A Test of the Effectiveness of the Differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate Schedule

Richardson, Will

doi:10.1901/jeab.1973.20-385

Cited by 20 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Richardson (1973) investigated whether the interresponse-time distribution obtained when a 15-sec interresponse time was required would be maintained when the requirement was removed but the temporal distribution of food presentations was maintained by a variable-interval schedule. Under the variableinterval schedules, the modal interresponse times were less than with the differentiation procedure, and the shapes of the distributions changed from approximate symmetry toward positive skewness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

TIME LIMITS FOR COMPLETING FIXED RATIOS. III. STIMULUS VARIABLES¹

DeCasper

Zeiler

1974

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons received food only if they took longer than a specified time to begin and complete a fixed ratio. In Experiment 1, ratios with shorter durations had no stimulus consequence; in Experiment 2, these ratios ended with a stimulus change. In both studies, the mean time to complete the ratio exceeded requirements of less than 30 sec, approximately matched requirements of 30 sec, and fell progressively short of matching thereafter. Variability increased together with the means. The various effects resembled those of temporal differentiation experiments involving single responses. Although both number of ratios and time separating successive food presentations increased along with ratio duration, control experiments showed that differential reinforcement of duration, rather than either form or reinforcer intermittency, accounted for the performance. Experiment 2 also studied the effects of adding a stimulus that signalled when the required time had elapsed. The stimulus produced durations that matched even the most stringent requirements. This precision was not maintained when the stimulus was removed. Temporal differentiation schedules seem to have similar effects regardless of the response class and temporal property involved.In a temporal differentiation schedule, the presentation of a reinforcing stimulus depends on the duration of behavior. The duration can be of an individual event such as the latency, duration, or interresponse time of a bar press (e.g., Skinner, 1938), or it can refer to an entire sequence, such as the initial pause in a fixed-ratio schedule (Findley, 1962;Kelleher, Fry, and Cook, 1964) or the time taken to traverse an alley (Logan, 1960). Parametric studies involving both individual responses and sequences have demonstrated that performance adjusts to temporal requirements under a range of criterion values (Catania, 1970-response latency;Malott and Cumming, 1964; Staddon, 1965-interresponse time; Platt, Kuch, and Bitgood, 1973-bar-press duration; Zeiler, 1970Zeiler, , 1972-the duration of the fixedratio sequence). The data suggest that the effects of a temporal differentiation schedule may be independent of the particular behavior specified.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

TIME LIMITS FOR COMPLETING FIXED RATIOS. III. STIMULUS VARIABLES¹

DeCasper

Zeiler

1974

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of Anger's (1956) original observations on the responding of normal rats on a DRL schedule was that the "low rates" are in part due to the fact that only a restricted class of responses that fulftll the DRL delay requirement are reinforced, while all others that do not satisfy the DRL contingency are not reinforced and subsequently become extinguished. In an unpublished study, Richardson (1972) has compared the DRL and VI performance of rats and pigeons under conditions of equal reinforcement density and interreinforcement times by using a yoked control procedure. He found that for all Ss, the level of responding was lower on DRL than on VI, thus supporting the conclusion that the DRL contingency (i.e., differential reinforcement of particular IRTs), quite apart from the reinforcement density, leads to response suppression.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reactions to DRL schedule change in rats with septal damage

Ellen

Braggio

1973

Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Normal rats and rats with septal lesions were given 45 days of DRL training on one of three different schedule sequences: , with 15 days of training on eachschedtile value. Interpolated training on a DRL schedule having a 100sec longer delay requirement than the initial schedule did not result in further response suppression than that generated by the initial schedule in the case of rats with septal lesions. However, normal rats showed lower responding on the second exposure of DRL 10 and DRL 20 but not on DRL 30. In general, increasing the DRL delay requirement by 10 sec resulted in decreased responding. However, the magnitude of the decrease was a function of the relative difference in schedule requirement only in the case of rats with septal damage. Decreasing the delay by 10 sec led to increased responding in both normal and operated rats, with the magnitude of the increase being a function of the relative difference in delay requirement.It was reported by Ellen and Aitken (1973) that the response output of normal rats and rats with septal lesions that were required to track a DRL schedule sequence became progressively lower as the delay requirement increased. This inverse relationship described, in general, the response output-DRL delay function of all animals and is consistent with the work of others (Staddon, 1965). However, on each of the five schedules, normal rats made fewer responses and obtained more reinforcements than did operated rats.Ani n teresting characteristic of the response output-DRL delay function was that a 10-sec difference in the DRL delay requirement did not produce equivalent changes in response output across the range of DRL values. In fact, a to·sec difference in delay requirement resulted in a gr~ater change in responding at short DRL delay values (i.e., 10 to 20) than at intermediate and long delay values (i.e., 20 to 30 and 40 to 50). This suggests that the magnitude of increase or decrease in responding which results from a change of to sec in the delay requirement may be a function of the responding generated by the preceding schedule value.A methodological weakness in the experimental design used by Ellen and Aitken (l973) limits the generality of this conclusion. In their study, the five different schedule values were presented to all rats using a single random sequence. Since a counterbalanced design was not used, the uncontrolled factors of schedule order (the DRL schedule prior to change being short, intermediate, or long in delay requirement) confounded the obtained results. The present experiment counterbalanced the presentation of the different DRL schedule values so that the effects of schedule order and direction of schedule change could be determined. METHOD SubjectsThe Ss were 30 male Long-Evans hooded rats that weighed approximately 260 g at surgery.*A version of this paper was read at the XIII Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. St. Louis. November 1972. ApparatusFive Scientific Prototype operant chambers were linked to the IBM 1800 data acquisition and co...

show abstract

“…That IRTs can be differentiated is argued by few. Since Anger's (1956) classic paper, however, numerous procedures have been developed to demonstrate conclusively that IRT differentiation can or cannot account for schedulecontrolled performance (see Ferster & Skinner, 1957;Galbicka & Platt, 1984McDowell & Wixted, 1986;Platt, 1979;Richardson, 1973 (1986, pp. 377-378).…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

Differentiating the Behavior of Organisms

Galbicka

1988

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The procedure used to differentiate responding is probably well understood by most behavior analysts. Skinner offers a description of response-intensity differentiation in however. It makes no difference whether responses go unreinforced because they lie outside the criterional range or outside the range of the transduction device. As long as these unreinforced responses are consistently related, the result will be the same. The extinction of such responding, and the reinforcement of responses within the specified (criterional or transductional) range, selects responses more closely resembling those correlated with reinforcement. As such, response differentiation is an integral part of all operant conditioning. Response differentiation is operant conditioning, and vice versa.Finally, for Skinner response differentiation was prima facie evidence for the necessity of a new type of learning.

show abstract

A Test of the Effectiveness of the Differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate Schedule

Cited by 20 publications

References 7 publications

TIME LIMITS FOR COMPLETING FIXED RATIOS. III. STIMULUS VARIABLES¹

TIME LIMITS FOR COMPLETING FIXED RATIOS. III. STIMULUS VARIABLES¹

Reactions to DRL schedule change in rats with septal damage

Differentiating the Behavior of Organisms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A Test of the Effectiveness of the Differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate Schedule

Cited by 20 publications

References 7 publications

TIME LIMITS FOR COMPLETING FIXED RATIOS. III. STIMULUS VARIABLES1

TIME LIMITS FOR COMPLETING FIXED RATIOS. III. STIMULUS VARIABLES1

Reactions to DRL schedule change in rats with septal damage

Differentiating the Behavior of Organisms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

TIME LIMITS FOR COMPLETING FIXED RATIOS. III. STIMULUS VARIABLES¹

TIME LIMITS FOR COMPLETING FIXED RATIOS. III. STIMULUS VARIABLES¹