Within-session changes in responding during variable interval schedules

McSweeney, Frances K.; Weatherly, Jeffrey N.; Swindell, Samantha

doi:10.1016/0376-6357(95)00016-x

Cited by 16 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No other significant differences were observed, t(2) ϭ 2.17, 240 reinforcers per hour; t(2) ϭ 0.62, 120 reinforcers per hour; t(2) ϭ 1.56, 60 reinforcers per hour; t(2) ϭ 0.19, 30 reinforcers per hour; t(2) ϭ 0.89, 15 reinforcers per hour. Therefore, Figure 3 shows that the number of re-WITHIN-SESSION RESPONSE PATTERNS inforcers received in the conditions of the present experiment were usually similar to the number received in the conditions in McSweeney et al (1996) that scheduled the same total number of reinforcers. The only exception occurred at 480 reinforcers per hour when pigeons served as subjects.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…The SEMs for the group means were calculated using the mean response rates and received reinforcers of individual subjects. Figure 3 presents the mean number of reinforcers received by all subjects per 1-hr session in the present study and in McSweeney et al's (1996) study as a function of the number of reinforcers programmed per hour. The results for rats were analyzed by conducting independent-samples t tests on the number of reinforcers received by individual subjects.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The response patterns in the present experiment were compared to those from McSweeney et al (1996). In McSweeney et al's study, rats pressed a lever and pigeons pecked a key on simple VI schedules that programmed between 15 (VI 240 s) and 480 (VI 7.5 s) reinforcers per hour, in different conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The procedural details used in the present experiment were similar to those used by McSweeney et al (1996), and the same pigeons served as subjects in both studies. However, the rats used by McSweeney et al were advanced in age.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…To test the above possibilities, the responding of subjects in the present study was compared to that previously obtained from subjects responding on simple VI schedules of reinforcement that programmed the same total number of reinforcers per session (McSweeney, Weatherly, & Swindell, 1996). The procedural details used in the present experiment were similar to those used by McSweeney et al (1996), and the same pigeons served as subjects in both studies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Within‐session Response Patterns on Conjoint Variable‐interval Variable‐time Schedules

Weatherly

McSweeney

Swindell

1996

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Operant responding often changes within sessions, even when factors such as rate of reinforcement remain constant. The present study was designed to determine whether within-session response patterns are determined by the total number of reinforcers delivered during the session or only by the reinforcers earned by the operant response. Four rats pressed a lever and 3 pigeons pecked a key for food reinforcers delivered by a conjoint variable-interval variable-time schedule. The overall rate of reinforcement of the conjoint schedule varied across conditions from 15 to 480 reinforcers per hour. When fewer than 120 reinforcers were delivered per hour, the within-session patterns of responding on conjoint schedules were similar to those previously observed when subjects received the same total number of reinforcers by responding on simple variable-interval schedules. Response patterns were less similar to those observed on simple variable-interval schedules when the overall rate of reinforcement exceeded 120 reinforcers per hour. These results suggest that response-independent reinforcers can affect the within-session pattern of responding on a response-dependent schedule. The results are incompatible with a response-based explanation of within-session changes in responding (e.g., fatigue), but are consistent with both reinforcer-based (e.g., satiation) and stimulus-based (e.g., habituation) explanations.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations