternative," which was the same schedule throughout a condition, and an "adjusting alternative," in which the delay to reinforcement was systematically increased or decreased many times a session. These adjustments enabled an approximate indifference point to be identified--the value of the adjusting delay at which the subject chose each alternative about equally often. Each test of transitivity involved four conditions. In one, the standard alternative was a variable-time schedule with a 2-s reinforcer, and the adjusting alternative also delivered a 2-s reinforcer. A second condition was similar except that the adjusting alternative delivered a 5-s reinforcer. The indifference point from each of these conditions was then converted to a fixed-time schedule for subsequent comparisons in the third and fourth conditions, respectively. Each of these last two conditions compared one of the fixed-time schedules (based upon the previous conditions and including their different reinforcer durations) with an adjusting schedule that delivered the alternative reinforcer duration, to determine whether the obtained indifference points would be those predicted from the prior alternative-duration comparisons with the VT schedule. There was little evidence for intransitivity of choice: Averaged across subjects and replications, the obtained indifference points deviated from perfect transitivity by less than 8%, and these deviations were not statistically significant. These results contrast with those of Navarick and Fantino (1972), who found frequent violations of transitivity between periodic and aperiodic schedules using a concurrent-chains procedure with variable-interval schedules in the initial links.

Animals↗

PubMed1987

Molar optimization versus delayed reinforcement as explanations of choice between fixed-ratio and progressive-ratio schedules.

In a discrete-trials procedure, pigeons chose between a fixed-ratio 81 schedule and a progressive-ratio schedule by making a single peck at the key correlated with one or the other of these schedules. The response requirement on the progressive-ratio schedule began at 1 and increased by 10 each time the progressive-ratio schedule was chosen. Each time the fixed-ratio schedule was chosen, the requirement on the progressive-ratio schedule was reset to 1 response. In conditions where there was no intertrial interval, subjects chose the progressive-ratio schedule for an average of about five consecutive trials (during which the response requirement increased to 41), and then chose the fixed-ratio schedule. This ratio was larger than that predicted by an optimality analysis that assumes that subjects respond in a pattern that minimizes the response-reinforcer ratio or one that assumes that subjects respond in a pattern that maximizes the overall rate of reinforcement. In conditions with a 25-s or 50-s intertrial interval, subjects chose the progressive-ratio schedule for an average of about eight consecutive trials before choosing the fixed-ratio schedule. This change in performance with the addition of an intertrial interval was also not predicted by an optimality analysis. On the other hand, the results were consistent with the theory that choice is determined by the delays to the reinforcers delivered on the present trial and on subsequent trials.

Animals↗

PubMed1986

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

In a discrete-trial procedure, pigeons could choose between 2-s and 6-s access to grain by making a single key peck. In Phase 1, the pigeons obtained both reinforcers by responding on fixed-ratio schedules. In Phase 2, they received both reinforcers after simple delays, arranged by fixed-time schedules, during which no responses were required. In Phase 3, the 2-s reinforcer was available through a fixed-time schedule and the 6-s reinforcer was available through a fixed-ratio schedule. In all conditions, the size of the delay or ratio leading to the 6-s reinforcer was systematically increased or decreased several times each session, permitting estimation of an "indifference point," the schedule size at which a subject chose each alternative equally often. By varying the size of the schedule for the 2-s reinforcer across conditions, several such indifference points were obtained from both fixed-time conditions and fixed-ratio conditions. The resulting "indifference curves" from fixed-time conditions and from fixed-ratio conditions were similar in shape, and they suggested that a hyperbolic equation describes the relation between ratio size and reinforcement value as well as the relation between reinforcer delay and its reinforcement value. The results from Phase 3 showed that subjects chose fixed-time schedules over fixed-ratio schedules that generated the same average times between a choice response and reinforcement.

Animals↗

PubMed1986

Choice between single and multiple delayed reinforcers.

Pigeons chose between alternatives that differed in the number of reinforcers and in the delay to each reinforcer. A peck on a red key produced the same consequences on every trial within a condition, but between conditions the number of reinforcers varied from one to three and the reinforcer delays varied between 5 s and 30 s. A peck on a green key produced a delay of adjustable duration and then a single reinforcer. The green-key delay was increased or decreased many times per session, depending on a subject's previous choices, which permitted estimation of an indifference point, or a delay at which a subject chose each alternative about equally often. The indifference points decreased systematically with more red-key reinforcers and with shorter red-key delays. The results did not support the suggestion of Moore (1979) that multiple delayed reinforcers have no effect on preference unless they are closely grouped. The results were well described in quantitative detail by a simple model stating that each of a series of reinforcers increases preference, but that a reinforcer's effect is inversely related to its delay. The success of this model, which considers only delay of reinforcement, suggested that the overall rate of reinforcement for each alternative had no effect on choice between those alternatives.

Animals↗

PubMed1986

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

A discrete-trial procedure was used to measure pigeons' choices between fixed and variable ratio schedules and between fixed and variable delays before reinforcement. A peck at a green key produced a reinforcement schedule that was constant within a condition but varied across conditions. A peck at a red key produced a ratio schedule (or, in other conditions, a simple delay) whose size was increased or decreased many times a session, depending on the subject's previous choices. The purpose of these adjustments was to estimate an indifference point--a ratio size (or delay duration) at which the subject chose each key about equally often. The results were used to test a simple "equivalence rule" for choices between fixed and variable schedules (Mazur, 1984). This rule, which was applied without using free parameters, predicted the major trends in the obtained indifference points from both ratio and delay conditions. However, some small but consistent deviations from the predictions were apparent. Better predictions were generated with a more complex equation, which included parameters reflecting the subjects' sensitivities to delay of reinforcement and to events of different probabilities. It was concluded that a successful equivalence rule must include parameters that can be adjusted to describe the effects of delay and probability in a given experimental setting. Once these parameters are estimated, however, choices involving both fixed and variable delays and fixed and variable ratios can be accurately predicted with the same equation.

Animals↗

PubMed1985

Probability and delay of reinforcement as factors in discrete-trial choice.

Pigeons chose between two alternatives that differed in the probability of reinforcement and the delay to reinforcement. A peck on the red key always produced a delay of 5 s and then a possible reinforcer. The probability of reinforcement for responding on this key varied from .05 to 1.0 in different conditions. A response on the green key produced a delay of adjustable duration and then a possible reinforcer, with the probability of reinforcement ranging from .25 to 1.0 in different conditions. The green-key delay was increased or decreased many times per session, depending on a subject's previous choices. The purpose of these adjustments was to estimate an indifference point, or a delay that resulted in a subject's choosing each alternative about equally often. In conditions where the probability of reinforcement was five times higher on the green key, the green-key delay averaged about 12 s at the indifference point. In conditions where the probability of reinforcement was twice as high on the green key, the green-key delay at the indifference point was about 8 s with high probabilities and about 6 s with low probabilities. An analysis based on these results and those from studies on delay of reinforcement suggests that pigeons' choices are relatively insensitive to variations in the probability of reinforcement between .2 and 1.0, but quite sensitive to variations in probability between .2 and 0.

Animals↗

PubMed1985

Influences of delay and rate of reinforcement on discrete-trial choice.

An adjusting procedure was used to measure pigeons' preferences among alternatives that differed in the duration of a delay before reinforcement and of an intertrial interval (ITI) after reinforcement. In most conditions, a peck at a red key led to a fixed delay, followed by reinforcement, a fixed ITI, and then the beginning of the next trial. A peck at a green key led to an adjustable delay, reinforcement, and then the next trial began without an ITI. The purpose of the adjusting delay was to estimate an indifference point, or a delay that made a subject approximately indifferent between the two alternatives. As the ITI for the red key increased from 0 s to 60 s, the green-key delay at the indifference point increased systematically but only slightly. The fact that there was some increase showed that pigeons' choices were controlled by more than simply the delay to the next reinforcer. One interpretation of these results is that besides delay of reinforcement, rate of reinforcement also influenced choice. However, an analysis that ignored reinforcement rate, but considered the delays between a choice response and the reinforcers on subsequent trials, was able to account for most of the obtained increases in green-key delays. It was concluded that in this type of discrete-trial situation, rate of reinforcement exerts little control over choice behavior, and perhaps none at all.

Animals↗