Response Rate Viewed as Engagement Bouts: Effects of Relative Reinforcement and Schedule Type

Shull, Richard L.; Gaynor, Scott T.; Grimes, Julie A.

doi:10.1901/jeab.2001.75-247

Cited by 130 publications

(348 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

307

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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: 90%

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

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

Tanno

Silberberg

2014

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Describing the full response distribution as a mixture of a Poisson pdf and a zero distribution is similar to other mixture-model approaches that have successfully described the distribution of response intervals in instrumental conditioning paradigms using variable-interval schedules of reinforcement (e.g., Brackney, Cheung, Neisewander, & Sanabria, 2011;Shull, Gaynor, & Grimes, 2001;Shull, Grimes, & Bennett, 2004). A notable difference between those approaches and the current one is that those approaches model behavior as a mixture of two Poisson processes, one describing high response rates (during response bouts) and the other capturing long response intervals (pauses between bouts).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Changes in the distribution of response rates across the CS-US interval: Evidence that responding switches between two distinct states.

Harris

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments used the peak procedure to examine timing of conditioned responses in a magazine approach paradigm with rats. A conditioned stimulus (CS) was reinforced with food on 50% of trials. Food was delivered at a fixed time, either 20 s, 30 s or 40 s into the CS presentation. Response rates were recorded during non-reinforced CS presentations that extended well beyond the scheduled time of food delivery. The mean response rate (averaged over many trials) increased during the CS, peaking at the expected time of reinforcement, and decreased again. Detailed analyses of the frequency distribution of response rates showed that responding was described by two distinct distributions, consistent with the rat being in a low response state on some trials and in a high response state on other trials. Modeling of these frequency distributions showed that the systematic rise and fall in response rate across a trial was primarily explained by a change in the proportion of time that the rat spent in the low versus high response state. However, the change in responding was also explained in part by a continuous shift in the high response state, such that responding in that state increased and then decreased gradually across the trial. These results support accounts that describe response timing as an abrupt change from low to high responding during the CS, but also provide evidence for a continuous change in conditioning strength across the duration of the CS. The implications of these findings for timing and associative theories of conditioning are discussed.

show abstract

“…We lack any theoretical account of concurrent fixed-interval-fixed-interval and fixed-intervalvariable-interval schedules. However, a recent study by Shull et al (2001;see also Shull 1979) suggests that response rate may not capture what is going on even on simple variableinterval schedules, where the time to initiate bouts of relatively fixed-rate responding seems to be a more sensitive dependent measure than overall response rate. More attention to the role of temporal variables in choice is called for.…”

Section: Concurrent-chain Schedulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Operant Conditioning

Staddon

Cerutti

2003

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

342

213

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Operant behavior is behavior "controlled" by its consequences. In practice, operant conditioning is the study of reversible behavior maintained by reinforcement schedules. We review empirical studies and theoretical approaches to two large classes of operant behavior: interval timing and choice. We discuss cognitive versus behavioral approaches to timing, the "gap" experiment and its implications, proportional timing and Weber's law, temporal dynamics and linear waiting, and the problem of simple chain-interval schedules. We review the long history of research on operant choice: the matching law, its extensions and problems, concurrent chain schedules, and self-control. We point out how linear waiting may be involved in timing, choice, and reinforcement schedules generally. There are prospects for a unified approach to all these areas.

show abstract

Response Rate Viewed as Engagement Bouts: Effects of Relative Reinforcement and Schedule Type

Cited by 130 publications

References 40 publications

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

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

Changes in the distribution of response rates across the CS-US interval: Evidence that responding switches between two distinct states.

Operant Conditioning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About