Premium
EFFECT OF REINFORCER MAGNITUDE ON PERFORMANCE MAINTAINED BY PROGRESSIVE‐RATIO SCHEDULES
Author(s) -
Rickard J.F.,
Body S.,
Zhang Z.,
Bradshaw C.M.,
Szabadi E.
Publication year - 2009
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.2009.91-75
Subject(s) - reinforcement , psychology , statistics , volume (thermodynamics) , operant conditioning , audiology , mathematics , social psychology , medicine , physics , quantum mechanics
This experiment examined the relationship between reinforcer magnitude and quantitative measures of performance on progressive‐ratio schedules. Fifteen rats were trained under a progressive‐ratio schedule in seven phases of the experiment in which the volume of a 0.6‐M sucrose solution reinforcer was varied within the range 6–300 μl. Overall response rates in successive ratios conformed to a bitonic equation derived from Killeen's (1994) Mathematical Principles of Reinforcement. The “specific activation” parameter, a , which is presumed to reflect the incentive value of the reinforcer, was a monotonically increasing function of reinforcer volume; the “response time” parameter, δ, which defines the minimum response time, increased as a function of reinforcer volume; the “currency” parameter, b, which is presumed to reflect the coupling of responses to the reinforcer, declined as a function of volume. Running response rate (response rate calculated after exclusion of the postreinforcement pause) decayed monotonically as a function of ratio size; the index of curvature of this function increased as a function of reinforcer volume. Postreinforcement pause increased as a function of ratio size. Estimates of a derived from overall response rates and postreinforcement pauses showed a modest positive correlation across conditions and between animals. Implications of the results for the quantification of reinforcer value and for the use of progressive‐ratio schedules in behavioral neuroscience are discussed.