Multiple determinants of “blocking” effects on operant behavior

Williams, Ben; Heyneman, Nicholas E.

doi:10.3758/bf03212049

Cited by 31 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Twoof them, an efficiency hypothesis Tarpy & Roberts, 1985) and a burst hypothesis (Lattal & Ziegler, 1982;Richards, 1981;Williams & Heyneman, 1982), also cannot account for the finding that the effects of the signal depended on its nature: the light or the tone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A third alternative account, the tracking hypothesis, is based on observing (Iversen, 1981), orienting Williams & Heyneman, 1982), or tracking (Reed, 1992;Roberts, Tarpy, & Cooney, 1985) behavior to a signal location. According to this hypothesis, pairing of the signal with the food elicits the behavior directed at the signal location and thus attenuates instrumental responding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Signaled reinforcement effects on fixed-interval performance of the rat

Nakajima

Kitaguchi

1996

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments using fixed-interval schedules with a 500-msec delay of reinforcement, rats receiving a localized light signal during the delay leverpressed more slowly than rats trained without the signal. In Experiment 1 these groups showed no differences in temporal patterning of responding, but in the remaining two experiments the signaled rats showed better patterning than the unsignaled rats. In Experiments 2 and 3 rats receiving a diffuse tone signal during the delay instead of a light pressed more rather than less rapidly than the unsignaled group. Their patterning was better than that of the unsignaled rats in one of these experiments. Several explanations for both the attenuation and enhancing effects of signaling reward are discussed, Animals trained on variable-interval (VI) schedules of briefly delayed reinforcement respond more slowly when an explicit signal stimulus fills the delay, At first, this phenomenon was interpreted as evidence that the signal overshadows an instrumental response or restricts the development of response-reinforcer association, resulting in the attenuation of the rate of responding (Dickinson,

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Signaled reinforcement effects on fixed-interval performance of the rat

Nakajima

Kitaguchi

1996

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are a host of other theories on instrumental signaling effects, including focus on factors such as reinforcement of response bursts (e.g., Hall, Channell, & Schachtman, 1987;Williams & Heyneman, 1982), sign tracking (Iversen, 1981), response-reinforcer associative strength , and response efficiency (e.g., Roberts, Tarpy, & Lea, 1984); however, none of these theories can explain all of the reported findings. In the present experiments, we sought to further examine the influence of response-reinforcer correlation on signaled reinforcement effects using a variety of schedules with the components that potentially influence the correlation between responding and reinforcement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 60%

“…The presentfindings suggestthat the response-reinforcer correlation (at least in the direct, simple sense that was examined in these experiments) is not the critical factor underlying such effects. Thus, the sensitivity of signaling effects to factors such as the duration of the reinforcement delay (e.g., Schachtman et al, 1987;Williams & Heyneman, 1982), interval versus ratio schedules (Experiment 1 above; Reed et al, 1988a;Roberts et al, 1984), schedules thatspecifically reinforce high (DRH) and low (DRL) rates of responding (Tarpy & Roberts, 1985),and the strictness of the ratio criterion (Reed et al, 1988a) does not appear to be the result of different response-reinforcer correlations per se, but may reflecttheeffects of the signal on the structure of behavior and, therefore, the responsethat makescontact with the reinforcer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, a signal-induced enhancement in response rate results if a long interval (e.g., 3 sec) is scheduled between the response that precedes food and food delivery (Richards, 1981;Schachtman, Reed, & Hall, 1987;Williams & Heyneman, 1982). Schachtman et al (1987) interpreted these findings as indicative of the importance of the contiguity between response and reinforcement in determining when signaling reinforcement will produce an attenuation of performance (i.e., instrumental overshadowing) or an enhancement of responding (i.e., instrumental potentiation).…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of response-reinforcer correlation in signaled reinforcement effects

Schachtman

Reed

1990

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, we examined the effectsof signaling reinforcement during operant responding in order to illuminate the factors underlying instrumental overshadowing and potentiation effects. Specifically, we examined whether signaling reinforcement produces an enhancement and attentuation of responding when the response-reinforcer correlation is weak and strong, respectively. In Experiment 1, rats responded on variable-ratio (VR) or variable-interval (VI) schedules that were equated for the number ofresponses emitted per reinforcer. A signal correlated with reinforcement enhanced response rates on the VR schedule, but attenuated response rates were produced by the signal on the VI schedule. In Experiment 2, two groups of rats responded on a VI schedule while the two other groups received a conjoint VI, negative fixed-ratio schedule in which the subjects lost the availability of reinforcements if they emitted high response rates. A reinforcement signal attenuated responding for the simple VI groups but not for the animals given the negative fixed-ratio component, although the signal improved response efficiency in both groups. In Experiment 3, a poor correlation between responding and reinforcement was produced by a VI schedule onto which the delivery of response-independent food was superimposed. A signal for reinforcement initially elevated responding on this schedule, relative to an unsignaled condition; however, this pattern was reversed with further training. In sum, the present experiments provide little support for the view that signaling reinforcement enhances responding when the response-reinforcer correlation is weak and attenuates responding when this correlation is strong.Signaling a brief delay of reinforcement (500 msec) on a variable-interval (VI) schedule attenuates levels of responding relative to an unsignaled control condition. In contrast, a signal-induced enhancement in response rate results if a long interval (e.g., 3 sec) is scheduled between the response that precedes food and food delivery (Richards, 1981;Schachtman, Reed, & Hall, 1987;Williams & Heyneman, 1982). Schachtman et al. (1987) interpreted these findings as indicative of the importance of the contiguity between response and reinforcement in determining when signaling reinforcement will produce an attenuation of performance (i.e., instrumental overshadowing) or an enhancement of responding (i.e., instrumental potentiation). A very brief delay of reinforcement is presumed to result in a strong response-reinforcer

show abstract