Abstract
Six pigeons were trained on multiple schedules whose components were concurrent variable-interval extinction and concurrent extinction variable-interval schedules. In Experiments 1a and 1b the stimuli signaling the components were two different light intensities, and in Experiments 2a and 2b they were two identical intensities. The components of the multiple schedule changed probabilistically after each reinforcer. In Experiments 1a and 2a, the probability of presenting the components was varied over five conditions and a replication. In Experiments 1b and 2b, the component probability was .5 and the component reinforcer rates were varied systematically over five conditions and a replication. The data, analyzed according to the Davison-Tustin behavioral detection model, confirmed that the discriminability of the stimuli signaling the components was high when the stimuli were different, and low when the stimuli were the same. Discriminability, measured by log d, was unaffected by component probability variation and by component reinforcer-rate variation. When discriminability was high, bias, or the response allocation between the two keys, was more strongly affected by variation of reinforcer rate within components than by variation of component probability, but the reverse was found when discriminability was low. The results suggest that free-operant detection performance is controlled by the rates of reinforcers in periods of time in which stimuli signal differential contingencies. These periods comprise the components when the component stimuli are discriminable, and comprise the total session when the components are indiscriminable. An extension of the Davison-Tustin behavioral detection model that incorporates these results is presented.
Keywords: multiple-concurrent schedules, signal detection, discriminability, sensitivity to reinforcement, generalized matching, key peck, pigeons
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- 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]
- Blough P. M. Local contrast in multiple schedules: the effect of stimulus discriminability. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 May;39(3):427–435. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Davison M. C., Tustin R. D. The relation between the generalized matching law and signal-detection theory. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Mar;29(2):331–336. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Davison M., McCarthy D. Reinforcement for errors in a signal-detection procedure. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Jul;34(1):35–47. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.34-35. [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]
- Hinson J. M., Malone J. C., Jr Local contrast and maintained generalization. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Nov;34(3):263–272. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.34-263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McCarthy D., Davison M. Independence of sensitivity to relative reinforcement rate and discriminability in signal detection. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Nov;34(3):273–284. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.34-273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McCarthy D., Davison M., Jenkins P. E. Stimulus discriminability in free-operant and discrete-trial detection procedures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Mar;37(2):199–215. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McCarthy D., Davison M. On the discriminability of stimulus duration. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Mar;33(2):187–211. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.33-187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McCarthy D., Davison M. Towards a behavioral theory of bias in signal detection. Percept Psychophys. 1981 Apr;29(4):371–382. doi: 10.3758/bf03207347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nevin J. A., Jenkins P., Whittaker S., Yarensky P. Reinforcement contingencies and signal detection. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jan;37(1):65–79. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-475. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
- Taylor R., Davison M. Sensitivity to reinforcement in concurrent arithmetic and exponential schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Jan;39(1):191–198. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]