Time Allocation Ratio Research Articles

CONCURRENT‐SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE IN DAIRY COWS: PERSISTENT UNDERMATCHING

Performance of dairy cows responding under concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules of food delivery was examined, with results analyzed in terms of the generalized matching equation. In Experiment 1, bias measures indicated that crushed barley was preferred over meatmeal when these foods were available under the alternative schedules. For whole-session data, substantial undermatching of response and time-allocation ratios to obtained reinforcement ratios was evident. Postreinforcement pause time ratios approximately matched obtained reinforcement rates. Subtracting these times from total time-allocation values yielded net time-allocation ratios that undermatched obtained reinforcement ratios to a greater degree than did whole-session time-allocation ratios. In Experiment 2, substantial undermatching was evident when the same foods (hay for 2 cows, crushed barley for 2 others) were available under the alternative schedules. Food-related activities and other defined behavior not related to food were quantified by direct observation, and were found to occupy a substantial proportion (roughly 40% to 80%) of experimental sessions. Subtracting the time spent in these activities from the time allocated to each component schedule did not reduce the degree of undermatching obtained. Across all conditions in both experiments, slopes of regression lines relating behavioral outputs to environmental inputs characteristically were below 0.6, which agrees with prior findings and suggests that, contrary to suggestions in the literature, undermatching in dairy cows is not the result of using different foods under alternative schedules or differential pausing under those schedules.

PREDICTING AND SCALING HENS' PREFERENCES FOR TOPOGRAPHICALLY DIFFERENT RESPONSES

Six hens were exposed to several concurrent (second-order) variable-interval schedules in which the response requirements on the alternatives were varied. The response requirements were one key peck versus five key pecks, one key peck versus one door push, and five key pecks versus one door push. Response- and time-allocation ratios undermatched the obtained reinforcement ratios but were well described by the generalized matching law. Time and response bias estimates from two pairs of response requirements were used to predict bias in the third pairing. The predicted values were close to those obtained; this result supports the notion that both numerically and topographically different responses act as constant sources of bias within the generalized matching law. The differences between the response and time biases could be accounted for by the different times needed to complete each response requirement. The results also suggest that the door push is a useful operant for research with domestic hens.

Kinetics of matching.

Rats responded on concurrent variable interval schedules of brain stimulation reward in 2-trial sessions. Between trials, there was a 16-fold reversal in the relative rate of reward. In successive, narrow time windows, the authors compared the ratio of the times spent on the 2 levers to the ratio of the rewards received. Time-allocation ratios tracked wide, random fluctuations in the reward ratio. The adjustment to the midsession reversal in relative rate of reward was largely completed within 1 interreward interval on the leaner schedule. Both results were unaffected by a 16-fold change in the combined rates of reward. The large, rapid, scale-invariant shifts in time-allocation ratios that underlie matching behavior imply that the subjective relative rate of reward can be determined by a very few of the most recent interreward intervals and that this estimate can directly determine the ratio of the expected stay durations.

Kinetics of matching.

Rats responded on concurrent variable interval schedules of brain stimulation reward in 2-trial sessions. Between trials, there was a 16-fold reversal in the relative rate of reward. In successive, narrow time windows, the authors compared the ratio of the times spent on the 2 levers to the ratio of the rewards received. Time-allocation ratios tracked wide, random fluctuations in the reward ratio. The adjustment to the midsession reversal in relative rate of reward was largely completed within 1 interreward interval on the leaner schedule. Both results were unaffected by a 16-fold change in the combined rates of reward. The large, rapid, scale-invariant shifts in time-allocation ratios that underlie matching behavior imply that the subjective relative rate of reward can be determined by a very few of the most recent interreward intervals and that this estimate can directly determine the ratio of the expected stay durations.

CHOICE BETWEEN REPLETING/DEPLETING PATCHES: A CONCURRENT‐SCHEDULE PROCEDURE

Six pigeons responded on two concurrently available keys that defined patches with the following characteristics. Reinforcer stores repleted on a patch as a linear function of time when the bird had last responded to the other patch, or else did not replete. Repletion schedules thus timed only when the bird was absent from the patch. Reinforcer stores on a patch could be depleted and reinforcers obtained, again as a linear function of time, when the bird responded on a key. Depletion schedules thus timed only when the birds were present at a patch. Experiment 1 investigated changing relative depletion rates when repletion rates were constant and equal (Part 1) and changing relative repletion rates when the depletion rates were constant and equal (Part 2). Response- and time-allocation ratios conformed to a generalized matching relation with obtained reinforcer ratios, and there appeared to be no control by the size of the reinforcer stores. In Experiment 2, absolute depletion rates were varied with a pair of unequal repletion rates (Part 3), and absolute repletion rates were varied with a pair of unequal depletion rates (Part 4). Dwell times in the patches were not affected by either variation. Melioration theory predicted the results of Experiment 1 quite closely but erroneously predicted changing dwell times in Experiment 2. Molar maximization theory did not accurately predict the results of either experiment.

Undermatching, melioration and the discrimination of local reinforcer rates

Melioration theory suggests that performance in choice situations arises from a process in which subjects allocate more time to alternatives that provide the higher local rate of reinforcers. If this process is unconstrained (as in concurrent aperiodic schedules), melioration predicts a strict equality between molar time-allocation (and, as a result, response-allocation) ratios and molar ratios of overall obtained reinforcers on concurrent variable-interval schedules. The available data, however, suggest that log behavior measures are nearer to indifference (called undermatching that predicted by this theory. The modification of melioration theory suggested here shows that, if animals cannot discriminate local reinforcer-rate differences below a fixed threshold, undermatching is predicted, and the degree of undermatching depends on the absolute size of the threshold. It also predicts the finding that the sensitivity of behavior ratios to changes in reinforcer ratios falls with decreasing overall reinforcer rates.

SENSITIVITY OF TIME ALLOCATION TO AN OVERALL REINFORCER RATE FEEDBACK FUNCTION IN CONCURRENT INTERVAL SCHEDULES

Six pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules in which feedback functions arranged that the overall reinforcer rate either (a) was independent of preference, (b) decreased with increasing absolute preference, or (c) increased with increasing absolute preference. In Experiment 1, the reinforcer rate in an interreinforcement interval was determined by the absolute time-allocation ratio in the previous interval. When arranged reinforcer ratios were varied, there was no evidence of control over preference by overall reinforcer rate. In Experiment 2, the feedback function arranged that reinforcer rates were an inverse function of absolute preference, and window durations were fixed times. In Phase 1, using schedules that provided a four-to-one reinforcer ratio, the window duration was decreased from 20 s to 5 s over four conditions. Then, in Phases 2 and 3, the arranged reinforcer ratios were varied. In Phase 2, the reinforcer rate in the current 5-s time window was determined by preference in the previous 5-s window, and in Phase 3, the window durations were 20 s. Again, there was no indication of control by obtained overall reinforcer rate. These data call into question theories that suggest that the process underlying matching is one of maximizing overall reinforcer rates, or that preference in concurrent aperiodic schedules is controlled to any extent by overall reinforcer rate. They also question the notion that concurrent-schedule preference is controlled by molecular maximizing.

An experimental analysis on the relation between reward value and choice behavior

Six undergraduate students were tested in a two choice situation, exposed to concurrent VI-VI schedules. For group 1-5, tokens earned by pressing the left button were exchanged for one yen, and tokens earned by pressing the right button were exchanged for five yen after the experiment. For group 3-2, tokens earned by pressing the left button were exchanged for three yen, and tokens earned by pressing the right button were exchanged for two yen. The results between log response ratio (time allocation ratio) and log reinforcement ratio were examined by linear regression analysis. The average value of the regression coefficient of group 1-5 was .795 (.832), and the average value of the groups intercept was -.228(-.243). The average coefficient of group 3-2 was .524(.590), and its average intercept was -.033(.021). The results of all subjects revealed undermatching. As for group 1-5, subjects preferred five yen about two times as often as one yen. In group 3-2, however, subjects didn't show a clear pattern of preference.

CONCURRENT SCHEDULE ASSESSMENT OF FOOD PREFERENCE IN COWS

Six dairy cows (Bos taurus) were trained on several pairs of concurrent variable-interval schedules with different types of food available on each alternative. The required response was a plate press made by the animal's muzzle. Performance generally replicated that found with other species. The generalized matching law accounted for the preference data, showing that food preference could be quantitatively analyzed as a special case of response bias. The preference functions showed that the response- and time-allocation ratios were not as extreme as obtained reinforcement rate ratios (undermatching).

RESPONSE RATE AND CHANGEOVER PERFORMANCE ON CONCURRENT VARIABLE‐INTERVAL SCHEDULES1

Six pigeons were exposed to variable-interval schedules arranged on one, two, three, and four response keys. The reinforcement rate was also varied across conditions. Numbers of responses, the time spent responding, the number of reinforcements, and the number of changeovers between keys were recorded. Response rates on each key were an increasing function of reinforcement rate on that key and a decreasing function of the reinforcement rate on other keys. Response and time-allocation ratios under-matched ratios of obtained reinforcements. Three sets of equations were developed to express changeover rate as a function of response rate, time allocation, and reinforcement rate respectively. These functions were then applied to a broad range of experiments in the literature in order to test their generality. Further expressions were developed to account for changeover rates reported in experiments where changeover delays were varied.

RESPONSE AND TIME ALLOCATION IN CONCURRENT SECOND‐ORDER SCHEDULES1

Six pigeons were trained on two-key concurrent variable-interval schedules in which the required response was the completion of a fixed number of key pecks. When the required number of pecks was equal on the two keys, response- and time-allocation ratios under-matched obtained reinforcement rate ratios. A similar result was found when the required number of pecks was unequal, except that performance, measured in response terms, was biased to the shorter required number of pecks and was less sensitive to reinforcement-rate changes. No such differences were found in the data on time spent responding. When the variable-interval schedules were kept constant and the required numbers of pecks were systematically varied, response ratios changed inversely with the ratio of the required number of pecks, but time-allocation ratios varied directly with the same independent variable. Thus, on response measures, pigeons "prefer" the schedule with the smaller peck requirement, but on time measures they "prefer" the schedule with the larger peck requirement. This finding is inconsistent with a commonsense notion of choice, which sees response and time-allocation measures as equivalent.

PERFORMANCE ON VARIABLE‐INTERVAL SCHEDULES ARRANGED SINGLY AND CONCURRENTLY1

Extensive parametric data were obtained from pigeons responding on variable-interval schedules arranged on three, two, and one response keys. Number of responses on the keys, the time spent responding on the keys, and the number of reinforcements obtained on the keys were measured. Response rates on each key were an increasing function of the reinforcement rate on that key, and an inverse function of the reinforcement rate on the other keys. In terms of preference, both response and time-allocation ratios undermatched ratios of obtained reinforcements, and the degree of undermatching was consistent both within, and between, two- and three-schedule data. When absolute response-rate data were analyzed according to Herrnstein's (1970) quantitative account, obtained values of assumed constants were not consistent either within or between conditions. However, a power-function modification of Herrnstein's account fitted the data well and provided similar exponent values to those obtained for the undermatching of preference ratios.