A further application of the active time model to multiple concurrent variable-interval schedules

The active time model of concurrent choice

The following paper describes a steady-state model of concurrent choice, termed the active time model (ATM). ATM is derived from maximization principles and is characterized by a semi-Markov process. The model proposes that the controlling stimulus in concurrent variable-interval (VI) VI schedules of reinforcement is the time interval since the most recent response, termed here "the active interresponse time" or simply "active time." In the model after a response is generated, it is categorized by a function that relates active times to switch/stay probabilities. In the paper the output of ATM is compared with predictions made by three other models of operant conditioning: melioration, a version of scalar expectancy theory (SET), and momentary maximization. Data sets considered include preferences in multiple-concurrent VI VI schedules, molecular choice patterns, correlations between switching and perseveration, and molar choice proportions. It is shown that ATM can account for all of these data sets, while the other models produce more limited fits. However, rather than argue that ATM is the singular model for concurrent VI VI choice, a consideration of its concept space leads to the conclusion that operant choice is multiply-determined, and that an adaptive viewpoint-one that considers experimental procedures both as selecting mechanisms for animal choice as well as tests of the controlling variables of that choice-is warranted.

Proprioceptive stimuli and habit formation: Interresponse time mediated behavior in CD-1 mice

The consolidation of behavioral sequences into relatively ballistic habits is thought to involve the formation of stimulus - response associations. Typically, the stimuli in these associations are assumed to be exteroceptive, i.e., external to the organism. However, responses, themselves, also possess stimulus properties that can mediate behavior. Indeed, these "proprioceptive cues" have long been hypothesized to underlie habit formation (Hull, 1934a, 1934b). One such stimulus involves the time durations between responses - a stimulus termed interresponse time (IRT). We hypothesize that IRTs can come to serve as stimuli that differentially control response elements during habit formation. To examine this hypothesis we report on two experiments that asked whether CD-1 mice utilize IRTs to structure behavior in a two-choice environment. In experiment 1, eight mice were exposed to a free-operant concurrent variable-interval (VI) 30-s VI 60-s reinforcement schedule. We found that switch and stay responses were differentially correlated with IRT durations. In Experiment 2 we directly and differentially reinforced stay/switch responses based on IRT durations in a two-lever procedure. For four of the subjects, the probability of receiving reinforcement after switch responses was proportional to IRT duration. For five of the subjects, these reinforcement probabilities were inversely proportional to IRT duration. Regardless, all of our subjects learned to emit IRT-mediated switching behavior that matched the reinforcement contingencies. Together, Experiments 1 and 2 provide the first evidence of which we are aware that IRTs can come to control sequential choice behavior in mice.

Preference as a function of active interresponse times: a test of the active time model

In this article, we describe a test of the active time model for concurrent variable interval (VI) choice. The active time model (ATM) suggests that the time since the most recent response is one of the variables controlling choice in concurrent VI VI schedules of reinforcement. In our experiment, pigeons were trained in a multiple concurrent similar to that employed by Belke (1992), with VI 20-s and VI 40-s schedules in one component, and VI 40-s and VI 80-s schedules in the other component. However, rather than use a free-operant design, we used a discrete-trial procedure that restricted interresponse times to a range of 0.5-9.0 s. After 45 sessions of training, unreinforced probe periods were mixed with reinforced training periods. These probes paired the two stimuli associated with the VI 40-s schedules. Further, the probes were defined such that during their occurrence, interresponse times were either "short" (0.5-3.0 s) or "long" (7.5-9.0 s). All pigeons showed a preference for the stimulus associated with the relatively rich VI 40-s schedule--a result mirroring that of Belke. We also observed, though, that this preference was more extreme during long probes than during short probes--a result predicted by ATM.