The Effect of Signaled Reinforcement on Rats' Fixed‐interval Responding

Reed, Phil

doi:10.1901/jeab.2003.79-367

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One possibility concerns the ability of the contingency to sustain high rates for the particular species exposed to that contingency. In the studies with human subjects (i.e., McDowell & Wixted, 1986;Reed, in press; see also Reed, 1999Reed, , 2003, the rate of responding has been considerably higher than that noted in nonhuman subjects (i.e., Cole, 1999;Reed et al, 2003;Reed et al, 2000). It may be that sensitivity to the VI schedule emerges only when it is possible to maintain a high rate of responding across the session.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…The latter rate might have been more similar in the current VR and VI schedules than the terminal reinforced IRT (but unfortunately, this local rate was not measured in the present series of experiments). There is evidence that manipulation of local rates is important in generating response rate effects (see Reed, 1989Reed, , 2003Wearden & Clark, 1988). However, in the absence of further data, this account is speculative.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of required response force on rats’ performance on a VI+ schedule of reinforcement

Reed

2006

Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

McDowell and Wixted (1986) introduced a schedule that has the molar properties of a variable ratio (VR) schedule (i.e., a strong function relating response rate to reinforcement rate) but the molecular properties of a variable interval (VI) schedule (i.e., one that differentially reinforces long interresponse times [IRTs]). This schedule can be called the variable-interval-plus-linear-feedback (VI ) schedule. This contingency reinforces high rates of responding by making rates of reinforcement depend on rates of responding. The VI schedule achieves this b by making the interval required for reinforcement vary inversely with response rate. However, the VI schedule also maintains the interval characteristics of the VI schedule that differentially reinforces long IRTs. Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of the feedb back function between response rate and reinforcement rate for three schedules (VR, VI, and VI ). The feedback function of the VI schedule is given by the following equation: a (i/n) * b. Here, a is the interval required before a response will produce reinforcement, i is the time since the last reinforcement, n the number of responses emitted during that period, and b the VR ratio to which the VI schedule is equivalent. Some numeric examples may serve to illustrate how this schedule works. Assume that the VI schedule was to have the molar characteristics of a VR-30 schedule. Assume also that the time from the last reinforcer was 60 d sec and that 60 responses had been made during that time. In this case, the interval to reinforcement would equal (60/60) * 30 30 sec. During this 30 sec, at 60 responses per minute, 30 responses would be emitted before the interval would time out. If 30 responses had been made during that 60-sec period, the interval would be (60/30) * 30 60 sec. During this 60 sec, if responses were being emitted at 30 responses per minute, 30 responses would be emitted prior to the reinforcer. Alternatively, if 120 responses had been made during the 60-sec period, the interval would become (60/120) * 30 15 sec. During this 15 sec, at 120 responses per minute, 30 responses would be emitted prior to the reinforcer. Thus, the interval varies inversely with the rate of responding, and each reinforcer is delivered for about 30 responses. McDowell and Wixted (1986) found that with human subjects, high response rates were produced by VR schedules and also by VI schedules that had the same feedback functions as the VR schedules. Reed (in press) replicated and extended the findings reported by McDowell and Wixted with human subjects. Reed (in press) noted that their human subjects responded at a similar rate on VR and VI schedules and more quickly on these schedules than on VI schedules yoked to the former contingencies in terms of rate of reinforcement. Importantly, the latter study indicated that subjects were more sensitive to the molar aspects of the VI schedule when they were d given a smaller response force requirement than that used by McDowell and Wixted.In contrast to these results...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of required response force on rats’ performance on a VI+ schedule of reinforcement

Reed

2006

Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the onset of diffuse light (such as that from the houselight in the present set of experiments) signaling the presentation of reinforcement enhances overall response rate, while the presentation of a more localized light (as with a transilluminated response key)results in decreased responding (Reed, Schachtman, & Hall, 1988). Additionally, stimuli signaling the delivery of reinforcement imposed upon schedules generating higher, rather than lower, rates of responding can enhance ongoing responding (Reed, 2003). The response-learning view (Reed, 1989) suggests that the signal may highlight or reinforce the pattern of behavior-aggregations of either shorter or longer interresponse times (IRTs), for example-that occur prior to reinforcement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

The Reinforcing Effects of Houselight Illumination During Chained Schedules of Food Presentation

Allen¹,

Kupfer²,

Malagodi³

2008

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons' keypecking was maintained under two- and three-component chained schedules of food presentation. The component schedules were all fixed-interval schedules of either 1- or 2-min duration. Across conditions the presence of houselight illumination within each component schedule was manipulated. For each pigeon, first-component response rates increased significantly when the houselight was extinguished in the first component and illuminated in the second. The results suggest that the increase was not the result of disinhibition or modification of stimulus control by component stimuli, but appears to result from the reinforcement of responding by the onset of illumination in the second component. Additionally, the apparent reinforcing properties of houselight illumination resulted neither from association of the houselight with the terminal component of the chained schedule nor through generalization of the hopper illumination present during food presentation. The results of the present series of experiments are related to previous demonstrations of illumination-reinforced responding and to the interpretation of data from experiments employing houselight illumination as stimuli associated with timeout or brief stimuli in second-order schedules.

show abstract

“…It has also been examined in different species including rats (e.g. Reed, 2003), pigeons (e.g., Mellon et. al, 1995), and humans (e.g., Bradshaw, Szabadi, Bevan, & Ruddle, 1979).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the general consensus from the signaled reinforcement literature is that signaling the reinforcer results in a change in response rate, there have been many different interpretations as to why this occurs. These interpretations range from overshadowing to response potentiation (see Reed, 2003, for a summary of interpretations), but no unified theory is able to account for all of the patterns observed. This may in part be to the subtle but critical procedural difference of presenting the additional time marker either contingent on a response, or not contingent on a response.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A simultaneous temporal processing account of response rate

MacInnis

Marshall

Freestone

et al. 2010

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal was to determine whether a signal (e.g., a click) at food availability affects timing behavior in rats. Twenty-four rats were trained on an appetitive lever-press procedure that varied on two dimensions: shape of the interreinforcer distribution (i.e., fixed-interval 60s or random-interval 60s) and number of signals (i.e., the presence or absence of a click at the time of reinforcer availability). The rats were randomly partitioned into one of four groups (each group had six rats): Fixed, Signaled-Fixed, Random, and Signaled-Random. The shape of the interreinforcer distribution affected the response pattern; the presence of the click affected response rate. These results provide support for a simultaneous temporal processing account of behavior.

show abstract

The Effect of Signaled Reinforcement on Rats' Fixed‐interval Responding

Cited by 5 publications

References 17 publications

Effect of required response force on rats’ performance on a VI+ schedule of reinforcement

Effect of required response force on rats’ performance on a VI+ schedule of reinforcement

The Reinforcing Effects of Houselight Illumination During Chained Schedules of Food Presentation

A simultaneous temporal processing account of response rate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About