Concurrent-schedule Performance: Effects of Relative and Overall Reinforcer Rate

Overview

Journal J Exp Anal Behav

Specialties Psychology
Social Sciences

Date 1988 Jan 1

PMID 16812530

Citations 47

Authors

B Alsop

D Elliffe

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Six pigeons were trained to respond on two keys, each of which provided reinforcers on an arithmetic variable-interval schedule. These concurrent schedules ran nonindependently with a 2-s changeover delay. Six sets of conditions were conducted. Within each set of conditions the ratio of reinforcers available on the two alternatives was varied, but the arranged overall reinforcer rate remained constant. Each set of conditions used a different overall reinforcer rate, ranging from 0.22 reinforcers per minute to 10 reinforcers per minute. The generalized matching law fit the data from each set of conditions, but sensitivity to reinforcer frequency (a) decreased as the overall reinforcer rate decreased for both time allocation and response allocation based analyses of the data. Overall response rates did not vary with changes in relative reinforcer rate, but decreased with decreases in overall reinforcer rate. Changeover rates varied as a function of both relative and overall reinforcer rates. However, as explanations based on changeover rate seem unable to deal with the changes in generalized matching sensitivity, discrimination accounts of choice may offer a more promising interpretation.

Citing Articles

Rimonabant's reductive effects on high densities of food reinforcement, but not palatability, in lean and obese Zucker rats.

Buckley J, Rasmussen E Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2014; 231(10):2159-70.

PMID: 24398820 PMC: 4036064. DOI: 10.1007/s00213-013-3366-4.

Selection dynamics in joint matching to rate and magnitude of reinforcement.

McDowell J, Popa A, Calvin N J Exp Anal Behav. 2012; 98(2):199-212.

PMID: 23008523 PMC: 3449856. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2012.98-199.

Disrupted stimulus control but not reward sensitivity in individuals with autism spectrum disorders: a matching law analysis.

Reed P, Hawthorn R, Bolger S, Meredith K, Bishop R J Autism Dev Disord. 2012; 42(11):2393-403.

PMID: 22407578 DOI: 10.1007/s10803-012-1494-z.

Differential reinforcement and resistance to change of divided-attention performance.

Podlesnik C, Thrailkill E, Shahan T Learn Behav. 2011; 40(2):158-69.

PMID: 22038737 PMC: 4766008. DOI: 10.3758/s13420-011-0052-4.

Stimulus disparity and punisher control of human signal-detection performance.

Lie C, Alsop B J Exp Anal Behav. 2010; 93(2):185-201.

PMID: 20885810 PMC: 2832343. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2010.93-185.

References

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

Catania A, Reynolds G . A quantitative analysis of the responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968; 11(3):Suppl:327-83. PMC: 1338497. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-s327. View

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

Lobb B, Davison M . Performance in concurrent interval schedules: a systematic replication. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975; 24(2):191-7. PMC: 1333399. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-191. View

Nevin J . Quantitative analysis. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984; 42(3):421-34. PMC: 1348113. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1984.42-421. View

Baum W . On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974; 22(1):231-42. PMC: 1333261. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-231. View

Prelec D . The assumptions underlying the generalized matching law. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984; 41(1):101-7. PMC: 1347959. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1984.41-101. View

Wearden J . Undermatching and overmatching as deviations from the matching law. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983; 40(3):333-40. PMC: 1347943. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1983.40-333. View

Baum W . Matching, statistics, and common sense. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983; 39(3):499-501. PMC: 1347859. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-499. View

10.

Taylor R, Davison M . Sensitivity to reinforcement in concurrent arithmetic and exponential schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983; 39(1):191-8. PMC: 1347895. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-191. View

11.

Charman L, Davison M . On the effects of component durations and component reinforcement rates in multiple schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982; 37(3):417-39. PMC: 1333157. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-417. View

12.

Shimp C, Wheatley K . Matching to relative reinforcement frequency in multiple schedules with a short component duration. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971; 15(2):205-10. PMC: 1333802. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1971.15-205. View

13.

Fantino E, Squires N, Delbruck N, Peterson C . Choice behavior and the accessibility of the reinforcer. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972; 18(1):35-43. PMC: 1333982. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-35. View

14.

Herrnstein R . Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961; 4:267-72. PMC: 1404074. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-267. View

15.

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

16.

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

17.

Herrnstein R, Loveland D . Hunger and contrast in a multiple schedule. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974; 21(3):511-7. PMC: 1333224. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-511. View

18.

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