Relative and absolute density of reinforcement as factors influencing the peak shift

Discriminated response and incentive processes in operant conditioning: a two-factor model of stimulus control

Understanding stimulus control generated in instrumental learning requires the direct investigation of discriminated response and reinforcer (incentive) processes acquired exclusively through the response-reinforcer contingencies operating on complex (multicomponent) baselines. Two series of stimulus-compounding studies accomplished this direct investigation. In one series, the independent variable was the relative reinforcement between schedule components; in the second series, it was relative response rate between components. Stimulus-compounding tests revealed that response and incentive processes enhanced each other when in agreement, counteracted each other when in opposition, and produced intermediate results when only one factor was operating. This pattern of results led to the conclusion that these factors were algebraically combining and to the development of a response/incentive matrix reflecting these dynamics. This two-factor analysis was extended to the peak-shift effect in stimulus generalization experiments and to the generation of inhibitory control. Two decades of stimulus compounding and peak-shift research were organized within this two-factor framework, extending this traditional approach to learning to active research areas heretofore not systematically considered in these terms.

Interresponse-time analysis of stimulus control in multiple schedules

Interresponse-time distributions were recorded in two components of multiple variable-interval schedules that were varied over several conditions. Values of the exponent for power functions relating ratios of interresponse times emitted per opportunity to ratios of reinforcers obtained in the two components varied with interresponse-time class interval. The exponent (sensitivity to reinforcement) afforded a measure of stimulus control exerted by the discriminative stimuli. Exponents were near zero for short interresponse times, consistent with previous conclusions that responses following short interresponse times are controlled by response-produced or proprioceptive stimuli. Values of exponents increased with longer interresponse times, indicating strong control by exteroceptive stimuli over responses following interresponse times of approximately one second or longer.

Line-orientation generalization following signalled-reinforcer training

Three naive and three nonnaive pigeons key pecked for food on a multiple variable-interval 1-minute variable-interval 1-minute schedule with a black zero-degree vertical line on a white surround associated with one component and a black line shifted 30 degrees to the right (+30 degree) associated with the other component. Subsequently, a signalled-reinforcer procedure was introduced in the +30 degree component, i.e., whenever the reinforcer was available for the next response, the key changed to blank white. Following this training, the original unsignalled-reinforcer condition was re-instated. Line orientation generalization tests were given at the end of signalled-reinforcer training and after the second unsignalled-reinforcer condition. The signalled-reinforcer procedure reduced response rate in the +30-degree component in all subjects but facilitated responding during the zero-degree component (behavioral contrast) for two of the naive subjects only. However, average generalization gradients following signalled-reinforcer training indicated peak shift in two subjects and area shift in all five subjects that completed the experiment. There was no apparent relation between contrast and peak shift or degree of area shift. The data were interpreted as supporting the notion that the signalled-reinforcer procedure segments a variable-interval schedule into extinction and fixed ratio 1 segments.