The reinforcement-omission effect on fixed-interval schedules: Frustration or inhibition?

Kello, John E.

doi:10.1016/0023-9690(72)90034-3

Cited by 49 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, it is well known that after some exposure to an FI schedule, pigeons pause immediately after food and then respond at a constant, or slightly increasing, rate until the end of the interval. If each food episode functions as the sole discriminative stimulus for the ensuing pause, then no pauses should be observed in the absence of food (Kello, 1972;Staddon, 1972). Similarly, if some temporal properties of responding (e.g.…”

Section: Acquisition and Extinction Under Periodic Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acquisition and extinction under periodic reinforcement

Machado

Çevik

1998

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Acquisition and Extinction Under Periodic Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acquisition and extinction under periodic reinforcement

Machado

Çevik

1998

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…They pinpoint the stimulus property controlling interval timing-the effective time marker-by selectively eliminating candidate properties. For example, in a definitive experiment, Kello (1972) showed that on fixed interval the wait time is longest following standard reinforcer delivery (food hopper activated with food, hopper light on, house light off, etc.). Omission of any of those elements caused the wait time to decrease, a result consistent with the hypothesis that reinforcer delivery acquires inhibitory temporal control over the wait time.…”

Section: Cognitive and Behavioral Approaches To Timingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Operant Conditioning

Staddon

Cerutti

2003

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

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

“…The sensitivity of response latency to reinforcement omission was demonstrated previously by Kello (1972), who concluded that such a result was inconsistent with frustration theory, since, by this account, the omission of an expected reinforcer should motivate responding per se, and hence should evoke a large terminal rate increase.…”

Section: Experiments 2 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…The result in the FI procedure is a maintenance of the high rate typical of the later portions of this schedule. Omission of reinforcement in the DRL preparation, however, results in a maintenance of the slow response rate that prevails just prior to the time at which reinforcement is usually primed.Additional support for this position was presented by Kello (1972), who demonstrated an omission-elicited differential response-rate increase on an FI schedule that was dependent on the manner in which the reinforcer was omitted. Response-rate increases were minimal follow-187…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Signal properties of reinforcement and reinforcement omission on a multiple fixed-ratio schedule

Matzel

1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of experiments used food-deprived pigeons to examine several parameters of reinforcement omission in an attempt to control changes of keypeck response measures on a subsequent schedule, In Experiments 1 and 2, the pigeons were tested with a multiple fixed-ratio schedule on which reinforcement was occasionally omitted at the completion of the first component, The duration of the delay occurring in lieu of reinforcement was systematically varied. In Experiment 3, the stimulus that signaled the second component of the schedule was altered to appear either more or less similar to the stimulus that signaled the first component. Two principal results are reported: (1) Response latency decreased and, to a much lesser extent, terminal response rate increased as the delay occurring in lieu of reinforcement decreased; and (2) both latency decrease and response-rate increase were enhanced by a second component stimulus which was similar to the first. The results are evaluated in terms of Amsel's frustration theory and an analysis by Staddon which suggests that reinforcement inhibits responding. The data appear to support Staddon's argument that rate increases and latency decreases following reinforcement omission are largely a function of an attenuation of the inhibitory influence of reinforcement, an effect that is enhanced by stimulus generalization. Accordingly, it is proposed that an animal's response to reinforcement omission is determined by a stimulus complex that minimally includes the omission event and component cues.A number of studies have demonstrated an increase in response rate on the second "half" of a trial following the omission of an appetitive reinforcer on the first half. This effect has been reported for rats in a double alley (Amsel, 1958;Matzel, 1984), pigeons on a multiple fixedinterval (PI) schedule (Staddon & Innis, 1966, 1969, and monkeys on a multiple fixed-ratio (FR) schedule (Davenport & Thompson, 1965). Amsel (1962) has attributed this pattern of results to an active, motivational response evoked by the omission of an expected reinforcer. Staddon (1974), however, has argued that this effect is largely due to the attenuation of the inhibitory influence of reinforcement that occurs on an omission trial.At least in those operant procedures that utilize FI schedules, available evidence suggests that the apparent increase in response rate following occasional reinforcement omission is the result of the removal of the inhibitory properties of reinforcement rather than enhanced motivation. Fixed-interval schedules typically produce a pause followed by gradually increased responding as the interval progresses, a pattern commonly referred to as a tern, response latency and the ensuing response gradient are greatly diminished following instances of reinforcement omission relative to instances of reinforcement (Staddon & Innis, 1969). The net result is an apparently higher response rate than is seen following reinforcement, an increase which Staddon and Innis have argued is due to the attenuat...

show abstract

The reinforcement-omission effect on fixed-interval schedules: Frustration or inhibition?

Cited by 49 publications

References 17 publications

Acquisition and extinction under periodic reinforcement

Acquisition and extinction under periodic reinforcement

Operant Conditioning

Signal properties of reinforcement and reinforcement omission on a multiple fixed-ratio schedule

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About