Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1998 Mar;69(2):103–122. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1998.69-103

Mechanisms underlying the effects of unsignaled delayed reinforcement on key pecking of pigeons under variable-interval schedules.

D W Schaal 1, T A Shahan 1, C A Kovera 1, M P Reilly 1
PMCID: PMC1284652  PMID: 9540229

Abstract

Three experiments were conducted to test an interpretation of the response-rate-reducing effects of unsignaled nonresetting delays to reinforcement in pigeons. According to this interpretation, rates of key pecking decrease under these conditions because key pecks alternate with hopper-observing behavior. In Experiment 1, 4 pigeons pecked a food key that raised the hopper provided that pecks on a different variable-interval-schedule key met the requirements of a variable-interval 60-s schedule. The stimuli associated with the availability of the hopper (i.e., houselight and keylight off, food key illuminated, feedback following food-key pecks) were gradually removed across phases while the dependent relation between hopper availability and variable-interval-schedule key pecks was maintained. Rates of pecking the variable-interval-schedule key decreased to low levels and rates of food-key pecks increased when variable-interval-schedule key pecks did not produce hopper-correlated stimuli. In Experiment 2, pigeons initially pecked a single key under a variable-interval 60-s schedule. Then the dependent relation between hopper presentation and key pecks was eliminated by arranging a variable-time 60-s schedule. When rates of pecking had decreased to low levels, conditions were changed so that pecks during the final 5 s of each interval changed the keylight color from green to amber. When pecking produced these hopper-correlated stimuli, pecking occurred at high rates, despite the absence of a peck-food dependency. When peck-produced changes in keylight color were uncorrelated with food, rates of pecking fell to low levels. In Experiment 3, details (obtained delays, interresponse-time distributions, eating times) of the transition from high to low response rates produced by the introduction of a 3-s unsignaled delay were tracked from session to session in 3 pigeons that had been initially trained to peck under a conventional variable-interval 60-s schedule. Decreases in response rates soon after the transition to delayed reinforcement were accompanied by decreases in eating times and alterations in interresponse-time distributions. As response rates decreased and became stable, eating times increased and their variability decreased. These findings support an interpretation of the effects of delayed reinforcement that emphasizes the importance of hopper-observing behavior.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (240.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Arbuckle J. L., Lattal K. A. Changes in functional response units with briefly delayed reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Mar;49(2):249–263. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.49-249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Badia P., Ryan K., Harsh J. Choosing schedules of signaled appetitive events over schedules of unsignaled ones. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Mar;35(2):187–195. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.35-187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dinsmoor J. A., Bowe C. A., Green L., Hanson J. Information on response requirements compared with information on food density as a reinforcer of observing in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Mar;49(2):229–237. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.49-229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dinsmoor J. A. The role of observing and attention in establishing stimulus control. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 May;43(3):365–381. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. 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]
  6. Kuch D. O., Platt J. R. Reinforcement rate and interresponse time differentiation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Nov;26(3):471–486. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-471. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lattal K. A., Ziegler D. R. Briefly delayed reinforcement: An interresponse time analysis. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 May;37(3):407–416. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. McLean A. P. Contrast and reallocation of extraneous reinforcers between multiple-schedule components. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Nov;58(3):497–511. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.58-497. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Richards R. W. A comparison of signaled and unsignaled delay of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Mar;35(2):145–152. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.35-145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. Schaal D. W., Branch M. N. Responding of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of signaled-delayed reinforcement: effects of delay-signal duration. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Jan;53(1):103–121. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Schaal D. W., Branch M. N. Responding of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of unsignaled, briefly signaled, and completely signaled delays to reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Jul;50(1):33–54. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Silva F. J., Silva K. M., Pear J. J. Sign- versus goal-tracking: effects of conditioned-stimulus-to-unconditioned-stimulus distance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Jan;57(1):17–31. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.57-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sizemore O. J., Lattal K. A. Dependency, temporal contiguity, and response-independent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jan;27(1):119–125. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Sizemore O. J., Lattal K. A. Unsignalled delay of reinforcement in variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Sep;30(2):169–175. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.30-169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Timberlake W., Lucas G. A. The basis of superstitious behavior: chance contingency, stimulus substitution, or appetitive behavior? J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Nov;44(3):279–299. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.44-279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. WYCKOFF L. B., Jr The role of observing responses in discrimination learning. Psychol Rev. 1952 Nov;59(6):431–442. doi: 10.1037/h0053932. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. 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]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES