Temporal Control on Interval Schedules: What Determines the Postreinforcement Pause?

Innis, Nancy K.; Mitchell, Stephen K.; Staddon, J. E. R.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1993.60-293

Cited by 20 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We suggest that rats are just trying to preserve the overall reinforcing rate. Indeed, any portion of time elapsed because of imposed delays is reflected by a nearly equivalent narrowing of the spontaneous waiting (RT), as predicted according to a linear waiting model (Innis and Staddon, 1971; see also Innis et al, 1993;Ludvig and Staddon, 2004;Staddon and Cerutti, 2003). However, when delay lengths are further increased (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…There is considerable literature on rat's spontaneous waiting before initiating the next trial. A formal model of voluntary waiting, termed "linear waiting model", has been developed Innis et al, 1993). These authors demonstrated that duration of pauses following food presentation (termed post-reinforcement pauses, PRP) was determined by the preceding inter-food interval.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cognitive impulsivity in animal models: Role of response time and reinforcing rate in delay intolerance with two-choice operant tasks

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tImpulsivity, a key symptom of ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder), is also common in obsessive-compulsive and addictive disorders. There is rising interest in animal models of inhibitorycontrol impairment. Adolescent rats were tested daily in the intolerance-to-delay (ID) task (session 25 min, timeout 20 s), involving choice between either immediate small amount of food (SS), or larger amount of food after a delay (LL). The mixed 5-HT(1A/7) agonist (8-OH-DPAT, 0 or 0.060 mg/kg i.p.) was administered acutely just before the last three sessions at highest delays. In addition to the classical choice parameter (percent LL preference), the spontaneous waiting (termed response time, RT) occurring between end of a timeout (TO) and next nose-poke was calculated. The pace between consecutive reinforcer deliveries is given by the mean inter-trial interval (mITI, i.e. TO þ RT). Hence, the impact of any given delay may be proportional to this pace and be expressed as delay-equivalent odds, i.e. the extent by which delays are multiples of the mITI. Data revealed that RT/mITI increased sharply from around 15 s/ 35 s to around 30 s/50 s when imposed delay changed from 30 s to 45 s (i.e. odds from 0.91 to 1.06). This suggests that rats adopted a strategy allowing them to keep in pace with perceived reinforcing rate. The increasing delay constraint directly influenced the length of rats' spontaneous waiting (RT) before next decision. For higher delays, with odds >1, rats shifted to a clear-cut SS preference, which is devoid of any exogenous temporal constraint. A challenge with 8-OH-DPAT (0 or 0.060 mg/kg i.p.) decreased impulsive choice but also increased RT. Thus, tapping onto 5-HT(1A/7) receptors slightly enhanced RT/mITI values, possibly reflecting ability of rats to cope with slower reinforcing rates and/or with delay-cancelled reward paces. In summary, delay-induced states of aversion may arise from the innate tendency to rely on a regular rate of reinforcement. Conversely, a drug-enhanced capacity to cope with delay may involve an internal ability to adjust expectancy about such a reinforcing rate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive impulsivity in animal models: Role of response time and reinforcing rate in delay intolerance with two-choice operant tasks

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Under cyclic FI schedules, when the changes in interval length are orderly, this pause tracks changes in interval length. Innis, Mitchell, and Staddon (1993), using responseinitiated delay schedules with pigeons, showed that the just-experienced IFI influenced pause duration rather than the upcoming one, and they also found that earlier intervals might also have some influence. This was not the effect seen under the present procedure with FR schedules.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of a Signaled Delay to Reinforcement in the Previous and Upcoming Ratios on Between‐ratio Pausing in Fixed‐ratio Schedules

Harris¹,

Foster²,

Levine³

et al. 2012

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Domestic hens responded under multiple fixed‐ratio fixed‐ratio schedules with equal fixed ratios. One component provided immediate reinforcement and the other provided reinforcement after a delay, signaled by the offset of the key light. The components were presented quasirandomly so that all four possible transitions occurred in each session. The delay was varied over 0, 4, 8, 16, and 32 s with fixed‐ratio 5 schedules, and over 0, 8 and 32 s with fixed‐ratio 1, 15 and 40 schedules. Main effects of fixed‐ratio value and delay duration were detected on between‐ratio pauses. Pauses were longer when the multiple‐schedule stimulus correlated with a delayed‐reinforcer component was presented, with the longest pauses occurring at the transition from a component with an immediate reinforcer to one with a delayed reinforcer. Pause durations were shortest during immediate components. Overall, both the presence or absence of a delay in the upcoming component, and the presence or absence of a delay in the preceding component affected pause length, but the upcoming delay had the larger effect. Thus changes in delay had similar effects to past reports of the effects of changes in response force, response requirement, and reinforcer magnitude in multiple fixed‐ratio fixed‐ratio schedules.

show abstract

“…A study by Innis et al (1993) provides a dynamic test of the linear waiting hypothesis as applied to chain schedules. Innis et al studied two-link chain schedules with one link of fixed duration and the other varying from reinforcer to reinforcer according to a triangular cycle.…”

Section: Chain Schedulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Operant Conditioning

Staddon

Cerutti

2003

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

Self Cite

343

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

Temporal Control on Interval Schedules: What Determines the Postreinforcement Pause?

Cited by 20 publications

References 14 publications

Cognitive impulsivity in animal models: Role of response time and reinforcing rate in delay intolerance with two-choice operant tasks

Cognitive impulsivity in animal models: Role of response time and reinforcing rate in delay intolerance with two-choice operant tasks

Effects of a Signaled Delay to Reinforcement in the Previous and Upcoming Ratios on Between‐ratio Pausing in Fixed‐ratio Schedules

Operant Conditioning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About