Indexador

Three pigeons were each trained to perform a discrimination problem and a matching problem. Following acquisition, delays of 1 to 7 sec were interposed after stimulus presentation on both problems. Accuracy of responding on these two types of delay procedures was observed to be a function of length of delay interval. Performance was consistently poorer on the delayed matching problem than on the delayed discrimination problem.

Warning stimuli for two punishment conditions were alternated with periods of appetitive responding by rats. In either warning stimulus, the first response produced a brief shock, terminated the stimulus, and started an interval during which the baseline appetitive schedule was in effect. Not responding resulted in stimuli of random duration, which terminated with a shock under one condition and without a shock under the other. Each subject was exposed to several shock intensities, with trials for the two conditions programmed during alternate portions of the session. In general, response frequency in the warning signal for either condition decreased with increasing intensity; however, at a given intensity, responding was more frequent in the stimulus invariably terminating with shock than in the stimulus terminating without shock when no response was made. The frequency difference was greatest at intensities intermediate between those producing minimal and maximal suppression.

Three rhesus monkeys were trained to press either of two response keys. A response on the reinforcement key during presentation of the reinforced stimulus produced a sucrose pellet followed by an intertrial interval, but during presentation of the unreinforced stimulus produced only the intertrial interval. A response on the switching key changed the discriminative stimulus from reinforced to unreinforced or from unreinforced to reinforced. The reinforced stimulus was presented automatically on half the trials, but could be produced only by a switching response on the other half. Switching tended to occur in three distinct stages during acquisition of discriminative behavior. The first stage was identified as “nondiscriminative switching”; the second as “nonswitching”; and the third as “discriminative switching”.

The behavior of four monkeys trained on a multiple schedule was differentially sensitive to selected pharmacological agents. The three components of the multiple schedule were: (1) a variable‐interval schedule in which responses were reinforced on the average of once per minute; (2) a concurrent schedule in which every tenth response was reinforced and every fifteenth response, on the average, was shocked; and, (3) a neutral stimulus in the presence of which responses were neither reinforced nor shocked. Pentobarbital, chlordiazepoxide, and meprobamate increased responding during each of the components. Scopolamine and d‐amphetamine decreased variable‐interval performance, had minimal effects on performance during the concurrent‐schedule component, and increased responding in the presence of the neutral stimulus. Chlorpromazine decreased variable‐interval responding and had slight effects on the responding during the other two components.

Key‐pecking intermittently produced a set of brief exteroceptive stimulus changes under two‐component multiple schedules of conditioned reinforcement. Throughout the study, free access to grain was concurrently provided on an intermittent basis via a variable‐interval tape. Free food presentations scheduled by the tape were delivered if no peck had been emitted for 6 sec, and the brief stimulus changes produced by responding under the multiple schedules were those which accompanied food presentation. The second component of each multiple schedule was always associated with a 1‐min, variable‐interval schedule of conditioned reinforcement. The schedule associated with the first component was systematically varied and conditioned reinforcement was either absent (extinction) or programmed on a 1‐, 3‐, 6‐, or 12‐min variable‐interval schedule. Under these conditions, rate of responding in the manipulated component decreased monotonically with a decrease in the frequency of conditioned reinforcement. In addition, contrast effects were often obtained in the constant, second component. These results are similar to those obtained with similar multiple schedules of primary reinforcement.

Behavior is sometimes insensitive, and sometimes extremely sensitive, to changes in reinforcement magnitude. The present work attempted to analyze this disparity by comparing, in a single experimental situation, a pigeon's choices with its response rates. Whereas choices varied directly with reinforcement duration, rates of responding were comparatively insensitive to duration changes. These results suggest that the effect of reinforcement magnitude on responding partly depends upon the extent to which responding influences the amount of reinforcement.

Pigeons were trained on a discrete‐trials, simultaneous discrimination procedure, with confusable stimuli such that asymptotic performance was about 85% correct. Trials were terminated if no response occurred within 2 sec of stimulus onset, so that probability of responding was free to vary. The schedule of reinforcement for correct responses was varied, with the following results: (1) there was no relation between frequency of reinforcement and accuracy of responding. (2) In extinction, the probability of responding fell to low levels, but accuracy remained roughly constant. (3) When reinforcement was available after a fixed number of trials or after a fixed number of correct responses, the probability of responding increased with successive trials after reinforcement, but accuracy was generally constant. (4) When every fifth correct response was reinforced, accuracy decreased immediately after reinforcement if the birds were required to respond on every trial.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.