The distribution of observing responses during two VI schedules

On multiple fixed-ratio schedules, pausing is extended at the start of a component ending in a small reinforcer (a lean component) but only when this component follows a component ending in a large reinforcer (a rich component). In two experiments, we assessed whether a stimulus correlated with a lean component is aversive and how its function is affected by the preceding component. In Experiment 1, pigeons responded on mixed fixed-ratio schedules ending in large or small reinforcers. Observing responses converted the mixed schedule to a multiple one by producing a stimulus correlated with the current component. Overall, the lean stimulus did not suppress observing, suggesting that it was not sufficiently aversive. In Experiment 2, an escape procedure was used, and pigeons could convert a multiple schedule to a mixed one by pecking a key to remove the discriminative stimuli. Pigeons escaped from the lean-schedule stimulus more than they did from the rich one. For two pigeons, this effect was enhanced when a rich component preceded the lean stimulus. The results indicate that a stimulus correlated with the leaner of two reinforcement schedules can acquire aversive functions, but observing and escape procedures may differ in their abilities to detect this effect.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Behavioral functions of stimuli signaling transitions across rich and lean schedules of reinforcement

Everly

Holtyn

Perone

2014

“…Selective observing has been hypothesized to occur during these procedures, and the present data show that it can. These data also support the proposed mechanism that produces selective observing; specifically, that Sϩ sets the occasion for maintenance of observing, whereas SϪ sets the occasion for termination (Branch, 1970;Dinsmoor, 1983Dinsmoor, , 1985Dinsmoor et al, 1982). A criticism of extending the selective observing interpretation to experimentercontrolled procedures has been that null findings could be interpreted as consistent with selective observing due to differential natural termination of stimuli.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

The Generality of Selective Observing

Gaynor

Shull

2002

Four rats obtained food pellets by poking a key and 5-s presentations of the discriminative stimuli by pressing a lever. Every 1 or 2 min, the prevailing schedule of reinforcement for key poking alternated between rich (either variable-interval [VI] 30 s or VI 60 s) and lean (either VI 240 s, VI 480 s, or extinction) components. While the key was dark (mixed-schedule stimulus), no exteroceptive stimulus indicated the prevailing schedule. A lever press (i.e., an observing response), however, illuminated the key for 5 s with either a steady light (Sϩ), signaling the rich reinforcement schedule, or a blinking light (SϪ), signaling the lean reinforcement schedule. One goal was to determine whether rats would engage in selective observing (i.e., a pattern of responding that maintains contact with Sϩ and decreases contact with SϪ). Such a pattern was found, in that a 5-s presentation of Sϩ was followed relatively quickly by another observing response (which likely produced another 5-s period of Sϩ), whereas exposure to SϪ resulted in extended breaks from observing. Additional conditions demonstrated that the rate of observing remained high when lever presses were effective only when the rich reinforcement schedule was in effect (Sϩ only condition), but decreased to a low level when lever presses were effective only during the lean reinforcement component (SϪ only condition) or when lever presses had no effect (in removing the mixed stimulus or presenting the multiple-schedule stimuli). These findings are consistent with relativistic conceptualizations of conditioned reinforcement and extend the generality of selective observing to procedures in which the experimenter controls the duration of stimulus presentations, the schedule components both offer intermittent food reinforcement, and rats serve as subjects.Key words: observing behavior, selective observing, conditioned reinforcement, key poke, ratsObserving responses bring sensory receptors into contact with stimuli that signal the availability of primary reinforcement, but do not alter that availability (Wycoff, 1952(Wycoff, , 1969. It appears, then, that such responding is maintained by production of the discriminative stimuli rather than by production of primary reinforcement. As such, observing behavior has been important in the study of stimulus control (Dinsmoor, 1985(Dinsmoor, , 1995Wycoff, 1952Wycoff, , 1969 and conditioned reinforcement (Dinsmoor, 1983;Fantino, 1977Fantino, , 2001Hendry, 1969).A typical method for studying observing behavior consists first of training on a multiple schedule. For example, a pigeon can obtain food by key pecking in the presence of This research was conducted at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (IBN-9511934 and IBN-0125093) to UNCG.Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Scott T. Gaynor, Western Michigan University, Department of Psychology, 3530 Wood Hall, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008-5439 (e-mail: scott.gaynor@wmich.edu) or Richard L...

“…In both cases, the stimulus that maintained observing-key behavior signalled the shorter relative interreinforcement interval or, in other words, signalled the high relative rate of reinforcement component, which in one case was Fl and in another case FR. This finding is complemented by a study using VI schedules (Branch, 1970) Dinsmoor et al, 1972) in a situation where one stimulus signalled a random-interval schedule of reinforcement and another stimulus signalled extinction. Similarly, in the present study pigeons responded to produce the stimulus signalling the shorter IRI or high relative rate of reinforcement condition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

CONTEXT, OBSERVING BEHAVIOR, AND CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT¹

Auge

1974

Pigeons made observing responses for stimuli signalling either a fixed-interval 30-sec schedule or a fixed-ratio x schedule, where x was either 20, 30, 100, 140, or 200 and the schedules alternated at random after reinforcement. If observing responses did not occur, food-producing responses occurred to a stimulus common to both reinforcement schedules. When the fixed-interval schedule was paired with a low-value fixed ratio, i.e., 20 or 30, the presentation of the stimulus reliably signalling the fixed-ratio schedule reinforced observing behavior, but the presentation of the stimulus reliably signalling the fixed-interval schedule did not. The converse was the case when the fixed-interval schedule was paired with a large-valued fixed ratio, i.e., 100, 140, or 200. The results demonstrated that the occasional presentation of the stimulus signalling the shorter interreinforcement interval was necessary for the maintenance of observing behavior. The reinforcement relationship was a function of the schedule context and was reversed by changing the context. Taken together, the results show that the establishment and measurement of conditioned reinforcement is dependent upon the context or environment in which stimuli reliably correlated with differential events occur.A conditioned reinforcer is a stimulus that has become effective as a reinforcer because it has signalled the availability of a primary reinforcer, i.e., a biologically important stimulus, or another conditioned reinforcer. A stimulus acquires conditioned reinforcing strength because of a specified experimental history of conditioning; in other words, through association with a primary reinforcer by a pairing or chaining operation.