Abstract
In two experiments rats were trained on three-link concurrent-chains schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, additional entries to one terminal link were added during one of the middle links to a baseline schedule that was otherwise equal for the two chains, and, depending on the condition, these additional terminal-link presentations ended either in food or in no food. When food occurred, preference was always in favor of the chain with the additional terminal-link presentations (which also entailed a higher rate of reinforcement). When no food occurred at the end of the additional terminal links, the outcome depended on the nature of the stimuli associated with these additional terminal links. When stimuli different from the reinforced baseline terminal links were used for the no-food terminal links, preference was against the choice alternative that led to the extra periods of extinction. When the same stimulus was used for the two kinds of terminal links, preference was near indifference, that is, significantly greater than when different stimuli were used. In Experiment 2, rats learned repeated reversals of a simultaneous discrimination under a three-link concurrent-chains schedule, in which the food or no-food choice outcomes were delayed until the end of the chain. Different conditions were defined by the point in the chain at which differential stimuli occurred. When the middle and terminal links provided no differential stimuli, discrimination was acquired more slowly than when differential stimuli occurred in both links. When differential stimuli occurred in the middle but not the terminal links, acquisition rates were intermediate. Both experiments together show that the effects of stimuli in a chain schedule are due partly to the time to food correlated with the stimuli and partly to the time to the next conditioned reinforcer in the sequence.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (180.9 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- FLESHLER M., HOFFMAN H. S. A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Oct;5:529–530. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- HERRNSTEIN R. J. SECONDARY REINFORCEMENT AND RATE OF PRIMARY REINFORCEMENT. J Exp Anal Behav. 1964 Jan;7:27–36. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1964.7-27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hurwitz H. M., Davis H. Depriving rats of food: A reappraisal of two techniques. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Sep;40(2):211–213. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.40-211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Killeen P. On the measurement of reinforcement frequency in the study of preference. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 May;11(3):263–269. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lieberman D. A., McIntosh D. C., Thomas G. V. Learning when reward is delayed: a marking hypothesis. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1979 Jul;5(3):224–242. doi: 10.1037//0097-7403.5.3.224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Royalty P., Williams B. A., Fantino E. Effects of delayed conditioned reinforcement in chain schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 Jan;47(1):41–56. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.47-41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Williams B. A., Dunn R. Context specificity of conditioned-reinforcement effects on discrimination acquisition. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Sep;62(2):157–167. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.62-157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Williams B. A., Dunn R. Preference for conditioned reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Jan;55(1):37–46. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.55-37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Williams B. A., Royalty P. Conditioned reinforcement versus time to reinforcement in chain schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 May;53(3):381–393. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Williams B. A. The effects of unsignalled delayed reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Nov;26(3):441–449. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-441. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]