Learning in a changing environment: Effects of the discriminability of visual stimuli and of time

The generalization-across-dimensions model applied to conditional temporal discrimination

Can simple choice conditional-discrimination choice be accounted for by recent quantitative models of combined stimulus and reinforcer control? In Experiment 1, two sets of five blackout durations, one using shorter intervals and one using longer intervals, conditionally signaled which subsequent choice response might provide food. In seven conditions, the distribution of blackout durations across the sets was varied. An updated version of the generalization-across-dimensions model nicely described the way that choice changed across durations. In Experiment 2, just two blackout durations acted as the conditional stimuli and the durations were varied over 10 conditions. The parameters of the model obtained in Experiment 1 failed adequately to predict choice in Experiment 2, but the model again fitted the data nicely. The failure to predict the Experiment 2 data from the Experiment 1 parameters occurred because in Experiment 1 differential control by reinforcer locations progressively decreased with blackout durations, whereas in Experiment 2 this control remained constant. These experiments extend the ability of the model to describe data from procedures based on concurrent schedules in which reinforcer ratios reverse at fixed times to those from conditional-discrimination procedures. Further research is needed to understand why control by reinforcer location differed between the two experiments.

Divided stimulus control depends on differential and nondifferential reinforcement: Testing a quantitative model

We investigated the effects of differential and nondifferential reinforcers on divided control by compound-stimulus dimensions. Six pigeons responded in a delayed matching-to-sample procedure in which a blue or yellow sample stimulus flashed on/off at a fast or slow rate, and subjects reported its color or alternation frequency. The dimension to report was unsignaled (Phase 1) or signaled (Phase 2). Correct responses were reinforced with a probability of .70, and the probability of reinforcers for errors varied across conditions. Comparison choice depended on reinforcer ratios for correct and incorrect responding; as the frequency of error reinforcers according to a dimension increased, control (measured by log d) by that dimension decreased and control by the other dimension increased. Davison and Nevin's (1999) model described data when the dimension to report was unsignaled, whereas model fits were poorer when it was signaled, perhaps due to carryover between conditions. We are the first to test this quantitative model of divided control with reinforcers for errors and when the dimension to report is signaled; hence, further research is needed to establish the model's generality. We question whether divided stimulus control is dimensional and suggest it may instead reflect joint control by compound stimuli and reinforcer ratios.

Theory of reinforcement schedules

The three principles of reinforcement are (1) events such as incentives and reinforcers increase the activity of an organism; (2) that activity is bounded by competition from other responses; and (3) animals approach incentives and their signs, guided by their temporal and physical conditions, together called the "contingencies of reinforcement." Mathematical models of each of these principles comprised mathematical principles of reinforcement (MPR; Killeen, 1994). Over the ensuing decades, MPR was extended to new experimental contexts. This article reviews the basic theory and its extensions to satiation, warm-up, extinction, sign tracking, pausing, and sequential control in progressive-ratio and multiple schedules. In the latter cases, a single equation balancing target and competing responses governs behavioral contrast and behavioral momentum. Momentum is intrinsic in the fundamental equations, as behavior unspools more slowly from highly aroused responses conditioned by higher rates of incitement than it does from responses from leaner contexts. Habits are responses that have accrued substantial behavioral momentum. Operant responses, being predictors of reinforcement, are approached by making them: The sight and feel of a paw on a lever is approached by placing paw on lever, as attempted for any sign of reinforcement. Behavior in concurrent schedules is governed by approach to momentarily richer patches (melioration). Applications of MPR in behavioral pharmacology and delay discounting are noted.

Choosing a future from a murky past: A generalization-based model of behavior

Remembering the past appears critical in allowing organisms to detect order in an environment, and hence to behave in accordance with likely future events. Yet the shortcomings of remembering and perceiving typically mean that the remembered past differs from the actual past, and hence that behavior does not perfectly track the structure of the environment. Here, we outline how the process of generalization might be used to understand differences between what an organism does, and the structure of the past and potential structure of the environment. We explore how different sources of generalization - both from within the same stimulus situation, and from different stimulus situations - might be modeled quantitatively, and how predictions made by this modeling approach are supported by research. Finally, we discuss how generalization from multiple stimulus situations, longer-term experience, and from stimulus situations in the past that are not identical to the stimulus situation in the present, might contribute to our understanding of how an organism's experience translates into behavior.

Stimulus control depends on the subjective value of the outcome

Stimuli that provide information about likely future reinforcers tend to shift behavior, provided a reliable relation between the stimulus and the reinforcer can be discriminated. Stimuli that are apparently more reliable exert greater control over behavior. We asked how the subjective value (measured in terms of preference) of reinforcers associated with stimuli influences stimulus control. Five pigeons worked on a concurrent chains procedure in which half of all trials ended in a smaller reinforcer sooner, and the other half in a larger reinforcer later. In Signaled trials, the color and flash duration on the keys in the initial link signaled the outcome of the trial. In Conflicting probe trials, the color and the flash duration signaled conflicting information about the outcome of the trial. Choice in Signaled trials shifted toward the signaled outcome, but was never exclusive. In Conflicting probe trials, control was divided idiosyncratically between the 2 stimulus dimensions, but still favored the outcome with the higher subjective value. Thus, stimulus control depends not only on the perceived reliability of stimuli, but also on the subjective value of the outcome.

Environment tracking and signal following in a reinforcer-ratio reversal procedure

Several studies suggest that the degree of control by reinforcer ratios (environment tracking) and by exteroceptive stimuli that signal future reinforcer availability (signal following) depends on environmental certainty: As reinforcers become more likely at one location, environmental contingencies exert stronger control and exteroceptive stimuli exert weaker control. This research has not yet been extended to environments in which reinforcer availability changes across time, even though such changes are present in most natural environments. Thus, in the present experiment, we examined environment tracking and signal following in a concurrent schedule in which the reinforcer ratio reversed to its reciprocal 30 s after a reinforcer delivery and keylight-color stimuli signaled the likely or definite time or location of the next reinforcer. Across conditions, we manipulated environmental certainty by varying the probability of reinforcer deliveries on the locally richer key. This made the location of future reinforcers at a particular time more or less certain, but did not change the overall reinforcer ratio. Changes in local environmental certainty had little to no effect on environment tracking and signal following; in all conditions, keylight-color stimuli strongly controlled choice and reinforcer ratios exerted weak control. The present findings suggest that the extent of environment tracking and signal following is primarily determined by global, not local, environmental certainty.