Controlling human fixed-interval performance.

Both high and relatively constant rates of responding without post-reinforcement pauses and lower rates with pauses after reinforcement are produced by human subjects under fixed-interval (FI) schedules. Such FI rates and patterns may be controlled when subjects are provided with different histories of conditioning and different conditions of response cost (reinforcement penalties per response). Subjects with a conditioning history under ratio schedules typically produce high and relatively constant rates of responding under FI schedules; this responding does not change systematically with changes in FI value. In contrast, subjects with a history under schedules which produce little or no responding between reforcements [such as differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedules] tend to pause after reinforcement and respond at low rates under FI schedules, whether or not they also have ratio conditioning histories; cost increases the likelihood of this type of performance. For DRL-history subjects, post-reinforcement pauses increase and response rates decrease as FI values increase.

[1]  V G Laties,et al.  Effects of a concurrent task on fixed-interval responding in humans. , 1963, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[2]  H. Weiner Conditioning History and Maladaptive Human Operant Behavior , 1965, Psychological reports.

[3]  E R Long,et al.  Chained and tandem scheduling with children. , 1963, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[4]  M. Zeiler Fixed and variable schedules of response-independent reinforcement. , 1968, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[5]  B J Campbell,et al.  Intermittent reinforcement of operant behavior in children. , 1958, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[6]  L. Lippman,et al.  Fixed Interval Performance as Related to Subjects’ Verbalizations of the Reinforcement Contingency , 1968 .

[7]  S. Bijou,et al.  Single and multiple schedules of reinforcement in developmentally retarded children. , 1960, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[8]  H. Weiner RESPONSE COST EFFECTS DURING EXTINCTION FOLLOWING FIXED-INTERVAL REINFORCEMENT IN HUMANS. , 1964, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[9]  H WEINER Operant programming with transistorized digital elements. , 1963, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[10]  E. R. Long,et al.  Additional techniques for producing multiple-schedule control in children. , 1962, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[11]  W N Schoenfeld,et al.  Behavior under extended exposure to a high-value fixed interval reinforcement schedule. , 1958, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[12]  H. Weiner Real and Imagined Cost Effects Upon Human Fixed-Interval Responding , 1965, Psychological reports.

[13]  R. Orlando Component behaviors in free operant temporal discrimination. , 1961, American journal of mental deficiency.

[14]  H WEINER,et al.  CONDITIONING HISTORY AND HUMAN FIXED-INTERVAL PERFORMANCE. , 1964, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[15]  N H Azrin,et al.  Some Effects of Noise on Human Behavior. , 1958, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[16]  H WEINER,et al.  Some effects of response cost upon human operant behavior. , 1962, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[17]  J G HOLLAND,et al.  Technique for behavioral analysis of human observing. , 1957, Science.

[18]  W C BLAIR,et al.  Measurement of observing responses in human monitoring. , 1958, Science.

[19]  L. Lippman,et al.  Fixed interval performance as related to instructions and to subjects’ verbalizations of the contingency , 1967 .

[20]  J. Holland,et al.  Human vigilance: the rate of observing an instrument is controlled by the schedule of signal detections. , 1958, Science.