Matching by fixing and sampling: A local model based on internality

Undermatching and overmatching in concurrent schedules of reinforcement have been traditionally described as changes in the slope of the Generalized Matching Law function. More recently, it has been suggested that deviations from strict matching may be better described as following a policy of mostly fixing on the preferred schedule, and occasionally sampling the alternative schedule. So far, no model of local performance predicts the global outcome of this policy. We describe one such model; it assumes immediate and long-term effects of reinforcement on local performance. The model assumes long-term effects as changes in the internal state of the organism. Formally, the model is analogous to the Axiom of Repeated Choice [Lefebvre, V.A., 2004. Bipolarity, choice, and entro-field. In: Proceedings of the Eighth World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, vol. IV, pp. 95-99].

[1]  W. Baum,et al.  Fix and sample with rats in the dynamics of choice. , 2006, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[2]  R. Herrnstein,et al.  Toward a law of response strength. , 1976 .

[3]  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.

[4]  M C Davison,et al.  Performance in concurrent interval schedules: a systematic replication. , 1975, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[5]  Vladimir A. Lefebvre Algebra of conscience , 1982 .

[6]  W M Baum,et al.  Feedback functions for variable-interval reinforcement. , 1980, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[7]  H Boelens,et al.  Concurrent schedules: Spatial separation of response alternatives. , 1983, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[8]  G. Heyman,et al.  How to teach a pigeon to maximize overall reinforcement rate. , 1995, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[9]  C. Gallistel,et al.  Is matching innate? , 2007, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[10]  J. MacDonall,et al.  Momentary maximizing and optimal foraging theories of performance on concurrent VR schedules , 2006, Behavioural Processes.

[11]  W M Baum,et al.  Choice as time allocation. , 1969, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[12]  R. Herrnstein,et al.  Toward a law of response strength. , 1976 .

[13]  W. Baum From molecular to molar: a paradigm shift in behavior analysis. , 2002, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[14]  J. Staddon,et al.  On matching and maximizing in operant choice experiments. , 1978 .

[15]  J. MacDonall Synthesizing concurrent interval performances. , 2000, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[16]  W. Baum,et al.  Choice, contingency discrimination, and foraging theory. , 1999, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[17]  C. Aparicio Overmatching in rats: the barrier choice paradigm. , 2001, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[18]  Bipolarity, Choice, and Entro-Field , 2004 .

[19]  M. Davison,et al.  The matching law: A research review. , 1988 .

[20]  J. MacDonall A local model of concurrent performance. , 1999, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[21]  M. Davison,et al.  Stimulus discriminability, contingency discriminability, and schedule performance , 1985 .

[22]  R. M. Warren,et al.  Response bias in very first judgments of the reflectance of grays: Numerical versus linear estimates , 1968 .

[23]  A. Catania,et al.  Reinforcement schedules: the role of responses preceding the one that produces the reinforcer. , 1971, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[24]  J H Wearden,et al.  Undermatching and overmatching as deviations from the matching law. , 1983, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[25]  A I Houston,et al.  How to maximize reward rate on two variable-interval paradigms. , 1981, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[26]  P. Glimcher,et al.  JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR 2005, 84, 555–579 NUMBER 3(NOVEMBER) DYNAMIC RESPONSE-BY-RESPONSE MODELS OF MATCHING BEHAVIOR IN RHESUS MONKEYS , 2022 .

[27]  Self-reflexion in evaluating others , 1997 .

[28]  H. Rachlin The Science of Self-Control , 2004 .

[29]  R. Shull,et al.  Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: some effects on relative performance measures. , 1967, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[30]  Howard Rachlin,et al.  Learning by pigeons playing against tit-for-tat in an operant prisoner’s dilemma , 2003, Learning & behavior.

[31]  Vladimir A. Lefebvre An algebraic model of ethical cognition , 1980 .

[32]  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.

[33]  P. Killeen Mathematical principles of reinforcement , 1994 .