A Theory of Attending and Reinforcement in Conditional Discriminations

Abstract

A model of conditional discrimination performance (Davison & Nevin, 1999) is combined with the notion that unmeasured attending to the sample and comparison stimuli, in the steady state and during disruption, depends on reinforcement in the same way as predicted for overt free-operant responding by behavioral momentum theory (Nevin & Grace, 2000). The rate of observing behavior, a measurable accompaniment of attending, is well described by an equation for steady-state responding derived from momentum theory, and the resistance to change of observing conforms to predictions of momentum theory, supporting a key assumption of the model. When probabilities of attending are less than 1.0, the model accounts for some aspects of conditional-discrimination performance that posed problems for the Davison-Nevin model: (a) the effects of differential reinforcement on the allocation of responses to the comparison stimuli and on accuracy in several matching-to-sample and signal-detection tasks where the differences between the stimuli or responses were varied across conditions, (b) the effects of overall reinforcer rate on the asymptotic level and resistance to change of both response rate and accuracy of matching to sample in multiple schedules, and (c) the effects of fixed-ratio reinforcement on accuracy. Some tests and extensions of the model are suggested, and the role of unmeasured events in behavior theory is considered.Key words: attending, behavioral momentum, conditional discrimination, matching to sample, signal detection, observing behavior _______________________________________________________________________________In order for stimuli to control behavior, organisms must attend to them. Dinsmoor (1985) suggested that effective stimulus control depends on contact with the relevant stimuli via overt observing behavior, and that for a complete understanding ''. . . we are obliged to consider analogous [to observing] processes . . . commonly known as attention. The processes involved in attention are not as readily accessible to observation as the more peripheral adjustments, but it is my hope and my working hypothesis that they obey similar principles.'' (p. 365). Although attention is usually construed as a cognitive process, we view attending as unmeasured (possibly covert) operant behavior that accompanies measurable observing. Attending, we suggest, is selected and strengthened by the reinforcing consequences of overt discriminated operant behavior that would be less frequently reinforced in the absence of attending. Following Dinsmoor, we assume that the unmeasured behavior of attending to discriminative stimuli is related to the rates of reinforcement correlated with those stimuli in the same way as measured free-operant response rate.In this paper, we develop a model of attending that parallels a version of behavioral momentum theory for free-operant responding and incorporate it into a general account of discriminated operant behavior (Davison & Nevin, 1999). We begin by reviewing behavioral momentum theo...

Reinforcer magnitude and resistance to disruption of forgetting functions and response rates

“…One approach emphasizes concepts from behavioral momentum theory, highlighting the similarities between the effects of reinforcement on free operant behavior and conditional discrimination (e.g., Nevin, Davison, & Shahan, 2005). Behavioral momentum theory states that behavior, once reinforced, will tend to persist (Nevin, Mandell, & Atak, 1983), despite some degree of disruption (e.g., extinction).…”

Disruption of temporal discrimination and the choose-short effect

“…Discrimination processes are generally studied in nonhumans using some variant of the conditional-discrimination procedure (see Nevin, Davison, & Shahan, 2005, for review). In this procedure, the response that will be reinforced depends on the occurrence of a prior sample event.…”

Divided attention performance and the matching law

“…The matching law has been shown to be widely applicable across species and procedures (see Davison & McCarthy, 1988, for a review), including human macrosaccadic eye movements in a signal detection task (Schroeder & Holland, 1969). Versions of the generalized matching law have been extended to account for conditional discrimination performance (see Davison & Nevin, 1999;Nevin, Davison, & Shahan, 2005, for reviews). These models describe discriminative performance as being the result of both the discriminability r of the stimuli and differential rates of reinforcement for reporting that a given stimulus has or has not occurred.…”