Effects of signaling on temporal control of behavior in response‐initiated fixed intervals

Abstract

Behavior and events distributed in time can serve as markers that signal delays to future events. The majority of timing research has focused on how behavior changes as the time to some event, usually food availability, decreases. The primary objective of the two experiments presented here was to assess how behavior changes as time passes between two time markers when the first time marker was manipulated but the second, food delivery, was held constant. Pigeons were exposed to fixed-interval, response-initiated fixed-interval, and signaled response-initiated fixed-interval 15- and 30-s schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, first-response latencies were systematically shorter in the signaled response-initiated schedules than response-initiated schedules, suggesting that the first response was a more effective time marker when it was signaled. In Experiment 2, responding in no-food (i.e. "peak") trials indicated that timing accuracy was equivalent in the three schedule types. Compared to fixed interval schedules, timing precision was reduced in the signaled response-initiated schedules and was lowest in response-initiated schedules. Results from Experiments 1 and 2 coupled with previous research suggest that the overall "informativeness" of a time marker relative to other events and behaviors in the environment may determine its efficacy.

Timing and delay discounting in attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A translational approach

“…The delay‐discounting task consisted of repeated choices between an SSR and an LLR. The SSR was always a signaled response‐initiated fixed‐interval (RIFI) 5‐s schedule (Fox & Kyonka, 2013, 2015, 2016), resulting in the delivery of one food pellet. The LLR was a signaled RIFI schedule with delays of 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, and 40 s, resulting in the delivery of two food pellets.…”

Effects of immediate‐reinforcement training on delay discounting behavior in rats

“…We used a task modeled after one reported by Green and Estle (2003), which has demonstrated strong test-retest reliability and superior discrimination of delays compared to other similar tasks (Peterson et al, 2015). In the task, the SSR option was always a signaled response-initiated fixedinterval (RIFI) 5-s schedule (Fox & Kyonka, 2016) resulting in the delivery of one food pellet, and the LLR option was a signaled-RIFI schedule with delays of 10, 20, and 30 s resulting in the delivery of two food pellets. For both options, a single response was required to initiate the FI and resulted in the illumination of the corresponding light above the lever and the retraction of the alternative lever.…”

Translating Behavior Analysis: a Spectrum Rather than a Road Map

“…Preference for generalized tokens was sensitive to their price relative to the available alternatives. Fox and Kyonka (2016) evaluated how changing the location and color of an illuminated response key affected the pigeons' ability to use their own behavior as temporal cues in interval schedules of food reinforcement. They found that signaled responses were more effective time markers than unsignaled responses but less effective time markers than stimulus changes that were not response contingent.…”