The effect of delayed reinforcement on DRL conditioning

Meltzer, Donald; Maxey, G. C.; Merkler, Norman L.

doi:10.3758/bf03343482

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If this is the case, bursts, or "double pecks," may be best considered part of the pigeon's response topography, and thus a variant of the peck. This opinion seems to have been accepted by several investigators since several recent articles have appeared in which bursts were either ignored or treated separately, with the result that the remaining data appeared somewhat clearer and consistent (Meltzer & Brahlek, 1967;Meltzer, Maxey, & Merkler, 1965;Trumble, Switalski, & Gilbard, 1968).…”

Section: Burstsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Differential reinforcement of low rates: A selective critique.

Krämer¹,

Rilling²

1970

Psychological Bulletin

182

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature relevant to the differential reinforcement of low rates of responding (DRL) is reviewed with respect to measurement of the behavior, bursts of responding, sequential dependencies, extinction and reconditioning, comparative aspects, punishment, reinforcement of two interresponse times, amount of deprivation and reinforcement, behavioral contrast, stimulus generalization, and response generalization. This review suggests that (a) bursts of responding could be due to a lack of stimulus feedback, (6) similar interresponse times tend to follow each other, (c) the development of mediating behavior is correlated with responding which is more appropriate to the schedule contingencies, and (d) subjects "preferred" short interresponse times. The shape of the stimulus generalization gradients after training on a DRL schedule is either peaked, flat, or inverted depending on the schedule value and prior training. Studies loosely concerned with response generalization suggest that responding under this schedule may be qualitatively different from responding under a variable-interval schedule. Experimental approaches for investigating the possible inhibitory and/or aversive properties of differential reinforcement are indicated. 225 1970 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

show abstract

Section: Burstsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Differential reinforcement of low rates: A selective critique.

Krämer¹,

Rilling²

1970

Psychological Bulletin

182

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, with a 10-sec unsignaled delay 39 to 60%0 of the responses, depending on the subject, had IRTs equal to or greater than the required 20 sec. To the author's knowledge, only two other published studies (Meltzer & Brahlek, 1967;Meltzer, Maxey, & Merkler, 1965) have examined the effects of delayed reinforcement on DRL performance. Unfortunately, a comparison between the results of these studies is difficult because Meltzer and his coworkers did not include an immediate reinforcement condition and because they presented only an incomplete interresponse time (IRT) analysis without any actual response rate data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Signaled and Unsignaled Delay of Reinforcement

Richards

1981

J Exper Analysis Behavior

117

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons were trained on either a variable-interval 60-second schedule, or on a schedule that differentially reinforced responses that were spaced at least 20 seconds apart. The birds were then exposed to several durations of reinforcement delay, with comparisons between signaled and unsignaled delays. Although unsignaled delays of 5 and 10 seconds produced large decreases in response rate, signaled delays of up to 10 seconds produced only moderate decreases in response rates. In addition, some subjects responded more rapidly with a .5 or 1.0 second duration of unsignaled delay than with immediate reinforcement. These response rate changes occurred regardless of whether the rate of reinforcement concomitantly decreased or increased.Key words: reinforcement delay, variable-interval schedule of reinforcement, differentialreinforcement-of-low-rates schedule of reinforcement, key peck, pigeonsOne of the most widely discussed parameters of reinforcement is delay of reinforcement (e.g., Bolles, 1975;Hulse, Deese, & Egeth, 1975;Mackintosh, 1974). While much of the early empirical and theoretical work examined the manner in which delayed reinforcement influenced the learning of new behavior or discriminations (e.g., Grice, 1948;Perin, 1943;Spence. 1947;Wolfe, 1934), the more recent emphasis, especially in the area of operant conditioning, has been on how it affects behavior maintained by various schedules of reinforcement (e.g., Azzi, Fix, Keller, & Rocha e Silva, 1964;Dews, 1960;Ferster, 1953;Ferster & Hammer, 1965;Morgan, 1972;Pierce, Hanford, & Zimmerman, 1972;Silver & Pierce, 1969;Sizemore & Lattal, 1977Williams, 1976).Delayed reinforcement actually refers to a collection of very different manipulations. For example, the delay period may be signaled or unsignaled; if signaled, the opportunity to respond may or may not be withdrawn during the delay. In addition, responding during the delay interval may be nonfunctional or it may be penalized, e.g., by resetting the delay interval. Given this diversity, it would be surprising if all such manipulations had identical effects. Yet, few researchers have actually compared different types of delayed reinforcement suggestion, Richards and Hittesdorf (1978) found that a 10-sec signaled delay maintained much higher response rates than a 10-sec unsignaled delay when pigeons' responding was reinforced according to a VI schedule.The purpose of the present experiment was to assess the generality of Richards and Hittesdorf's finding by comparing the effects of various durations of signaled and unsignaled delay. To assess the generality of any effect, the present experiment also included two different types of reinforcement schedules. Variable-interval 60-sec and differential-reinforcement-oflow-response-rates (DRL) 20-sec schedules were selected because it seemed possible that delayed reinforcement might produce similar effects on the behavior maintained by these 145 1981, 35,[145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152] NUMBER 2 (MARCH)

show abstract