Abstract
Pigeons and other animals soon learn to wait (pause) after food delivery on periodic-food schedules before resuming the food-rewarded response. Under most conditions the steady-state duration of the average waiting time, t, is a linear function of the typical interfood interval. We describe three experiments designed to explore the limits of this process. In all experiments, t was associated with one key color and the subsequent food delay, T, with another. In the first experiment, we compared the relation between t (waiting time) and T (food delay) under two conditions: when T was held constant, and when T was an inverse function of t. The pigeons could maximize the rate of food delivery under the first condition by setting t to a consistently short value; optimal behavior under the second condition required a linear relation with unit slope between t and T. Despite this difference in optimal policy, the pigeons in both cases showed the same linear relation, with slope less than one, between t and T. This result was confirmed in a second parametric experiment that added a third condition, in which T + t was held constant. Linear waiting appears to be an obligatory rule for pigeons. In a third experiment we arranged for a multiplicative relation between t and T (positive feedback), and produced either very short or very long waiting times as predicted by a quasi-dynamic model in which waiting time is strongly determined by the just-preceding food delay.
Keywords: temporal discrimination, feedback, quasi-dynamic model, obligatory rule, pigeons
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Gibbon J., Church R. M., Meck W. H. Scalar timing in memory. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1984;423:52–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1984.tb23417.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hursh S. R. Economic concepts for the analysis of behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Sep;34(2):219–238. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.34-219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Innis N. K., Staddon J. E. Temporal tracking on cyclic-interval reinforcement schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Nov;16(3):411–423. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-411. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- STADDON J. E. SOME PROPERTIES OF SPACED RESPONDING IN PIGEONS. J Exp Anal Behav. 1965 Jan;8:19–27. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1965.8-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schneider B. A. A two-state analysis of fixed-interval responding in the pigeon. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Sep;12(5):677–687. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shull R. L. The response-reinforcement dependency in fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Jul;14(1):55–60. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.14-55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Staddon J. E., Frank J. A. The role of the peck-food contingency on fixed-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Jan;23(1):17–23. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Staddon J. E., Innis N. K. Reinforcement omission on fixed-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Sep;12(5):689–700. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Staddon J. E. Quasi-dynamic choice models: Melioration and ratio invariance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Mar;49(2):303–320. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.49-303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stubbs D. A. Temporal discrimination and a free-operant psychophysical procedure. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Mar;33(2):167–185. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.33-167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]