» Articles » PMID: 16812466

On the Measurement of Time Allocation on Multiple Variable-interval Schedules

Overview
Date 1986 Nov 1
PMID 16812466
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Six pigeons were trained on a modified multiple-schedule procedure. In a three-key chamber, the center key was lighted red or green, depending upon which component schedule was in effect. A response on this key transferred this color to each of two side keys, and responses on one of those keys produced reinforcers according to the component schedule. After 2 s, the side-key lights were extinguished, the center key was reilluminated, and a further center-key response was required to give access, as before, to the component schedules. Components alternated every 3 min. This limited-access procedure allowed both times spent switched into the side keys and time spent not switched in to be measured in the two components. Component reinforcer rates were varied over eight experimental conditions. Both component response rate and component time allocation were increasing functions of relative component reinforcer rate, and these functions were not significantly different. This finding implies that local response rates (responses divided by time switched in) were unaffected by changing component reinforcer rates on multiple schedules. Because a similar result was recently obtained for concurrent schedules, models of multiple and concurrent-schedule performance may need to consider only the time allocation of behavior emitted at equal tempo in the component schedules.

Citing Articles

Effects of response-allocation constraints on multiple-schedule performance.

Davison M, Charman L J Exp Anal Behav. 1987; 47(1):29-39.

PMID: 16812469 PMC: 1348295. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1987.47-29.


Response rate viewed as engagement bouts: resistance to extinction.

Shull R, Gaynor S, Grimes J J Exp Anal Behav. 2002; 77(3):211-31.

PMID: 12083677 PMC: 1284858. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2002.77-211.


Response rate viewed as engagement bouts: effects of relative reinforcement and schedule type.

Shull R, Gaynor S, Grimes J J Exp Anal Behav. 2001; 75(3):247-74.

PMID: 11453618 PMC: 1284817. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2001.75-247.

References
1.
Baum W . Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979; 32(2):269-81. PMC: 1332902. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-269. View

2.
Lander D, Irwin R . Multiple schedules: effects of the distribution of reinforcements between component on the distribution of responses between conponents. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968; 11(5):517-24. PMC: 1338520. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-517. View

3.
Wearden J, Burgess I . Matching since Baum (1979). J Exp Anal Behav. 1982; 38(3):339-48. PMC: 1347873. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1982.38-339. View

4.
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

5.
Herrnstein R . On the law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970; 13(2):243-66. PMC: 1333768. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-243. View