Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1996 Jan;65(1):57–80. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-57

Concurrent-schedule performance in dairy cows: persistent undermatching.

T M Foster 1, W Temple 1, B Robertson 1, V Nair 1, A Poling 1
PMCID: PMC1350063  PMID: 8583205

Abstract

Performance of dairy cows responding under concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules of food delivery was examined, with results analyzed in terms of the generalized matching equation. In Experiment 1, bias measures indicated that crushed barley was preferred over meatmeal when these foods were available under the alternative schedules. For whole-session data, substantial undermatching of response and time-allocation ratios to obtained reinforcement ratios was evident. Postreinforcement pause time ratios approximately matched obtained reinforcement rates. Subtracting these times from total time-allocation values yielded net time-allocation ratios that undermatched obtained reinforcement ratios to a greater degree than did whole-session time-allocation ratios. In Experiment 2, substantial undermatching was evident when the same foods (hay for 2 cows, crushed barley for 2 others) were available under the alternative schedules. Food-related activities and other defined behavior not related to food were quantified by direct observation, and were found to occupy a substantial proportion (roughly 40% to 80%) of experimental sessions. Subtracting the time spent in these activities from the time allocated to each component schedule did not reduce the degree of undermatching obtained. Across all conditions in both experiments, slopes of regression lines relating behavioral outputs to environmental inputs characteristically were below 0.6, which agrees with prior findings and suggests that, contrary to suggestions in the literature, undermatching in dairy cows is not the result of using different foods under alternative schedules or differential pausing under those schedules.

Full text

PDF
57

Selected References

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

  1. Allison T. S., Lloyd K. E. Concurrent schedules of reinforcement: effects of gradual and abrupt increases in changeover delay. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Jul;16(1):67–73. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. 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]
  5. Bradshaw A. L., Poling A. Choice by rats for enriched versus standard home cages: Plastic pipes, wood platforms, wood chips, and paper towels as enrichment items. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Mar;55(2):245–250. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.55-245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Duncan I. J. The welfare of farm animals: an ethological approach. Sci Prog. 1987;71(283 Pt 3):317–326. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Harris F. C., Lahey B. B. A method for combining occurrence and nonoccurrence interobserver agreement scores. J Appl Behav Anal. 1978 Winter;11(4):523–527. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1978.11-523. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Herrnstein R. J. On the law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):243–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Heyman G. M. A Markov model description of changeover probabilities on concurrent variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jan;31(1):41–51. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Matthews L. R., Temple W. Concurrent schedule assessment of food preference in cows. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Sep;32(2):245–254. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. 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]
  13. Silberberg A., Schrot J. A yoked-chamber comparison of concurrent and multiple schedules: the relationship between component duration and responding. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jul;22(1):21–30. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Stubbs D. A., Pliskoff S. S. Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Nov;12(6):887–895. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-887. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES