Response-rate differences in variable-interval and variable-ratio schedules: An old problem revisited.

M R Cole
Author Information

Abstract

In Experiment 1, a variable-ratio 10 schedule became, successively, a variable-interval schedule with only the minimum interreinforcement intervals yoked to the variable ratio, or a variable-interval schedule with both interreinforcement intervals and reinforced interresponse times yoked to the variable ratio. Response rates in the variable-interval schedule with both interreinforcement interval and reinforced interresponse time yoking fell between the higher rates maintained by the variable-ratio schedule and the lower rates maintained by the variable-interval schedule with only interreinforcement interval yoking. In Experiment 2, a tandem variable-interval 15-s variable-ratio 5 schedule became a yoked tandem variable-ratio 5 variable-interval x-s schedule, and a tandem variable-interval 30-s variable-ratio 10 schedule became a yoked tandem variable-ratio 10 variable-interval x-s schedule. In the yoked tandem schedules, the minimum interreinforcement intervals in the variable-interval components were those that equated overall interreinforcement times in the two phases. Response rates did not decline in the yoked schedules even when the reinforced interresponse times became longer. Experiment 1 suggests that both reinforced interresponse times and response rate-reinforcement rate correlations determine response-rate differences in variable-ratio 10 and yoked variable-interval schedules in rats. Experiment 2 suggests a minimal role for the reinforced interresponse time in determining response rates on tandem variable-interval 30-s variable-ratio 10 and yoked tandem variable-ratio 10 variable-interval x-s schedules in rats.

References

  1. Q J Exp Psychol B. 1990 Aug;42(3):225-39 [PMID: 2236636]
  2. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1986 Oct;12(4):371-80 [PMID: 3772301]
  3. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Nov;46(3):315-29 [PMID: 3805974]
  4. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 May;11(3):Suppl:327-83 [PMID: 5672248]
  5. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Sep;42(2):337-48 [PMID: 6502069]
  6. J Exp Psychol. 1956 Sep;52(3):145-61 [PMID: 13357697]
  7. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jan;4:57-71 [PMID: 13741096]
  8. Psychol Bull. 1964 Aug;62:122-31 [PMID: 14199645]
  9. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 May;12(3):403-11 [PMID: 16811364]
  10. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 May;13(3):369-74 [PMID: 16811450]
  11. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Mar;19(2):311-30 [PMID: 16811667]
  12. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jul;20(1):137-53 [PMID: 16811687]
  13. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Nov;26(3):471-86 [PMID: 16811962]
  14. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Sep;28(2):155-61 [PMID: 16812022]
  15. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Nov;30(3):345-60 [PMID: 16812114]
  16. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jan;31(1):3-14 [PMID: 16812120]
  17. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Nov;36(3):387-403 [PMID: 16812255]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0variable-intervalvariable-ratioscheduleyokedtandem10interreinforcementreinforcedinterresponseratesExperimentbecametimesschedulesintervalsx-s1minimumvariableratioResponseintervaltimeyokingmaintained2530-ssuggestsresponsedifferencesratssuccessivelyfellhigherlower15-scomponentsequatedoveralltwophasesdeclineevenlongerrate-reinforcementratecorrelationsdetermineresponse-rateminimalroledeterminingResponse-rateschedules:oldproblemrevisited

Similar Articles

Cited By