2015
DOI: 10.1002/jeab.168
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The distribution of response bout lengths and its sensitivity to differential reinforcement

Abstract: Response bouts are clusters of responses that occur in rapid succession and are punctuated by pauses during which the response does not occur. Under variable interval schedules of reinforcement, the number of responses in each bout (the bout length) varies among bouts. This experiment was aimed at determining whether the relative rate of reinforcement influenced the relative frequency of bouts of different lengths. Lever pressing in rats was reinforced under a tandem variable time (VT) 150-s fixed ratio (FR) X… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
30
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
3
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The effects of these changes were generally consistent in two strains of rat, WKY (Experiment 1) and LE (Experiment 2): whereas NCR primarily reduced bout length, EXT and PRE primarily reduced bout-initiation rate, with EXT accelerating its decline over the course of the session and PRE reducing it at the onset of the session (the latter yielding a reduction in response rate by a constant proportion across the whole session). These results suggest that rate of reinforcement and reinforcer efficacy primarily control the rate at which response bouts are initiated (Brackney et al, 2011; Podlesnik et al, 2006; Reed, 2011, 2015; Shull, 2004; Shull et al, 2001, 2004; Shull & Grimes, 2003), whereas response-reinforcement contingency primarily controls the length of those bouts (Brackney & Sanabria, 2015; Reed, 2011; Shull et al, 2001, 2004; Shull & Grimes, 2003; Tanno, 2016). The dissociability of motivational processes and schedule control is a key feature of various theories of operant performance (e.g., Baum, 2012; Killeen, 1994), which the analysis of operant bouts may aid in quantifying.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…The effects of these changes were generally consistent in two strains of rat, WKY (Experiment 1) and LE (Experiment 2): whereas NCR primarily reduced bout length, EXT and PRE primarily reduced bout-initiation rate, with EXT accelerating its decline over the course of the session and PRE reducing it at the onset of the session (the latter yielding a reduction in response rate by a constant proportion across the whole session). These results suggest that rate of reinforcement and reinforcer efficacy primarily control the rate at which response bouts are initiated (Brackney et al, 2011; Podlesnik et al, 2006; Reed, 2011, 2015; Shull, 2004; Shull et al, 2001, 2004; Shull & Grimes, 2003), whereas response-reinforcement contingency primarily controls the length of those bouts (Brackney & Sanabria, 2015; Reed, 2011; Shull et al, 2001, 2004; Shull & Grimes, 2003; Tanno, 2016). The dissociability of motivational processes and schedule control is a key feature of various theories of operant performance (e.g., Baum, 2012; Killeen, 1994), which the analysis of operant bouts may aid in quantifying.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…An alternative method involves defining a cutoff IRT length, below which IRTs are classified as within-bout , and above which IRTs are classified as between-bouts (Mellgren & Elsmore, 1991; Shull et al, 2002). This method has multiple limitations, including a high likelihood of misclassifying short between-bout IRTs as within-bout IRTs 2 , and setting a ceiling to within-bout IRTs at an arbitrary cutoff length (Brackney & Sanabria, 2015). An alternative method assumes that parameters L t , w t , and b t decay exponentially over the course of each disrupter session.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Thus, the minimum of the scale was log 10 of 5. Notably, more sophisticated scaling functions exist, especially in the interval timing and choice behavior literatures (e.g., Brackney & Sanabria, 2015; Daniels & Sanabria, 2017; Kruschke, 2001). …”
Section: An Application To Retrospective Revaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%