These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Every reinforcer counts: reinforcer magnitude and local preference.
    Author: Davison M, Baum WM.
    Journal: J Exp Anal Behav; 2003 Jul; 80(1):95-129. PubMed ID: 13677611.
    Abstract:
    Six pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules. Sessions consisted of seven components, each lasting 10 reinforcers, with the conditions of reinforcement differing between components. The component sequence was randomly selected without replacement. In Experiment 1, the concurrent-schedule reinforcer ratios in components were all equal to 1.0, but across components reinforcer-magnitude ratios varied from 1:7 through 7:1. Three different overall reinforcer rates were arranged across conditions. In Experiment 2, the reinforcer-rate ratios varied across components from 27:1 to 1:27, and the reinforcer-magnitude ratios for each alternative were changed across conditions from 1:7 to 7:1. The results of Experiment 1 replicated the results for changing reinforcer-rate ratios across components reported by Davison and Baum (2000, 2002): Sensitivity to reinforcer-magnitude ratios increased with increasing numbers of reinforcers in components. Sensitivity to magnitude ratio, however, fell short of sensitivity to reinforcer-rate ratio. The degree of carryover from component to component depended on the reinforcer rate. Larger reinforcers produced larger and longer postreinforcer preference pulses than did smaller reinforcers. Similar results were found in Experiment 2, except that sensitivity to reinforcer magnitude was considerably higher and was greater for magnitudes that differed more from one another. Visit durations following reinforcers measured either as number of responses emitted or time spent responding before a changeover were longer following larger than following smaller reinforcers, and were longer following sequences of same reinforcers than following other sequences. The results add to the growing body of research that informs model building at local levels.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]