Component probability and component reinforcer rate as biasers of free-operant detection.

Six pigeons were trained on multiple schedules whose components were concurrent variable-interval extinction and concurrent extinction variable-interval schedules. In Experiments 1a and 1b the stimuli signaling the components were two different light intensities, and in Experiments 2a and 2b they were two identical intensities. The components of the multiple schedule changed probabilistically after each reinforcer. In Experiments 1a and 2a, the probability of presenting the components was varied over five conditions and a replication. In Experiments 1b and 2b, the component probability was .5 and the component reinforcer rates were varied systematically over five conditions and a replication. The data, analyzed according to the Davison-Tustin behavioral detection model, confirmed that the discriminability of the stimuli signaling the components was high when the stimuli were different, and low when the stimuli were the same. Discriminability, measured by log d, was unaffected by component probability variation and by component reinforcer-rate variation. When discriminability was high, bias, or the response allocation between the two keys, was more strongly affected by variation of reinforcer rate within components than by variation of component probability, but the reverse was found when discriminability was low. The results suggest that free-operant detection performance is controlled by the rates of reinforcers in periods of time in which stimuli signal differential contingencies. These periods comprise the components when the component stimuli are discriminable, and comprise the total session when the components are indiscriminable. An extension of the Davison-Tustin behavioral detection model that incorporates these results is presented.

[1]  D. Mccarthy,et al.  On the discriminability of stimulus duration. , 1980, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[2]  M Davison,et al.  Sensitivity to reinforcement in concurrent arithmetic and exponential schedules. , 1983, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[3]  John A. Nevin,et al.  SIGNAL DETECTION THEORY AND OPERANT BEHAVIOR: A Review of David M. Green and John A. Swets' Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics.1 , 1969 .

[4]  J. Nevin,et al.  OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR REINFORCEMENT CONTINGENCIES AND SIGNAL DETECTION , 2005 .

[5]  D. Mccarthy,et al.  Stimulus discriminability in free-operant and discrete-trial detection procedures. , 1982, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[6]  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.

[7]  J. Hinson,et al.  Local contrast and maintained generalization. , 1980, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[8]  M C Davison,et al.  The relation between the generalized matching law and signal-detection theory. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[9]  D. Mccarthy,et al.  Reinforcement for errors in a signal-detection procedure. , 1980, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[10]  D. Mccarthy,et al.  Independence of sensitivity to relative reinforcement rate and discriminability in signal detection. , 1980, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[11]  M. Davison,et al.  Towards a behavioral theory of bias in signal detection , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  W. Baum,et al.  Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. , 1979, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[13]  S. Saunders,et al.  The role of stimulus disparity in concurrently available reinforcement schedules , 1980 .

[14]  P. Blough Local contrast in multiple schedules: the effect of stimulus discriminability. , 1983, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[15]  W M Baum,et al.  On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.