Momentary maximizing in concurrent schedules with a minimum interchangeover interval

Comparing fixed-amount and progressive-amount DRO Schedules for tic suppression in youth with chronic tic disorders

Chronic tic disorders (CTDs) involve motor and/or vocal tics that often cause substantial distress and impairment. Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) schedules of reinforcement produce robust, but incomplete, reductions in tic frequency in youth with CTDs; however, a more robust reduction may be needed to affect durable clinical change. Standard, fixed-amount DRO schedules have not commonly yielded such reductions, so we evaluated a novel, progressive-amount DRO schedule, based on its ability to facilitate sustained abstinence from functionally similar behaviors. Five youth with CTDs were exposed to periods of baseline, fixed-amount DRO (DRO-F), and progressive-amount DRO (DRO-P). Both DRO schedules produced decreases in tic rate and increases in intertic interval duration, but no systematic differences were seen between the two schedules on any dimension of tic occurrence. The DRO-F schedule was generally preferred to the DRO-P schedule. Possible procedural improvements and other future directions are discussed.

The behavioral economics of choice and interval timing

The authors propose a simple behavioral economic model (BEM) describing how reinforcement and interval timing interact. The model assumes a Weber-law-compliant logarithmic representation of time. Associated with each represented time value are the payoffs that have been obtained for each possible response. At a given real time, the response with the highest payoff is emitted. The model accounts for a wide range of data from procedures such as simple bisection, metacognition in animals, economic effects in free-operant psychophysical procedures, and paradoxical choice in double-bisection procedures. Although it assumes logarithmic time representation, it can also account for data from the time-left procedure usually cited in support of linear time representation. It encounters some difficulties in complex free-operant choice procedures, such as concurrent mixed fixed-interval schedules as well as some of the data on double bisection, which may involve additional processes. Overall, BEM provides a theoretical framework for understanding how reinforcement and interval timing work together to determine choice between temporally differentiated reinforcers.

Interresponse-time sensitivity during discrete-trial and free-operant concurrent variable-interval schedules

Two experiments investigated the sensitivity of pigeons' choice to elapsed time since the last response (i.e., to inter-response time [IRT]) during concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules. Experiment 1 used a two-key discrete-trial procedure with variable intertrial intervals. Experiment 2 employed a three-key free-operant procedure. In both experiments choice was found to be a function of the active-schedule IRT, defined as the time since the most recent response. Monte Carlo simulations show how this finding permits the joining of several seemingly incompatible data sets held to both support and contradict a kind of choice strategy, termed momentary maximizing, which attempts to maximize momentary reinforcement probabilities. The studies suggest that only two variables are needed to describe the static molecular structure of concurrent variable-interval choice: active-schedule IRTs and "response states" consisting of the last one or two schedule choices.

Action at a temporal distance: Component transition as the relational basis for successive discrimination

In a successive discrimination, red and green hues signaled component variable-interval schedules. The exponent of the power function relating ratios of responses in the red and green components to ratios of reinforcers provided a reinforcement-free measure of discrimination or stimulus control. Responses were recorded in successive 10-s subintervals of the 50-s components. The power-function exponent decreased systematically with increasing time since component transition in most conditions of five experiments. This reduction was not influenced by the absolute rate of reinforcement, consistent with the interpretation of the exponent as a measure of stimulus control. A reduction in the overall level of stimulus control by increasing the duration of response-produced keylight offset did not influence the decrease in discrimination with increasing time since component transition. The results support the conclusion that discriminative responding in successive discriminations is governed by several sources of stimulus control including delayed control by component transition.