Toward a quantitative theory of secondary reinforcement.

In Exp. I three pigeons were trained on a two-component chain schedule. Responding on a 1-min variable-interval schedule in the initial component led to a sequence of two fixedinterval schedules in the terminal component. The rate of reinforcement in the terminal component was kept constant while the values of the two fixed intervals were varied. Three combinations of fixed-interval schedules were studied, Fl 0.25, FI 1.75 (minutes) or Fl 1.00, Fl 1.00, or Fl 1.75, Fl 0.25. The rate for each subject declined in the initial component as the value of the first fixed interval was increased. Experiment II was conducted to assess the role of the second fixed-interval schedule in the terminal component in determining the rate of responding in the initial component. For each chain schedule the rate of responding in the initial component was determined both with and without the second of the sequence of fixed intervals. In all three cases the rate of responding in the initial component decreased when the second fixed interval was removed. Increasing the first fixed interval in Exp. I had a greater effect on variable-interval performance than did the removal of the second fixed interval in Exp. II.

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 41%

Some Effects of Fixed‐interval Duration on Response Rate in a Two‐component Chain Schedule

Kendall

1967

“…These findings support the notion that as the probability or frequency of reinforcement correlated with a stimulus increases, the conditioned reinforcing effect of the stimulus increases in a positively accelerated fashion (cf. Wyckoff, 1959). On FR schedules of observing, observing responses occurred in a regular biphasic pattern.…”

Section: Experiments Iii: Effects Of Chlorpromazine On Observing Respomentioning

confidence: 99%

Observing Responses in Pigeons

Kelleher

Riddle²,

Cook³

1962

Pigeons were trained on an observing-response procedure in which periods of VR 100 and EXT alternated unpredictably during a white light (mixed stimulus). During VR 100, responses on a food-producing key (the first key) were intermittently reinforced. Responses on the observing key (the second key) produced a green light (positive stimulus) when VR 100 was in effect, and a red light (negative stimulus) for EXT. The birds did not respond on either key during the negative stimulus, but they responded on the food-producing key when the positive stimulus appeared. When observing responses produced the positive or negative stimulus on FR, observing responses were maintained until the FR reached a maximum; beyond this, only food-producing responses occurred. When observing responses did not produce either stimulus, the observing-response rates feil to zero. With prolonged exposure to an FR 20 schedule of observing, observing-response rates during EXT were higher than during VR 100. Chlorpromazine hydrochloride decreased,the total response output but markedly increased observing-response rates except when it was administered before sessions of observing response extinction.In visual-discrimination experiments, different exteroceptive stimuli are correlated with different conditions of reinforcement. For example, pressing a lever (response A) will be reinforced in the presence of a green light (positive stimulus) but not in the presence of a red light (negative stimulus). We will refer to response A as the food-producing response. When the organism develops a visual discrimination, food-producing responses occur in the presence of the positive stimulus but not in the presence of the negative stimulus. However, the development of a visual discrimination implies the concurrent development of observing responses which enable the organism to perceive the positive and negative stimuli. For example, the organism may have to move its eyes or its head to see the stimulus. For the experimental analysis of observing responses, Wyckoff (1952) and Kelleher (1958) required subjects to make a clearly specified response, such as pressing a second lever (response B), in order to produce the appearance of the positive and negative stimuli. We will refer to response B as the observing response. The experiments of Wyckoff (1952) and Kelleher (1958) demonstrated that observing responses ceased when they did not produce the positive and negative stimuli or when "Now at Harvard Medical School.3 the stimuli were not correlated with reinforcement conditions. These results indicate that the appearance of the positive and negative stimuli reinforced observing responses.The present experiments investigated observing-response rates and observing-response patterns as a function of: 1) varying the number of observing responses required to produce the positive and negative stimuli; 2) giving prolonged exposure to a given observing-response requirement; and 3) administering chlorpromazine.

“…Both sets of results may be accommodated by the assumption that the conditioned reinforcement strength of a stimulus is a positively accelerated function of the (primary) reinforcement frequency with which the latter is correlate(d (cf. Kelleher et al, 1962;Wyckoff, 1959).The reinforcement for observing behavior in the vigilance situation, a second category of observing response experiments, is even more direct: detection of the target stimulus depends upon execution of the observing response (e.g., Holland, 1958). The observing behavior investigated in the present experiment is somewhat similar to that studied in the first class of experiments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

CUE‐PRODUCING BEHAVIOR IN THE CAPUCHIN MONKEY DURING REVERSAL, EXTINCTION, ACQUISITION, AND OVERTRAINING¹

D’Amato

Etkin

Fazzaro

1968

In a two-choice discrimination situation, a cue-producing response produced the discriminanda for 0.05 sec. The cue-producing responses beyond those normally necessary to identify the discriminanda thus provided only redundant information. Two of the four Capuchin monkeys studied showed a large increase in cue-producing responses during reversal learning and extinction, and they reversed much faster than the two whose cue-producing responses showed little increase. During acquisition of a difficult discrimination, the cue-producing responses of the first two subjects reached a high level and during overtraining gradually reduced to their initial low level. The results were related to Wyckoff's theory of observing behavior and to the notions of uncertainty, reduction, and lack of information as extensions of the concepts of reinforcement and motivation.Observing behavior has been investigated in a number of different contexts. In one class of experiments, the observing response, though not associated with differential "primary" reinforcement, produces information (discriminative cues) which may provide the source of reinforcement for the observing behavior. For example, the fact that a pigeon continues to peck a key when the only consequence of this action is to produce a stimulus which provides information concerning the schedule in force on a second key (e.g., Hendry and Dillow, 1966;Kelleher, Riddle, and Cook, 1962), may be interpreted in terms of the conditionecl reinforcement arising from the response-produced stimuli. Experiments showing that rats learn to choose the side of an E-maze which provides information concerning the availability of reward, rather than the side on which the reinforcement schedule is precisely the same but without the information cue (e.g., Mitchell, Perkins, and Perkins, 1965;Prokasy, 1956), are also interpretable in terms of conditioned reinforcement. Both sets of results may be accommodated by the assumption that the conditioned reinforcement strength of a stimulus is a positively accelerated function of the (primary) reinforcement frequency with which the latter is correlate(d (cf. Kelleher et al., 1962;Wyckoff, 1959).The reinforcement for observing behavior in the vigilance situation, a second category of observing response experiments, is even more direct: detection of the target stimulus depends upon execution of the observing response (e.g., Holland, 1958). The observing behavior investigated in the present experiment is somewhat similar to that studied in the first class of experiments. The observing response, referred to here as a cue-producing response (CPR), gave the subject a brief glimpse of the discriminanda of a two-choice discrimination problem; this may be considered to comprise the conditione(l reinforcement for the cue-producing behavior. However, since on any given trial the information provided by each CPR was identical, additional responses beyond those normally required to identify the discriminanda provided only redundant information. The primary interest wa...