Premium
CONJUNCTIVE SCHEDULES OF REINFORCEMENT I: RATE‐DEPENDENT EFFECTS OF PENTOBARBITAL AND d‐AMPHETAMINE 1
Author(s) -
Barrett James E.
Publication year - 1974
Publication title -
journal of the experimental analysis of behavior
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.75
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1938-3711
pISSN - 0022-5002
DOI - 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-561
Subject(s) - peck (imperial) , key (lock) , reinforcement , schedule , statistics , food delivery , pentobarbital , interval (graph theory) , psychology , mathematics , toxicology , zoology , anesthesia , medicine , computer science , social psychology , combinatorics , biology , ecology , geometry , marketing , business , operating system
Key pecking of pigeons was maintained under conjunctive schedules of food presentation in which both a fixed‐interval and a fixed‐ratio schedule had to be completed before a peck produced food. For two pigeons, pecks on a single key completed both schedule requirements (fixed‐interval 3‐min, fixed‐ratio 50 for one bird, fixed‐interval 5‐min, fixed‐ratio 50 for the second). For two other pigeons, each requirement was scheduled on a separate key. On the two‐key schedule, a peck after 5 min on the key scheduling the fixed‐interval requirement produced food if at least 10 pecks had occurred on the ratio key (conjunctive fixed‐interval 5‐min, fixed‐ratio 10). When each requirement was scheduled on a separate key, response rates on the fixed‐ratio key were generally higher in the early portion of the interval and declined as the interval progressed; responding on the fixed‐interval key, once initiated, typically remained at a constant rate throughout the interval. Responding under the single‐key schedule was characterized by a high rate early in the interval; this then changed to a lower rate that continued until a peck produced food. For all pigeons, increases in response rates with pentobarbital and d ‐amphetamine were inversely related to the control rate of responding. When equivalent rates on each key of the two‐key schedule were compared, both drugs increased rates on the fixed‐ratio key less. Although the effects of both drugs were rate dependent, each drug differentially modified the pattern of responding under the single‐key schedule.