Models of Ratio Schedule Performance

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1997

Predictions of P. R. Killeen's (1994) mathematical principles of reinforcement were tested for responding on ratio reinforcement schedules. The type of response key, the number of sessions per condition, and first vs. second half of a session had negligible effects on responding. Longer reinforcer durations and larger grain types engendered more responding, affecting primarily the parameter alpha (specific activation). Key pecking was faster than treadle pressing, affecting primarily the parameter delta (response time). Longer intertrial intervals led to higher overall response rates and shorter postreinforcement pauses and higher running rates, and ruled out some competing explanations. The treadle data required a distinction between the energetic requirements and rate-limiting properties of extended responses. The theory was extended to predict pause durations and run rates on ratio schedules.

Animal Learning & Behavior, 1974

A barpress analog to the double-alley runway \\'as sought by varying percentage reward in the first of two consecutive FR 18s. Groups of six rats each were given We. SlYe. or 100r;. reinforcement upon completion of the first FR 18; after a 5-sec midtrial interval. the second FR 1S was administered on a separate lever and all groups received CRF reward upon its completion. Group 505s performed faster after nonreward than after reward. Group 50 Ss performed faster after nonreward than did Or;. Ss. A measure of mid trial behavior revealed a difference between groups in orienting to the bars. When all groups were shifted to a 50r;. first component schedule (Phase II), there were no statistically reliable effects of prior reinforcement history on rewarded or nonrewarded responding. The Phase 1 results were taken to demonstrate a frustration effect similar to that of the double alley.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1988

Pigeons pecked a key under two-component multiple variable-ratio schedules that offered 8-s or 2-s access to grain. Phase 1 assessed the effects of differences in reinforcer magnitude on postreinforcement pausing, as a function of ratio size. In Phase 2, postreinforcement pausing and the first five interresponse times in each ratio were measured as a function of differences in reinforcer magnitude under equal variable-ratio schedules consisting of different configurations of individual ratios. Rates were also calculated exclusive of postreinforcement pause times in both phases. The results from Phase 1 showed that as ratio size increased, the differences in pausing educed by unequal reinforcer magnitudes also increased. The results of Phase 2 showed that the effects of reinforcer magnitude on pausing and IRT durations were a function of schedule configuration. Under one configuration, in which the smallest ratio was a fixed-ratio 1, pauses were unaffected by magnitude but the first five interresponse times were affected. Under the other configuration, in which the smallest ratio was a fixed-ratio 7, pauses were affected by reinforcer magnitude but the first five interresponse times were not. The effect of each configuration seemed to be determined by the value of the smallest individual ratio. Rates calculated exclusive of postreinforcement pause times were, in general, directly related to reinforcer magnitude, and the relation was shown to be a function of schedule configuration.

2015

Pigeons pecked a key under two-component multiple variable-ratio schedules that offered 8-s or 2-s access to grain. Postreinforcement pausing and the rates of responding following the pause (run rates) in each component were measured as a function of variable-ratio size and the size of the lowest ratio in the configuration of ratios comprising each schedule. In one group of subjects, variable-ratio size was varied while the size of the lowest ratio was held constant. In a second group, the size of the lowest ratio was varied while variable-ratio size was held constant. For all subjects, the mean duration of postreinforcement pausing increased in the 2-s component but not in the 8-s component. Postrein-forcement pauses increased with increases in variable-ratio size (Group 1) and with increases in the lowest ratio (Group 2). In both groups, run rates were slightly higher in the 8-s component than in the 2-s component. Run rates decreased slightly as variable-ratio size increased, but...

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1990

Pigeons pecked a key under two-component multiple variable-ratio schedules that offered 8-s or 2-s access to grain. Postreinforcement pausing and the rates of responding following the pause (run rates) in each component were measured as a function of variable-ratio size and the size of the lowest ratio in the configuration of ratios comprising each schedule. In one group of subjects, variable-ratio size was varied while the size of the lowest ratio was held constant. In a second group, the size of the lowest ratio was varied while variable-ratio size was held constant. For all subjects, the mean duration of postreinforcement pausing increased in the 2-s component but not in the 8-s component. Postreinforcement pauses increased with increases in variable-ratio size (Group 1) and with increases in the lowest ratio (Group 2). In both groups, run rates were slightly higher in the 8-s component than in the 2-s component. Run rates decreased slightly as variable-ratio size increased, but were unaffected by increases in the size of the lowest ratio. These results suggest that variable-ratio size, the size of the lowest ratio, and reinforcer magnitude interact to determine the duration of postreinforcement pauses.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2017

Hens responded under multiple fixed-ratio schedules with equal response requirements and either a 1-s or a 6-s reinforcer. Upcoming reinforcer size was indicated by key color. Components were presented in a quasirandom series so that all four component transitions occurred. Postreinforcement pauses were affected by the upcoming and preceding reinforcer size, with longer pauses after large reinforcers followed by small reinforcers than when followed by large ones, and longer pauses after small reinforcers that were followed by small reinforcers rather than large ones. Pauses increased with fixed-ratio size and the effects of reinforcer size were larger the larger the ratio. When reinforcer size was not signaled-mixed fixed-ratio schedules-pauses were shorter after small than after large reinforcers. Signalling the upcoming reinforcer attenuated the effect of the previous reinforcer size on pause duration when small was followed by small and when either small or large by large, but enhanced the effect when large was followed by small. There was no effect of reinforcer size on pause duration when single fixed-ratio schedules were arranged. The effects of reinforcer size on pauses depends on the size and range of the fixed ratios as well as the exact procedures used in the study.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1980

Pigeons were trained to peck keys on fixed-ratio and fixed-interval schedules of food reinforcement. Both schedules produced a pattern of behavior characterized as pause and run, but the relation of pausing to time between reinforcers differed for the two schedules even when mean time between reinforcers was the same. Pausing in the fixed ratio occupied less of the time between reinforcers for shorter interreinforcer times. For two of three birds, the relation was reversed at longer interreinforcer times. As an interreinforcer time elapsed, there was an increasing tendency to return to responding for the fixed interval, but a roughly constant tendency to return to responding for the fixed-ratio schedule. In Experiinent 1 these observations were made for both single-reinforcement schedules and multiple schedules of fixed-ratio and fixed-interval reinforcement. In Experiment 2 the observations were extended to a comparison of fixed-ratio versus variable-interval reinforcement schedules, where the distribution of interreinforcement times in the variable interval approxi-Iiated that for the fixed ratio. Key words: fixed-ratio schedule of reinforcement, fixed-interval schedule of reinforcement, variable-interval schedule of reinforcement, postreinforcement pause, proximity, Experiment 1 was conducted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and was supported by grants from the University Research Council of the

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1987

The behavior of individual pigeons on fixed-ratio, variable-ratio, and random-ratio schedules was examined. Within each type of ratio schedule the size of the ratio was varied in an irregular sequence. At various ratio sizes (5, 10, 40, 80) no differences were found among overall response rates (postreinforcement pause plus running response rate) as a function of ratio type. This similarity in overall response rates held despite noticeable differences in the microstructure of performance both within and across subjects; the primary performance difference on the three types of ratio schedules was the relatively longer postreinforcement pause duration on the fixed-ratio schedule. We concluded that the gross temporal characteristics of performance determined by the relative weightings of the postreinforcement pause and running response rate were primarily controlled by the type of ratio schedule (fixed, variable, or random), whereas the overall rate of responding was controlled by the size of the ratio.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1993

Two differences between ratio and interval performance are well known: (a) Higher rates occur on ratio schedules, and (b) ratio schedules are unable to maintain responding at low rates of reinforcement (ratio "strain"). A third phenomenon, a downturn in response rate at the highest rates of reinforcement, is well documented for ratio schedules and is predicted for interval schedules. Pigeons were exposed to multiple variable-ratio variable-interval schedules in which the intervals generated in the variableratio component were programmed in the variable-interval component, thereby "yoking" or approximately matching reinforcement in the two components. The full range of ratio performances was studied, from strained to continuous reinforcement. In addition to the expected phenomena, a new phenomenon was observed: an upturn in variable-interval response rate in the midrange of rates of reinforcement that brought response rates on the two schedules to equality before the downturn at the highest rates of reinforcement. When the average response rate was corrected by eliminating pausing after reinforcement, the downturn in response rate vanished, leaving a strictly monotonic performance curve. This apparent functional independence of the postreinforcement pause and the qualitative shift in response implied by the upturn in variable-interval response rate suggest that theoretical accounts will require thinking of behavior as partitioned among at least three categories, and probably four: postreinforcement activity, other unprogrammed activity, ratio-typical operant behavior, and interval-typical operant behavior.

1988

The Effects of Reinforcement Magnitude and Temporal Contingencies on Pre-Ratio Pause Duration