Separating the effects of interreinforcement time and number of interreinforcement responses.

The relative importance of interreinforcement time and interreinforcement responses was evaluated by varying each independently. To do this, a blackout was presented after each nonreinforced response under both fixed-ratio and fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement. Manipulating the blackout duration under the fixed-ratio schedule caused interreinforcement time to vary without affecting the number of interreinforcement responses. Pigeons' post-reinforcement and post-blackout response latencies were found to increase linearly with interreinforcement time. Under the fixed-interval schedule, the same blackout manipulations changed the number of interreinforcement responses without affecting interreinforcement time. Post-reinforcement and post-blackout response latencies under this condition were approximately constant. These results suggest that responding is controlled by interreinforcement time and is not influenced by the number of responses emitted between reinforcements.

[1]  R J HERRNSTEIN,et al.  Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. , 1961, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[2]  G S REYNOLDS,et al.  Temporal Discrimination in Pigeons , 1962, Science.

[3]  M. Felton,et al.  The post-reinforcement pause. , 1966, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[4]  R. Herrnstein SECONDARY REINFORCEMENT AND RATE OF PRIMARY REINFORCEMENT. , 1964, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[5]  D. Anger The dependence of interresponse times upon the relative reinforcement of different interresponse times. , 1956, Journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  I. Goldiamond,et al.  Some discriminative properties of fixed ratio performance in the pigeon. , 1966, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[7]  John J. Boren,et al.  Resistance to extinction as a function of the fixed ratio. , 1961 .

[8]  H M HANSON,et al.  FI length and performance of an FI FR chain schedule of reinforcement. , 1962, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[9]  R. Witte,et al.  Conditional response probability in a T maze. , 1961, Journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  F. C. Clark The effect of deprivation and frequency of reinforcement on variable-interval responding. , 1958, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[11]  M. Rilling Number of responses as a stimulus in fixed interval and fixed ratio schedules. , 1967, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[12]  S H REVUSKY,et al.  A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESPONSES PER REINFORCEMENT AND PREFERENCE DURING CONCURRENT. VI. , 1963, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[13]  William K. Estes,et al.  Probability Learning11Preparation of this review was supported in part by Contract Nonr 908(16) between the Office of Naval Research and Indiana University. Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of the United States Government. , 1964 .

[14]  P. Dews The effect of multiple S-delta periods on responding on a fixed-interval schedule: 3. Effect of changes in pattern of interruptions, parameters and stimuli. , 1965, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[15]  M. Wilson,et al.  Periodic reinforcement interval and number of periodic reinforcements as parameters of response strength. , 1954, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.