See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23295756 The Reinforcing Effects of Houselight Illumination During Chained Schedules of Food Presentation Article in Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior · October 2008 DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2008.90-187 · Source: PubMed CITATIONS READS 0 32 3 authors , including: Jeff Kupfer Jeff Kupfer, PA 9 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Jeff Kupfer on 18 December 2014. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
2008, 90, 187–205 NUMBER 2 ( SEPTEMBER ) JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR THE REINFORCING EFFECTS OF HOUSELIGHT ILLUMINATION DURING CHAINED SCHEDULES OF FOOD PRESENTATION R ON A LLEN , J EFF K UPFER , AND E.F. M ALAGODI UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Pigeons’ keypecking was maintained under two- and three-component chained schedules of food presentation. The component schedules were all fixed-interval schedules of either 1- or 2-min duration. Across conditions the presence of houselight illumination within each component schedule was manipulated. For each pigeon, first-component response rates increased significantly when the houselight was extinguished in the first component and illuminated in the second. The results suggest that the increase was not the result of disinhibition or modification of stimulus control by component stimuli, but appears to result from the reinforcement of responding by the onset of illumination in the second component. Additionally, the apparent reinforcing properties of houselight illumination resulted neither from association of the houselight with the terminal component of the chained schedule nor through generalization of the hopper illumination present during food presentation. The results of the present series of experiments are related to previous demonstrations of illumination- reinforced responding and to the interpretation of data from experiments employing houselight illumination as stimuli associated with timeout or brief stimuli in second-order schedules. Key words: houselight illumination as primary reinforcer, chained FI schedules, pigeons _______________________________________________________________________________ Kelleher (1966a) identified a class of schedule Stubbs, 1971). Similarly, under a token rein- arrangements termed second-order schedules ac- forcement schedule, the completion of the cording to which the behavior fulfilling the component schedule is accompanied by the demands of a schedule contingency (the unit or delivery of a token stimulus that is later component schedule) is treated as a unitary exchangeable for primary reinforcement follow- ing the completion of the demands of the pri- response that is itself reinforced in accordance mary reinforcement schedule (Kelleher, 1957; with another schedule of primary reinforce- ment. For example, the behavior generated by a Malagodi, 1967a,b,c). According to a chained fixed-interval (FI) 2-min schedule might be schedule, primary reinforcement is presented treated as a unit of behavior and the completion following the completion of a fixed sequence of of two consecutive units or component FI component schedules, each of which is associat- schedules might be required for the presenta- ed with a unique discriminative stimulus (Gol- lub, 1958; Kelleher & Gollub, 1962). tion of the primary reinforcer. Three general types of second-order schedules have been Component schedule stimuli within a identified. Under a brief-stimulus schedule, the chained schedule may serve a dual function, completion of each component schedule is with each component stimulus occasioning accompanied by a momentary stimulus change responding in its presence (the discriminative (e.g., a change in keylight illumination) until function) and the presentation of each com- ponent stimulus reinforcing responding in the the completion of the component schedule that preceding component (the reinforcing func- fulfills the demands of the primary reinforce- tion;see Gollub, 1977; Kelleher, 1966b). In ment schedule (e.g., Findley & Brady, 1965; order to separate the discriminative and reinforcing properties of component stimuli, This work is dedicated to the enduring legacy of Edward Malagodi, teacher, mentor, and friend. The authors are studies have examined the effects of varying grateful to Brad Berkstresser for his research assistance, the order of component stimuli (e.g., Kelleher and to Theodore C. Fryor and Isaiah Washington for their & Fry, 1962), presenting the component technical assistance. Special thanks to Marc N. Branch, stimulus that accompanies food delivery in Gregory Galbicka, Anne S. Kupfer, and Raymond C. Pitts different portions of the chained schedule for their constructive comments throughout this research. Ron Allen is now at Simmons College, Boston, MA. (Byrd, 1971), and interpolating stimuli associ- Correspondence concerning this article should be sent ated with food presentation between compo- to Ron Allen, The Ivy Street School, 200 Ivy Street, nents (Malagodi, DeWeese, & Johnston, 1973). Brookline, MA 02446. Studies have also compared the rates of doi: 10.1901/jeab.2008.90-187 187
188 RON ALLEN et al. responding during concurrent chained sched- with a standard three-key stimulus panel was ules to determine the reinforcing properties of used. The dimensions of the experimental component stimuli associated with different space were 34 cm from the floor to the ceiling rates and probabilities of primary reinforce- and 36 cm from the stimulus panel to the rear ment (e.g., Autor, 1969). wall. The stimulus panel was 34 cm wide. Only In the present study, the chamber house- the right key was operative and could be light was illuminated in various components of transilluminated with different colored lights. chained schedules of food presentation in The left and center keys were covered with order to examine the reinforcing properties of metal plates. The key required a minimum this common experimental stimulus. Changes force of 0.25 N to operate the circuitry. The in houselight illumination have been used chamber could be illuminated by a 1.6-W clear frequently in experimental preparations as bulb (No. 1819) located 4.5 cm directly above discriminative stimuli with the assumption that the center key. The bulb was partially shielded such changes have no reinforcing properties. by a metal cover that allowed light to be For example, in comparing responding projected only towards the ceiling of the under paired and nonpaired brief-stimulus chamber. A food hopper containing mixed schedules, houselight illumination has been grain could be made available through a employed as the stimulus indicating the square (5.7 cm 3 5.7 cm) aperture in the stimulus panel 9 cm below the center key. completion of a component schedule. In a Illumination of the raised food hopper was paired brief-stimulus schedule the brief illu- provided by a 1.6-W clear bulb mounted above mination of the houselight occurs with the completion of each component schedule and the feeder mechanism. would thus be paired intermittently with a Standard electromechanical scheduling and primary reinforcer. In a nonpaired brief- recording equipment was located in an adja- stimulus schedule the brief illumination of cent room. Ventilation was provided by an the houselight occurs with the completion of exhaust fan mounted to the chamber. White each component schedule, except the one noise was present at all times. ending with the presentation of a primary reinforcer. Comparing the performances gen- Procedure erated under these two schedules may assess Each pigeon was exposed initially to an FI 2- whether pairing the brief stimulus with a min schedule of food presentation. Under primary reinforcer establishes the brief stimu- these conditions the response key was transil- lus as a conditioned reinforcer. However, if luminated red, and the first response after houselight illumination has preexperimental 2 min produced 4-s access to mixed grain. reinforcing properties, consideration of such During grain presentation both the keylight properties would be required in the interpre- and houselight were extinguished, and the tation of data from such procedures. raised food hopper was illuminated. Following several sessions, a chained FI 2- min FI 2-min schedule of food presentation EXPERIMENT 1 was introduced. Under this schedule, the M ETHOD response key was transilluminated yellow dur- Subjects ing the initial FI 2-min schedule (the first Three adult male White Carneau pigeons component) and the first response after 2 min (P-1150, P-4214, and P-3519) were maintained changed the response key from yellow to red at 80% of their free-feeding body weights. and initiated a second FI 2-min schedule (the Each pigeon had previous exposure to simple second component). The first response after schedules of food reinforcement prior to the 2 min in the second component produced present experiment, and each was individually food delivery. After grain delivery the first housed with water and health grit continuous- component was again in effect. Because of ly available. prolonged session durations and the tendency for first-component response rates to diminish Apparatus within each session, the chained schedule was A commercially available Lehigh Valley reduced subsequently to chained FI 1-min FI Pigeon Test Chamber (model 1519) equipped 1-min for Pigeons P-4214 and P-3519. The
Recommend
More recommend
