» Articles » PMID: 16812427

Sensitivity of Time Allocation to Concurrent-schedule Reinforcement

Overview
Date 1985 Jul 1
PMID 16812427
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Four pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules programmed on a center response key, with access to those schedules controlled by responses on left or right side keys. Two procedures were used. In one, the pigeon was given limited access, in that each side-key response produced 3-s access to a center-key schedule, and in the other procedure, access was unlimited. Data were analyzed using the generalized matching law. Comparison of sensitivities to reinforcement of interchangeover time for both procedures showed them to be of similar magnitude. Response sensitivities were also similar in magnitude for both procedures. From the limited-access procedure a second time measure that was available, switched-in time, was relatively uncontaminated by time spent emitting behavior other than key pecking. Sensitivities to reinforcement for the switched-in time measure were always smaller than interchangeover-time sensitivities for either procedure, and were approximately equal to response sensitivities for the limited-access procedure. Two other access times (5 and 7.5 s) were studied to validate the choice of 3 s as the main access time. These results indicate that when time spent emitting other behavior is excluded from interchangeover time, time and response sensitivities will be approximately equal.

Citing Articles

Population coding of strategic variables during foraging in freely moving macaques.

Shahidi N, Franch M, Parajuli A, Schrater P, Wright A, Pitkow X Nat Neurosci. 2024; 27(4):772-781.

PMID: 38443701 PMC: 11001579. DOI: 10.1038/s41593-024-01575-w.


Behavioral stereotypy and the generalized matching equation.

Pear J J Exp Anal Behav. 1988; 50(1):87-95.

PMID: 16812551 PMC: 1338843. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-87.


On the measurement of time allocation on multiple variable-interval schedules.

Davison M, Charman L J Exp Anal Behav. 1986; 46(3):353-62.

PMID: 16812466 PMC: 1348272. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-353.

References
1.
Silberberg A, Fantino E . Choice, rate of reinforcement, and the changeover delay. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970; 13(2):187-97. PMC: 1333760. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-187. View

2.
Baum W, Rachlin H . Choice as time allocation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969; 12(6):861-74. PMC: 1338696. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-861. View

3.
Myers D, Myers L . Undermatching: a reappraisal of performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977; 27(1):203-14. PMC: 1333565. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-203. View

4.
Brownstein A, Pliskoff S . Some effects of relative reinforcement rate and changeover delay in response-independent concurrent schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968; 11(6):683-8. PMC: 1338621. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-683. View

5.
Davison M, Hunter I . Performance on variable-interval schedules arranged singly and concurrently. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976; 25(3):335-45. PMC: 1333472. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1976.25-335. View