250 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31011893)
21. Procrastination in the pigeon: Can conditioned reinforcement increase the likelihood of human procrastination?
Zentall TR; Case JP; Andrews DM
Psychon Bull Rev; 2018 Oct; 25(5):1952-1957. PubMed ID: 29188447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Concurrent-schedule performance in transition: changeover delays and signaled reinforcer ratios.
Krägeloh CU; Davison M
J Exp Anal Behav; 2003 Jan; 79(1):87-109. PubMed ID: 12696743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Pigeons may not remember the stimuli that reinforced their recent behavior.
Schaal DW; Odum AL; Shahan TA
J Exp Anal Behav; 2000 Mar; 73(2):125-39. PubMed ID: 10784005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Modeling choice across time: Effects of response-reinforcer discriminability.
Davison M; Cowie S
J Exp Anal Behav; 2022 Jan; 117(1):36-52. PubMed ID: 34734651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Sensitivity to relative reinforcer rate in concurrent schedules: independence from relative and absolute reinforcer duration.
McLean AP; Blampied NM
J Exp Anal Behav; 2001 Jan; 75(1):25-42. PubMed ID: 11256865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Color preference in pigeons: stimulus intensity and reinforcement contingency effects in the avoidance of blue stimuli.
Biederman GB; McDonald KG; Heighington GA; Vanayan M
J Exp Anal Behav; 1988 Mar; 49(2):265-73. PubMed ID: 3361267
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Choosing among multiple alternatives: Relative and overall reinforcer rates.
Beeby E; Alsop B
J Exp Anal Behav; 2017 Sep; 108(2):204-222. PubMed ID: 28758210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Attention, the presolution period, and choice accuracy in pigeons.
Chase S; Schupak C; Ploog BO
Behav Processes; 2012 Mar; 89(3):225-31. PubMed ID: 22138233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. On the effects of signaling reinforcer probability and magnitude in delayed matching to sample.
Brown GS; White KG
J Exp Anal Behav; 2005 Mar; 83(2):119-28. PubMed ID: 15828590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Signaled reinforcement: Effects of signal reliability on choice between signaled and unsignaled alternatives.
Gomes-Ng S; Macababbad AC; Bai JYH; Baharrizki D; Elliffe D; Cowie S
Behav Processes; 2020 May; 174():104088. PubMed ID: 32092454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Reflexivity in pigeons.
Sweeney MM; Urcuioli PJ
J Exp Anal Behav; 2010 Nov; 94(3):267-82. PubMed ID: 21541171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Why pigeons say what they do: reinforcer magnitude and response requirement effects on say responding in say-do correspondence.
da Silva SP; Lattal KA
J Exp Anal Behav; 2010 May; 93(3):395-413. PubMed ID: 21119853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Remembering as discrimination in delayed matching to sample: discriminability and bias.
Sargisson RJ; White KG
Learn Behav; 2007 Aug; 35(3):177-83. PubMed ID: 17918423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Reinforcer magnitude and resistance to disruption of forgetting functions and response rates.
Berry MS; Odum AL
J Exp Anal Behav; 2014 May; 101(3):373-84. PubMed ID: 24723340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Discriminability and sensitivity to reinforcer magnitude in a detection task.
Alsop B; Porritt M
J Exp Anal Behav; 2006 Jan; 85(1):41-56. PubMed ID: 16602375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Concurrent schedules: reinforcer magnitude effects.
Landon J; Davison M; Elliffe D
J Exp Anal Behav; 2003 May; 79(3):351-65. PubMed ID: 12908762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. On the joint control of preference by time and reinforcer-ratio variation.
Davison M; Cowie S; Elliffe D
Behav Processes; 2013 May; 95():100-12. PubMed ID: 23410902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Rapid acquisition of preference in concurrent chains when alternatives differ on multiple dimensions of reinforcement.
Kyonka EG; Grace RC
J Exp Anal Behav; 2008 Jan; 89(1):49-69. PubMed ID: 18338675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Control of pigeons' matching-to-sample performance by differential sample response requirements.
Hogan DE; Zentall TR; Pace G
Am J Psychol; 1983; 96(1):37-49. PubMed ID: 6859346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Does overall reinforcer rate affect discrimination of time-based contingencies?
Cowie S; Davison M; Blumhardt L; Elliffe D
J Exp Anal Behav; 2016 May; 105(3):393-408. PubMed ID: 27151836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
