Abstract
The barrier choice paradigm was used to impose a cost on rats' behavior of traveling between two levers: Pressing on two levers was reinforced with food on concurrent random-interval schedules, but rats had to climb over a barrier to move from one lever to another. The height of the barrier separating the levers was increased from 30.5 to 45.7 cm across two phases that involved various pairs of random-interval schedules. With the 30.5-cm barrier, the generalized matching law showed slopes equal to or slightly above 1.0 for response and time allocation. With the 45.7-cm barrier, the generalized matching law showed slopes above 1.2 for responses, indicating that sensitivity to reinforcement increased with increasing barrier height. For time allocation the slopes remained close to 1.0; sensitivity to reinforcement did not seem to increase with increasing barrier height. The role of locomotion effort in choice situations is discussed.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (191.0 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Baum W. M. Choice, changeover, and travel. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jul;38(1):35–49. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.38-35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Baum W. M. Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Sep;32(2):269–281. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Baum W. M. On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jul;22(1):231–242. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Baum W. M. Optimization and the matching law as accounts of instrumental behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Nov;36(3):387–403. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.36-387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Baum W., Aparicio C. Optimality And Concurrent Variable-interval Variable-ratio Schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 Jan;71(1):75–89. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Boelens H., Kop P. F. Concurrent schedules: Spatial separation of response alternatives. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Jul;40(1):35–45. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.40-35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brown P. L., Jenkins H. M. Auto-shaping of the pigeon's key-peck. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Jan;11(1):1–8. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- HERRNSTEIN R. J. Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jul;4:267–272. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pliskoff S. S., Fetterman J. G. Undermatching and overmatching: The fixed-ratio changeover requirement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Jul;36(1):21–27. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.36-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shull R. L., Pliskoff S. S. Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: some effects on relative performance measures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1967 Nov;10(6):517–527. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Silberberg A., Fantino E. Choice, rate of reinforcement, and the changeover delay. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):187–197. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]