Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2001 Nov;76(3):303–320. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2001.76-303

The development of functional response units: the role of demarcating stimuli.

A K Reid 1, C Z Chadwick 1, M Dunham 1, A Miller 1
PMCID: PMC1284840  PMID: 11768713

Abstract

An experiment with rats examined the roles of demarcating stimuli and differential reinforcement probability on the development of functional response units. It examined the development of units in a probabilistic, free-operant situation in which the presence of demarcating stimuli was manipulated. In all conditions, behavior became organized into two-response sequences framed by changes in local reinforcement probability. A tone demarcating the beginning and end of contingent response sequences facilitated the development of functional response units, as in chunking, but the same units developed slowly in the absence of the tone. Complex functional response units developed even though reinforcement contigencies remained constant. These findings demonstrate that models of operant learning must include a mechanism for changing the response unit as a function of reinforcement history. Markov models may seem to be a natural technique for modeling response sequences because of their ability to predict individual responses as a function of reinforcement history; however, no class of Markov chain can incorporate changing response units in their predictions.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (302.3 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Fetterman J. G., Stubbs D. A. Matching, maximizing, and the behavioral unit: concurrent reinforcement of response sequences. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jan;37(1):97–114. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Lattal K. A., Gleeson S. Response acquisition with delayed reinforcement. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1990 Jan;16(1):27–39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. MILLER G. A. The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev. 1956 Mar;63(2):81–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Machado A. Increasing the variability of response sequences in pigeons by adjusting the frequency of switching between two keys. J Exp Anal Behav. 1997 Jul;68(1):1–25. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1997.68-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Schneider S. M., Morris E. K. Sequences of spaced responses: Behavioral units and the role of contiguity. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Nov;58(3):537–555. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.58-537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Schwartz B. Allocation of complex, sequential operants on multiple and concurrent schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 May;45(3):283–295. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.45-283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Schwartz B. Interval and ratio reinforcement of a complex sequential operant in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 May;37(3):349–357. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Shimp C. P., Childers L. J., Hightower F. A. Local patterns in human operant behavior and a behaving model to interrelate animal and human performances. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1990 Apr;16(2):200–212. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.16.2.200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Shimp C. P. Choice and behavioral patterning. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Mar;37(2):157–169. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Shimp C. P. Computational behavior dynamics: an alternative description of Nevin (1969). J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 May;57(3):289–299. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.57-289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Shimp C. P., Friedrich F. J. Behavioral and computational models of spatial attention. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1993 Jan;19(1):26–37. doi: 10.1037//0097-7403.19.1.26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Shimp C. P. Timing, learning, and forgetting. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1984;423:346–360. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1984.tb23443.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Silberberg A., Williams D. R. Choice behavior on discrete trials: a demonstration of the occurrence of a response strategy. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Mar;21(2):315–322. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sutphin G., Byrne T., Poling A. Response acquisition with delayed reinforcement: a comparison of two-lever procedures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1998 Jan;69(1):17–28. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1998.69-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Terrace H. S., Chen S. F. Chunking during serial learning by a pigeon: II. Integrity of a chunk on a new list. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1991 Jan;17(1):94–106. doi: 10.1037//0097-7403.17.1.94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Terrace H. S., Chen S. F. Chunking during serial learning by a pigeon: III. What are the necessary conditions for establishing a chunk? J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1991 Jan;17(1):107–118. doi: 10.1037//0097-7403.17.1.107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Terrace H. S. Chunking by a pigeon in a serial learning task. Nature. 1987 Jan 8;325(7000):149–151. doi: 10.1038/325149a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Terrace H. S. Chunking during serial learning by a pigeon: I. Basic evidence. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1991 Jan;17(1):81–93. doi: 10.1037//0097-7403.17.1.81. [DOI] [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