Bouts, Changeovers, and Units of Operant Behavior

Shull, Richard L.

doi:10.1080/15021149.2011.11434355

Cited by 33 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, reinforcement of bouts of a particular length seems to differentially strengthen those bouts relative to bouts of other lengths. The hypothesis that reinforcement operates on bouts and not on individual responses is consistent with evidence that bout initiations increase with rate of reinforcement according to Herrnstein's () hyperbola (Shull, ; see also Hill et al, ), with evidence that reinforcement also operates on responses that precede the one that produces reinforcement (Catania, ; Catania, Reilly, Hand, Kehle, Valentine, & Shimoff, ), and, to some extent, with Killeen's (1994) notion of response‐reinforcement coupling. However, one aspect of the present results seems inconsistent with the bout‐length‐as‐response‐class hypothesis: If reinforcement of bouts is expressed in a single population of bout lengths centered near the mean of reinforced bout lengths, why would there be two populations of bout lengths when there is only one ratio requirement (one response in VI 120‐s, five responses in tandem VT 120‐s FR 5)?…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

The distribution of response bout lengths and its sensitivity to differential reinforcement

Brackney

Sanabria

2015

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Response bouts are clusters of responses that occur in rapid succession and are punctuated by pauses during which the response does not occur. Under variable interval schedules of reinforcement, the number of responses in each bout (the bout length) varies among bouts. This experiment was aimed at determining whether the relative rate of reinforcement influenced the relative frequency of bouts of different lengths. Lever pressing in rats was reinforced under a tandem variable time (VT) 150-s fixed ratio (FR) X, where X could be 1 or 5 and varied randomly after each reinforcer. Two conditions were included: majority FR1 (mFR1) and majority FR5 (mFR5). In mFR1, 75% of reinforcers had a tandem FR requirement of 1 and 25% had a tandem FR requirement of 5; this distribution was reversed in mFR5. The dynamic bi-exponential refractory model of response bouts was fitted to the interresponse times (IRTs) in each condition. Model parameter estimates and IRTs were then used to simulate probable distributions of bout lengths. These distributions comprised a mixture of short geometrically-distributed bout lengths and long negative-binomially-distributed bout lengths. Long bouts were significantly longer in the mFR5 condition than in the mFR1 condition. In conjunction with previous data, the present study suggests that the prevalence of long bouts increases with the proportion of reinforcers with FR5 requirement. These results suggest that bouts of different lengths are sensitive to the rate at which they are reinforced.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

The distribution of response bout lengths and its sensitivity to differential reinforcement

Brackney

Sanabria

2015

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As was discussed in Tanno et al (2010), if we accept Herrnstein's (1970) notion that single schedules can be viewed as a choice situation between experimentally reinforced behavior and endogenously reinforced behavior, our conclusion is consistent with findings from Shull and colleagues (Shull, 2011;Shull, Gaynor, & Grimes, 2001;Shull & Grimes, 2003;Shull, Grimes, & Bennett, 2004) in single-schedule situations. They reported that responses (or IRTs) under single reinforcement schedules can be classified into bouts of responses or pauses, and that reinforcement frequency mainly affects the start of a bout (bout-initiation rate), whereas types of reinforcement schedule (VI and tandem VI-FR or tandem VI-VR) mainly affect the speed of responding within a bout (withinbout response rate).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…This idea is repeatedly discussed in the literature on the matching law (e.g., de Villiers, 1977;Nevin, 1982). The present results can be viewed as evidence in support of this thesis (see also Shull, 2011).…”

Section: Theoretical Implicationssupporting

confidence: 76%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Inter-response-time reinforcement and relative reinforcer frequency control choice

Tanno

Silberberg

2014

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Conditions 1 and 3 of our Experiment 1, rats pressed levers for food in a two-component multiple schedule. The first component was concurrent variable-ratio (VR) 20 variable-interval (VI) 90 s, and the second was concurrent yoked VI (its reinforcement rate equaled that of the prior component's VR) VI 90 s. In Condition 2, the VR was changed to tandem VR 20, differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL) 0.8 s. Local response rates were higher in the VR than in the yoked VI schedule, and this difference disappeared between tandem VR DRL and yoked VI. The relative time allocations to VR and yoked VI, as well as to tandem VR DRL and yoked VI, were approximately the same across conditions. In Experiment 2, rats chose in a single session between five different VI pairs, each lasting for 12 reinforcer presentations (variable-environment procedure). The across-schedule hourly reinforcement rates were 120 and 40, respectively, in Conditions 1-3 and 4-6. During Conditions 2 and 5, one lever's VI was changed to tandem VI, DRL 2 s. High covariation between relative time allocations and relative reinforcer frequencies, as well as invariance in local response rates to the schedules, was evident in all conditions. In addition, the relative local response rates were biased toward the unchanged VI in Conditions 2 and 5. These results demonstrate two-process control of choice: Inter-response-time reinforcement controls the local response rate, and relative reinforcer frequency controls relative time allocations.Keywords Matching law . Inter-response-time reinforcement . Time allocation . Local response rate . Rat . Lever pressHerrnstein and Heyman (1979) exposed pigeons to concurrent variable-ratio (VR) variable-interval (VI) schedules. They recorded the number of responses and reinforcers to each schedule, as well as the cumulative time that pigeons allocated to responding to a given schedule. Two of their findings were of note. First, manipulations of schedule values that produced changes in the relative VI rate of reinforcement were closely followed by similar changes in the relative time allocationsan outcome termed "matching" (see Baum, 1974). Second, they found that the local response rate (responses to a schedule/ time making consecutive responses to a schedule) was higher to the VR than to the VI schedule, a result often found when VR and VI schedules are presented individually (e.g., Peele, Casey, & Silberberg, 1984;Tanno & Sakagami, 2008). Tanno, Silberberg, and Sakagami (2010) suggested that these two results might be due to the operation of separate processes. Preference, expressed in terms of relative time allocations, might be controlled by the relative frequency of reinforcement, just as Herrnstein and Heyman (1979) suggested. Local response rate, on the other hand, might be controlled by the relation between the duration of the interval between two successive responses to a schedule (the interresponse time, or IRT) and the probability of reinforcement. Support for the latter attribution of the control ...

show abstract

“…Within each bout, short inter-response times (IRTs) separate individual responses; longer IRTs separate bouts (Brackney, Cheung, Herbst, Hill, & Sanabria, 2012; Brackney, Cheung, Neisewander, & Sanabria, 2011; Brackney & Sanabria, 2015; Hill, Herbst, & Sanabria, 2012; Johnson, Pesek, & Newland, 2009; Shull, Gaynor, & Grimes, 2001, 2002; Shull, 2004, 2011; Smith, McLean, Shull, Hughes, & Pitts, 2014; Tolkamp, Schweitzer, & Kyriazakis, 2000). The response bout has three characteristics: (a) the mean bout length , or how many responses the animal makes while in a bout, (b) the within-bout response rate , or how fast the animal responds while in a bout, and (c) the bout-initiation rate , or how frequently the animal begins a new bout.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A bout analysis of operant response disruption

Brackney

Cheung

Sanabria

2017

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Operant behavior appears to be organized in bouts of responses, whose parameters are differentially sensitive to various manipulations. This study investigated potential differential effects of three forms of operant response disruption—extinction (EXT), non-contingent reinforcement (NCR), and prefeeding (PRE)—on response bouts. In Experiment 1, Wistar Kyoto rats (WKY) were trained on a tandem variable-time (VT) 120 s fixed-ratio (FR) 5 schedule of reinforcement; after stability was established, their responding was disrupted for three sessions with one of the three disrupters (EXT, NCR, or PRE). In Experiment 2, Long Evans (LE) rats were trained on a tandem VT 240 s FR 5 to stability, and their responding disrupted with EXT or NCR. In EXT and NCR, response rates declined significantly and progressively over the course of the session, primarily due to a declining bout-initiation rate in EXT, and to fewer responses per bout in NCR. In contrast, a session-wide drop in response rate was observed in PRE, primarily due to a reduction in bout-initiation rate at the start of the session. These findings suggest that each form of disruption differentially impacts dissociable aspects of behavior. Theories of behavioral persistence should account for these functional relations, which appear to be obscured in response rate measures.

show abstract

Bouts, Changeovers, and Units of Operant Behavior

Cited by 33 publications

References 53 publications

The distribution of response bout lengths and its sensitivity to differential reinforcement

The distribution of response bout lengths and its sensitivity to differential reinforcement

Inter-response-time reinforcement and relative reinforcer frequency control choice

A bout analysis of operant response disruption

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About