On the Applied Use of Progressive‐ratio Schedules of Reinforcement

Diet-induced obesity blunts the behavioural effects of ghrelin: studies in a mouse-progressive ratio task

“…Fixed and progressive ratio schedules of operant responding are well-utilized tasks to assess the rewarding aspects and reinforcing potency of addictive drugs or natural rewards in animals and humans (Haney et al 2011;Richardson and Roberts 1996;Roane 2008;Sofuoglu et al 2011;Stoops et al 2010;Vlachou and Markou 2010). Whereas in a fixed ratio schedule the respond-demand increases between sessions, it increases in progressive ratio tasks within a session, often in an exponential fashion (Arnold and Roberts 1997).…”

Including unfamiliar stimuli in preference assessments for young children with autism

“…reinforced on independent PR schedules (Roane, 2008). Each time the participant met the criterion for reinforcer delivery on a response option, the subsequent reinforcer criterion for that response option was increased, such that the progressive response requirement schedule was 1,2,4,8,12,18, and remained at increases of 6 until responding ceased for 2 min.…”

Using a Progressive Ratio Schedule of Reinforcement as an Assessment Tool to Inform Treatment

“…Differential reinforcement . Behavioral assessment A progressive ratio (PR) schedule of reinforcement is defined by an increasing response requirement for reinforcer delivery over successive sessions (DeLeon et al 1997), or trial-by-trial basis within a single session (Hodos 1961;Roane 2008). For instance, when a child emits a predetermined number of responses (e.g., hand raising five times in a classroom), a reinforcer is delivered (e.g., teacher calls on child).…”

“…For instance, when a child emits a predetermined number of responses (e.g., hand raising five times in a classroom), a reinforcer is delivered (e.g., teacher calls on child). After delivery of the reinforcer, subsequent response requirements can increase a variety of ways, including stepwise (e.g., increasing the number of responses from 5 to 6, then 7, then 8, and so forth), algorithmic (e.g., additively or geometrically), response topography (e.g., specific target response either occurs or stops occurring), session-termination criteria (e.g., specific amount of time elapses between responses, or after a total amount of time elapses within the session), and the amount of reinforces delivered (see also Roane, 2008 for similar overview). Stepwise increases in response requirements have been useful in identifying preference for stimuli used as reinforcers across increased response requirements (Tustin 1994;DeLeon et al 1997), and reinforcer efficacy across differentiated response requirements (Roane et al 2001).…”