Differential reinforcement and resistance to change of divided-attention performance

Podlesnik, Christopher A.; Thrailkill, Eric A.; Shahan, Timothy A.

doi:10.3758/s13420-011-0052-4

Cited by 9 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A few exceptions to the finding that resistance to disruption is independent of baseline response-reinforcer relations have been noted (e.g., Lattal, 1989;Nevin, Grace, Holland, & McLean, 2001; but the role of stimulus-reinforcer relations in determining resistance to change is robust. Similar findings have been observed across a variety of species, and response and reinforcer manipulations (Ahearn, Clark, Gardenier, Chung, & Dube, 2003;Bai & Podlesnik, 2017;Cohen, 1996;Grimes & Shull, 2001;Harper, 1999;Igaki & Sakagami, 2004;Kuroda, Cançado, & Podlesnik, 2016;Mace et al, 1990;Podlesnik & Jimenez-Gomez, 2016;Podlesnik, Thrailkill, & Shahan, 2012;Shahan & Burke, 2004;; but see Podlesnik & Fleet, 2014). Nevin et al's (1990) findings show that reinforcing a concurrently available response enhances the stimulus-reinforcer relation associated with responding in the presence of the target discriminative stimulus.…”

supporting

confidence: 67%

Generalization of the disruptive effects of alternative stimuli when combined with target stimuli in extinction

Podlesnik

Miranda-Dukoski

Chan

et al. 2017

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differential-reinforcement treatments reduce target problem behavior in the short term but at the expense of making it more persistent long term. Basic and translational research based on behavioral momentum theory suggests that combining features of stimuli governing an alternative response with the stimuli governing target responding could make target responding less persistent. However, changes to the alternative stimulus context when combining alternative and target stimuli could diminish the effectiveness of the alternative stimulus in reducing target responding. In an animal model with pigeons, the present study reinforced responding in the presence of target and alternative stimuli. When combining the alternative and target stimuli during extinction, we altered the alternative stimulus through changes in line orientation. We found that (1) combining alternative and target stimuli in extinction more effectively decreased target responding than presenting the target stimulus on its own; (2) combining these stimuli was more effective in decreasing target responding trained with lower reinforcement rates; and (3) changing the alternative stimulus reduced its effectiveness when it was combined with the target stimulus. Therefore, changing alternative stimuli (e.g., therapist, clinical setting) during behavioral treatments that combine alternative and target stimuli could reduce the effectiveness of those treatments in disrupting problem behavior.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 67%

Generalization of the disruptive effects of alternative stimuli when combined with target stimuli in extinction

Podlesnik

Miranda-Dukoski

Chan

et al. 2017

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Why this is the case remains unanswered; presently, not enough is known about how relative reinforcer rates determine divided attention with different stimulus configurations. Although we found that relative reinforcer rates determine divided attention, one aspect of our results differs substantially from past research: In past research, pigeons preferred the comparison matching the stimulus associated with the higher reinforcer rate (Davison & Elliffe, 2010;Podlesnik et al, 2012;Shahan & Podlesnik, 2006, 2007, whereas such preference was weak in the present experiment (see Fig. 3).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, divided attention between the two stimulus dimensions varied systematically with the reinforcer rates associated with those dimensions. Shahan and Podlesnik's (2006) findings have been replicated several times, using both identity and symbolic DMTS tasks, different stimulus dimensions (e.g., duration, response location), and a wide range of reinforcement probabilities (Davison, 2018a;Davison & Elliffe, 2010;Podlesnik, Thrailkill, & Shahan, 2012;Shahan & Podlesnik, 2007; see also Galloway, 1967;Galloway & Petre, 1968;Morey, Cowan, Morey, & Rouder, 2011). Additionally, Podlesnik et al (2012) showed that the persistence of attending depends on overall reinforcer rates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

“…Shahan and Podlesnik's (2006) findings have been replicated several times, using both identity and symbolic DMTS tasks, different stimulus dimensions (e.g., duration, response location), and a wide range of reinforcement probabilities (Davison, 2018a;Davison & Elliffe, 2010;Podlesnik, Thrailkill, & Shahan, 2012;Shahan & Podlesnik, 2007; see also Galloway, 1967;Galloway & Petre, 1968;Morey, Cowan, Morey, & Rouder, 2011). Additionally, Podlesnik et al (2012) showed that the persistence of attending depends on overall reinforcer rates. They arranged the same procedure as Shahan and Podlesnik and found that when reinforcers were removed or the pigeons were fed before the experimental session, accuracy declined more slowly in a context associated with a higher overall reinforcer rate (signaled by a yellow stimulus) compared with a context associated with a lower overall reinforcer rate (signaled by a red stimulus).…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

“…Previous research suggests that the division of attention between the dimensions of a compound stimulus depends on the relative reinforcer rates associated with each dimension (Davison, 2018a;Davison & Elliffe, 2010;Podlesnik et al, 2012;Shahan & Podlesnik, 2006, 2007. We investigated whether this was also the case when the stimulus dimensions were trained separately before being presented simultaneously with pigeons.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Relative reinforcer rates determine pigeons’ attention allocation when separately trained stimuli are presented together

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research suggests that organisms allocate more attention to stimuli associated with higher reinforcer rates. This finding has been replicated several times when stimuli are trained together as compounds, but not in other procedures. Thus, the generality of the relation between relative reinforcer rates and divided attention is not well established. Therefore, we investigated whether relative reinforcer rates determine attention allocation when stimuli are trained separately and then encountered together. Pigeons learned to associate two colors and two frequencies of key light on/off alternation with a left or right comparison key in a symbolic 0-s delayed matching-to-sample task. Across conditions, we varied the probability of reinforcement associated with each stimulus dimension during training. After training, we introduced test trials in which a color and flash-frequency stimulus were presented simultaneously. During sample-stimulus presentation in test trials, all pigeons preferred the stimulus associated with the higher reinforcer rate, suggesting that more attention was allocated to that stimulus. Interestingly, such attention allocation did not result in preference for the comparison that matched that stimulus. Instead, all pigeons preferred the comparison that was physically closer to the stimulus associated with the higher reinforcer rate, suggesting that comparison choice was controlled by the location of that stimulus. Nevertheless, overall, our results provide the first evidence that relative reinforcer rates determine divided attention between separately trained stimuli and thus demonstrate the generality of the relation between relative reinforcement and attention allocation. We suggest several avenues for future research to establish further the generality of this relation.

show abstract

Divided stimulus control depends on differential and nondifferential reinforcement: Testing a quantitative model

Gomes-Ng

Cowie

Elliffe

2023

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the effects of differential and nondifferential reinforcers on divided control by compound‐stimulus dimensions. Six pigeons responded in a delayed matching‐to‐sample procedure in which a blue or yellow sample stimulus flashed on/off at a fast or slow rate, and subjects reported its color or alternation frequency. The dimension to report was unsignaled (Phase 1) or signaled (Phase 2). Correct responses were reinforced with a probability of .70, and the probability of reinforcers for errors varied across conditions. Comparison choice depended on reinforcer ratios for correct and incorrect responding; as the frequency of error reinforcers according to a dimension increased, control (measured by log d) by that dimension decreased and control by the other dimension increased. Davison and Nevin's (1999) model described data when the dimension to report was unsignaled, whereas model fits were poorer when it was signaled, perhaps due to carryover between conditions. We are the first to test this quantitative model of divided control with reinforcers for errors and when the dimension to report is signaled; hence, further research is needed to establish the model's generality. We question whether divided stimulus control is dimensional and suggest it may instead reflect joint control by compound stimuli and reinforcer ratios.

show abstract

Differential reinforcement and resistance to change of divided-attention performance

Cited by 9 publications

References 43 publications

Generalization of the disruptive effects of alternative stimuli when combined with target stimuli in extinction

Generalization of the disruptive effects of alternative stimuli when combined with target stimuli in extinction

Relative reinforcer rates determine pigeons’ attention allocation when separately trained stimuli are presented together

Divided stimulus control depends on differential and nondifferential reinforcement: Testing a quantitative model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About