Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “REINFORCEMENT”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,261 records · Page 70Linked to original sources
PubMed1978

Choice performance in several concurrent key-peck treadle-press reinforcement schedules.

Five pigeons were exposed to several concurrent variable-interval food reinforcement schedules. For three subjects, one component of the schedule required a key-pecking response, the other a treadle-pressing response. For the other two subjects, both schedule components required treadle-pressing responses. The relative probability of reinforcement associated with the manipulanda was varied from 0 to 1.0 in 13 experimental conditions for the Key-Treadle subjects and nine conditions for the Treadle-Treadle subjects. The results indicated that the logarithms of relative time spent responding, and the logarithms of relative number of responses emitted on a manipulandum, approximated direct linear functions of logarithms of the relative frequencies of reinforcement associated with that manipulandum. No systematic bias in favor of time spent key pecking over time spent treadle pressing was apparent for the Key-Treadle subjects. All subjects exhibited undermatching, in that the ratios of time and response allocation at the alternatives systematically differed from the ratios of reinforcers obtained from the alternatives in the direction of indifference. Key pecking appeared to have no special link to food beyond treadle pressing or what would be expected on the basis of the reinforcement dependencies alone.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1978

Stimulus-reinforcer contingencies and local behavioral contrast.

Four pigeons were exposed to a series of multiple schedules of variable-interval reinforcement in which pecks were required on one key (operant key) and components were signalled on a second key (signal key). Four additional pigeons experienced identical conditions, except that a yoking procedure delivered food on variable-time schedules, with no key pecks required. One of the components of the multiple schedule was constant throughout the experiment as a variable-interval (or variable-time) 30-second schedule. Operant-key responding during the constant component was uniform throughout the component, uninfluenced by changes in the duration of the variable component, and only slightly influenced by changes in reinforcement frequency correlated with the variable component. By comparison, signal-key response rate during the constant component was highest at the onset of the component, was higher when the variable component was 60-sec long than when it was 1-sec long, and was higher when no reinforcement occurred in the variable component than when reinforcement was scheduled in the variable component. These characteristics of signal-key pecking matched characteristics of local positive behavioral contrast. These data are taken to support the "additivity theory" of behavioral contrast and to suggest that Pavlovian stimulus-reinforcer relations contribute primarily to the phenomenon of local positive contrast.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1978

Conditioned reinforcement and discrimination in second-order schedules.

Pigeons were exposed to multiple second-order schedules in which responding on the "main key" was reinforced according to either a variable-interval or fixed-interval schedule by production of a brief stimulus on the "brief-stimulus key". A response was required to the brief stimulus during its fourth (final) presentation to produce food; responses to the earlier brief stimuli indicated the extent to which the final brief stimulus was discriminated from preceding ones. Main-key response rates were higher in early components of paired brief-stimulus schedules, in which each brief stimulus was the same as that paired with reinforcement, than in comparable unpaired brief-stimulus or tandem schedules. Poor discrimination occurred between paired brief stimuli (Experiment I). When chain stimuli on the main key induced a discrimination between the first two and second two brief stimuli, the response-rate enhancement in the paired brief-stimulus schedule persisted (Experiment II). Rate enhancement diminished when the initial link of the chain included the first three components (Experiment IV). Eliminating the contingency between responding and brief-stimulus production also diminished rate enhancement (Experiment III). The results show that the discriminative and conditioned reinforcing effects of food-paired brief stimuli may be selectively manipulated and suggest that the reinforcing effects are modulated by other reinforcers in the situation.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1980

Contingency and stimulus change in chained schedules of reinforcement.

Higher rates of pecking were maintained by pigeons in the middle component of three-component chained fixed-interval schedules than in that component of corresponding multiple schedules (two extinction components followed by a fixed-interval component). This rate difference did not occur in equivalent tandem and mixed schedules, in which a single stimulus was correlated with the three components. The higher rates in components of chained schedules demonstrate a reinforcing effect of the stimulus correlated with the next component; the acquired functions of this stimulus make the vocabulary of conditioned reinforcement appropriate. Problems in defining conditioned reinforcement arise not from difficulties in demonstrating reinforcing effects but from disagreements about which experimental operations allow such reinforcing effects to be called conditioned.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1980

Reinforcement for errors in a signal-detection procedure.

Six pigeons were trained on a signal-detection procedure. They were required to peck the left key when a 5-second white light had been presented, and the right key when a 10-second light had been presented. These two correct responses were followed by food reinforcement with a probability of .7. Errors, left responses after the 10-second stimulus or right responses after the 5-second stimulus, were initially followed by a 3-second blackout of the chamber. In nine subsequent experimental conditions, errors were followed by food reinforcement with increasing probability while the probability of reinforcement for correct responses was kept constant. The percentage of correct responses decreased as error reinforcement probability increased. A matching model of detection performance, in which discrimination is a joint function of stimulus discriminability and stimulus-reinforcement association, provided a convincing fit to the data and to two sets of published data. The model also fitted published data on multiple and multiple-concurrent free-operant performance. This description of detection performance in terms of matching offers both accurate prediction of complex behavior and measures of discriminability with wide generality.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1981

Contrast and undermatching as a function of reinforcer duration and quality during multiple schedules.

Eight pigeons pecked keys under multiple variable-interval two-minute variable-interval two-minute schedules. In Experiment 1, the reinforcers were 2, 4, or 8 seconds access to a food magazine. In Experiments 2 and 3, the reinforcers were grains that had been determined to be most-, moderately-, or non-preferred. Both positive and negative behavioral contrast occurred when the reinforcers in one component were held constant and the duration or type of reinforcer obtained in the other component varied. Undermatching occurred when the relative rate of responding during a component was plotted as a function of the relative duration of the reinforcers in that component.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1982

Choice and multiple reinforcers.

Pigeons chose between equivalent two-component mixed and multiple terminal-link schedules of reinforcement in the concurrent-chains procedure. The pigeons preferred the multiple schedule over the mixed when the components of the compound schedules were differentiated in terms of density of reinforcement, but the pigeons were indifferent when the components were differentiated in terms of number of reinforcers per cycle. Taken together, these results indicate that a local variable, the interval to the first reinforcer, but not a molar variable, the number of reinforcers, was sufficient to differentiate the components and thereby evoke preference.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1982

Choice, relative reinforcer duration, and the changeover ratio.

Relative reinforcer duration was varied in concurrent schedules with a fixed-ratio four changeover requirement. The schedule in effect after each reinforcer was randomly chosen. For all three pigeons, relative response rates overmatched relative reinforcer durations. Time allocation was less extreme and, on the average, matched relative reinforcer duration. In a subsequent manipulation, the level of preference was shown to depend on the size of the changeover requirement. These results are similar to those from related unequal reinforcement-frequency procedures.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1983

Sensitivity to reinforcement in concurrent arithmetic and exponential schedules.

The generalized matching law states that the logarithm of the ratio of responses emitted or time spent responding in concurrent variable-interval schedules is a linear function of the logarithm of the ratio of reinforcements obtained. The slope of this relation, sensitivity to reinforcement, varies about 1.0 but has been shown to be different when obtained in different laboratories. The present paper analyzed the results from 18 experiments on concurrent variable-interval schedule performance and showed that response-allocation sensitivity to reinforcement was significantly smaller when arithmetic, rather than exponential, progressions were used to produce variable-interval schedules. There were no differences in time-allocation sensitivity between the two methods of constructing variable-interval schedules. Since the two laboratories have consistently used different methods for constructing variable-interval schedules, the differences in obtained sensitivities to reinforcement are explained. The reanalysis suggests that animals may be sensitive to differences in the distribution of reinforcements in time.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1983

Human observing: Maintained by stimuli correlated with reinforcement but not extinction.

College students received points exchangeable for money (reinforcement) on a variable-time 60-second schedule that alternated randomly with an extinction component. Subjects were informed that responding would not influence either the rate or distribution of reinforcement. Instead, presses on either of two levers ("observing responses") produced stimuli. In each of four experiments, stimuli positively correlated with reinforcement and/or stimuli uncorrelated with reinforcement were each chosen over stimuli correlated with extinction. These results are consistent with prior results from pigeons in supporting the conditioned-reinforcement hypothesis of observing and in not supporting the uncertainty-reduction hypothesis.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1984

Melloration and maximization of reinforcement minus costs of behavior.

Eight pigeons were exposed to independent concurrent schedules. Concurrent variable-interval 60-second variable-interval 60-second schedules were presented to one group of four subjects. Following baseline training, a limited hold was added to one of the schedules and the duration of the hold was decreased in successive conditions. Concurrent variable-interval 120-second variable-interval 40-second schedules were presented to another group of four subjects. These subjects were first exposed to decreasing durations of a limited hold in the variable-interval 40-second component. After replication of the baseline, a limited hold in the variable-interval 120-second component was decreased in duration. The initial durations of the holds were determined from the subjects' responding in the baseline conditions. A duration was chosen such that approximately 25% of the scheduled reinforcers would be canceled if responding remained unchanged.Approximate matching of time proportions and reinforcement proportions was observed when the limited hold was added to the variable-interval 60-second schedule and when the limited hold was added to the variable-interval 40-second schedule. Time proportions were less extreme than reinforcement proportions when the limited hold operated in a variable-interval 120-second schedule. Overall reinforcement rates tended to decrease with continued training in concurrent schedules with a limited hold. Absolute deviations from time matching also decreased. The results provide evidence against the principle of reinforcement maximization, and support Herrnstein and Vaughan's (1980) melioration hypothesis.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1985

Effects of ratio reinforcement schedules on discrimination performance by Japanese monkeys.

In Experiment 1, Japanese monkeys were trained on three conditional position-discrimination problems with colors as the conditional cues. Within each session, each problem was presented for two blocks of ten reinforcements; correct responses were reinforced under continuous-reinforcement, fixed-ratio 5, and variable-ratio 5 schedules, each assigned to one of the three problems. The assignment of schedules to problems was rotated a total of three times (15 sessions per assignment) after 30 sessions of acquisition training. Accuracy of discrimination increased to a moderate level with fewer trials under CRF than under ratio schedules. In contrast, the two ratio schedules, fixed and variable, were more effective in maintaining accurate discrimination than was CRF. With further training, as asymptotes were reached, accuracy was less affected by the schedule differences. These results demonstrated an interaction between the effects of reinforcement schedules and the level of acquisition. In Experiment 2, ratio sizes were gradually increased to 30. Discrimination accuracy was maintained until the ratio reached 20; ratio 30 strained the performance. Under FR conditions, accuracy increased as correct choice responses cumulated after reinforcement.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1985

Component probability and component reinforcer rate as biasers of free-operant detection.

Six pigeons were trained on multiple schedules whose components were concurrent variable-interval extinction and concurrent extinction variable-interval schedules. In Experiments 1a and 1b the stimuli signaling the components were two different light intensities, and in Experiments 2a and 2b they were two identical intensities. The components of the multiple schedule changed probabilistically after each reinforcer. In Experiments 1a and 2a, the probability of presenting the components was varied over five conditions and a replication. In Experiments 1b and 2b, the component probability was .5 and the component reinforcer rates were varied systematically over five conditions and a replication. The data, analyzed according to the Davison-Tustin behavioral detection model, confirmed that the discriminability of the stimuli signaling the components was high when the stimuli were different, and low when the stimuli were the same. Discriminability, measured by log d, was unaffected by component probability variation and by component reinforcer-rate variation. When discriminability was high, bias, or the response allocation between the two keys, was more strongly affected by variation of reinforcer rate within components than by variation of component probability, but the reverse was found when discriminability was low. The results suggest that free-operant detection performance is controlled by the rates of reinforcers in periods of time in which stimuli signal differential contingencies. These periods comprise the components when the component stimuli are discriminable, and comprise the total session when the components are indiscriminable. An extension of the Davison-Tustin behavioral detection model that incorporates these results is presented.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1988

Some effects of response-correlated increases in reinforcer magnitude on human behavior.

After training under short or long fixed-interval schedules, humans responded under a modified fixed-interval schedule in which magnitude of reinforcement (X or 2X) was minimally correlated with response frequency. Response frequencies that equaled or exceeded a minimum response criterion were followed by the larger reinforcer at the end of the interval; otherwise, the smaller reinforcer was delivered. The modified schedule alternated with the baseline schedule across conditions. In a control condition, the reinforcer magnitudes produced by control subjects were yoked to those of experimental subjects. Experimental subjects, but not control subjects, showed increased responding. In addition to the baseline and modified fixed-interval schedules used in Experiment 1, subjects in Experiment 2 also responded under a second modified fixed-interval contingency in which increases in reinforcer magnitude were more highly correlated with response frequency. Experimental subjects, but not control subjects, showed increased responding under both procedures. Direct comparison of these two procedures showed that the high-correlation procedure produced greater increases in responding than did the low-correlation procedure.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1988

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

In Experiment 1, three pigeons' key pecking was maintained under a variable-interval 60-s schedule of food reinforcement. A 1-s unsignaled nonresetting delay to reinforcement was then added. Rates decreased and stabilized at values below those observed under immediate-reinforcement conditions. A brief stimulus change (key lit red for 0.5 s) was then arranged to follow immediately the peck that began the delay. Response rates quickly returned to baseline levels. Subsequently, rates near baseline levels were maintained with briefly signaled delays of 3 and 9 s. When a 27-s briefly signaled delay was instituted, response rates decreased to low levels. In Experiment 2, four pigeons' responding was first maintained under a multiple variable-interval 60-s (green key) variable-interval 60-s (red key) schedule. Response rates in both components fell to low levels when a 3-s unsignaled delay was added. In the first component delays were then briefly signaled in the same manner as Experiment 1, and in the second component they were signaled with a change in key color that remained until food was delivered. Response rates increased to near baseline levels in both components, and remained near baseline when the delays in both components were lengthened to 9 s. When delays were lengthened to 27 s, response rates fell to low levels in the briefly signaled delay component for three of four pigeons while remaining at or near baseline in the completely signaled delay component. In Experiment 3, low response rates under a 9-s unsignaled delay to reinforcement (tandem variable-interval 60 s fixed-time 9 s) increased when the delay was briefly signaled. The role of the brief stimulus as conditioned reinforcement may be a function of its temporal relation to food, and thus may be related to the eliciting function of the stimulus.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1990

Performance of children under a multiple random-ratio random-interval schedule of reinforcement.

Three children, aged 1.5, 2.5, and 4.5 years, pressed telegraph keys under a two-component multiple random-ratio random-interval schedule of reinforcement. In the first condition, responses on the left key were reinforced under a random-interval schedule and responses on the right key were reinforced under a random-ratio schedule. In the second condition, the schedule components were reversed. In the third condition, the original arrangement was reinstated. For all subjects, rates of responding were higher in the random-ratio component despite higher rates of reinforcement in the random-interval component. The average interreinforcement interval of the random-interval component was increased in the fourth condition, resulting in more similar rates of reinforcement for both schedule components, and then returned to its original value in the fifth condition. In both conditions, all subjects continued to exhibit higher rates of responding in the ratio component than in the interval component. Although these observations are consistent with results from studies with pigeons, it is argued that the response-rate differences between the interval and ratio schedule components are sufficient to demonstrate schedule sensitivity.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1992

Continuous versus discrete dimensions of reinforcement schedules: An integrative analysis.

An approach to reinforcement-schedule contingencies is presented that accommodates continuous as well as discrete effective dimensions of responses and reinforcers. College students' wheel turning was reinforced by projected reading material according to four schedule contingencies that incorporated either a discontinuous (count) or continuous (duration) dimension of the response and the reinforcer. The contingencies arranged a 1:1 correspondence between (a) response count and consequent stimulus count, (b) response duration and stimulus count, (c) response count and stimulus duration, and (d) response duration and stimulus duration. Contingencies incorporating response count produced moderate to high rates of very short-duration responses. Contingencies incorporating response duration produced very low-rate, long-duration responding. The dimension of the reinforcer had minimal or no additional effect. We suggest that incorporating duration and other continuous dimensions into schedule contingencies may improve our understanding of both laboratory and nonlaboratory behavior.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1996

Token reinforcement, choice, and self-control in pigeons.

Pigeons were exposed to self-control procedures that involved illumination of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) as a form of token reinforcement. In a discrete-trials arrangement, subjects chose between one and three LEDs; each LED was exchangeable for 2-s access to food during distinct posttrial exchange periods. In Experiment 1, subjects generally preferred the immediate presentation of a single LED over the delayed presentation of three LEDs, but differences in the delay to the exchange period between the two options prevented a clear assessment of the relative influence of LED delay and exchange-period delay as determinants of choice. In Experiment 2, in which delays to the exchange period from either alternative were equal in most conditions, all subjects preferred the delayed three LEDs more often than in Experiment-1. In Experiment 3, subjects preferred the option that resulted in a greater amount of food more often if the choices also produced LEDs than if they did not. In Experiment 4, preference for the delayed three LEDs was obtained when delays to the exchange period were equal, but reversed in favor of an immediate single LED when the latter choice also resulted in quicker access to exchange periods. The overall pattern of results suggests that (a) delay to the exchange period is a more critical determinant of choice than is delay to token presentation; (b) tokens may function as conditioned reinforcers, although their discriminative properties may be responsible for the self-control that occurs under token reinforcer arrangements; and (c) previously reported differences in the self-control choices of humans and pigeons may have resulted at least in part from the procedural conventions of using token reinforcers with human subjects and food reinforcers with pigeon subjects.

Animals↗