Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1978 Mar;29(2):181–190. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-181

Choice performance in several concurrent key-peck treadle-press reinforcement schedules1

Kimbal L Wheatley, Larry A Engberg
PMCID: PMC1332746  PMID: 16812046

Abstract

Five pigeons were exposed to several concurrent variable-interval food reinforcement schedules. For three subjects, one component of the schedule required a key-pecking response, the other a treadle-pressing response. For the other two subjects, both schedule components required treadle-pressing responses. The relative probability of reinforcement associated with the manipulanda was varied from 0 to 1.0 in 13 experimental conditions for the Key-Treadle subjects and nine conditions for the Treadle-Treadle subjects. The results indicated that the logarithms of relative time spent responding, and the logarithms of relative number of responses emitted on a manipulandum, approximated direct linear functions of logarithms of the relative frequencies of reinforcement associated with that manipulandum. No systematic bias in favor of time spent key pecking over time spent treadle pressing was apparent for the Key-Treadle subjects. All subjects exhibited undermatching, in that the ratios of time and response allocation at the alternatives systematically differed from the ratios of reinforcers obtained from the alternatives in the direction of indifference. Key pecking appeared to have no special link to food beyond treadle pressing or what would be expected on the basis of the reinforcement dependencies alone.

Keywords: concurrent schedules, matching contrast, treadle press, key peck, pigeons

Full text

PDF
181

Selected References

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

  1. 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]
  2. Baum W. M., Rachlin H. C. Choice as time allocation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Nov;12(6):861–874. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Catania A. C., Reynolds G. S. A quantitative analysis of the responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 May;11(3 Suppl):327–383. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-s327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gamzu E., Schwartz B. The maintenance of key pecking by stimulus-contingent and response-independent food presentation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jan;19(1):65–72. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hemmes N. S. Behavioral contrast in pigeons depends upon the operant. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1973 Oct;85(1):171–178. doi: 10.1037/h0034883. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hineline P. N., Rachlin H. Escape and avoidance of shock by pigeons pecking a key. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Jul;12(4):533–538. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Killeen P. A yoked-chamber comparison of concurrent and multiple schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Jul;18(1):13–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. McSweeney F. K. Matching and contrast on several concurrent treadle-press schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Mar;23(2):193–198. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Scull J., Westbrook R. F. Interactions in multiple schedules with different responses in each of the components. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Nov;20(3):511–519. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Shimp C. P., Wheatley K. L. Matching to relative reinforcement frequency in multiple schedules with a short component duration. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Mar;15(2):205–210. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.15-205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Smith R. F., Keller F. R. Free-operant avoidance in the pigeon using a treadle response. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):211–214. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Staddon J. E. Spaced responding and choice: a preliminary analysis. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Nov;11(6):669–682. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-669. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Todorov J. C. Component duration and relative response rates in multiple schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Jan;17(1):45–49. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.17-45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Westbrook R. F. Failure to obtain positive contrast when pigeons press a bar. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Nov;20(3):499–510. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Williams D. R., Williams H. Auto-maintenance in the pigeon: sustained pecking despite contingent non-reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Jul;12(4):511–520. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-511. [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