Gibbon 1977

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 21

Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Animal Behavior Processes


1977, Vol. 3, No. 3, 264-284

Trial and Intertrial Durations in Autoshaping


J, Gibbon, M. D. Baldock, C. Locurto, L. Gold, and H. S. Terrace
New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University

Acquisition and maintenance of autoshaped key pecking by pigeons were


studied as a function of the duration of trial and intertrial intervals'. In Ex-
periment 1, trial durations were fixed and intertrial durations were variable.
Twenty-five groups of birds were studied at trial durations ranging from 1
to 64 sec and mean intertrial interval durations ranging from 6 to 768 sec.
Values were chosen so as to obtain several groups with the same ratio of
intertrial interval to trial duration. Ratios ranged from 2:1 to 96:1. Over
most durations studied, constant values of the ratio produced an approx-
imately constant number of trials to acquisition. High ratios resulted in
faster acquisition than did low ratios. Following acquisition, response rate
varied inversely with absolute trial duration. In Experiment 2, intertrial
interval as well as trial durations were fixed. Intertrial intervals ranged
from 48 to 384 sec, and trial durations ranged from 8 to 32 sec. Trials to
acquisition again varied inversely with the ratio of intertrial interval to
trial duration. In both experiments, this relationship was well approximated
by a single power function. These results are shown to strain several current
accounts of the classical conditioning process.

The rapid growth of research that fol- shaped key pecks occur (Terrace, Gibbon,
lowed Brown and Jenkins's (1968) demon- Farrell, & Baldock, 1975). When / is long,
stration of autoshaping has sharpened the fewer pairings of the key light and food
need for delineating the nature of this phe- are needed before a peck occurs than when
nomenon and its relation to traditional con- / is short. This result is comparable to the
ditioning paradigms. A recent study per- frequent (though not universal) finding in
formed in the authors' laboratory has shown classical conditioning paradigms of more
that the intertrial interval (/) between key rapid and stronger conditioning with spaced
illuminations exerts a powerful effect upon than with massed training (e.g., Gorme-
the number of trials required before auto- zano & Moore, 1969).
At present, there are only fragmentary
data concerning the joint contribution of in-
These experiments were supported by National tertrial interval and trial interval (T) dura-
Science Foundation (NSF) Grants GB 34095 and
BNS 76-01229 and Small Grant MH 2S070 to tions. Perkins et al. (1975) suggest that
J. Gibbon and by NSF Grant GB 30781 and Na- long trials result in lower rates of pecking
tional Institutes of Health Grant HD 00930 to than do short trials. That study also con-
H. S. Terrace. firmed the inverse relationship between I
The data reported in Experiment 1 were origi- duration and trials to acquisition reported
nally presented in the 1975 Columbia University
doctoral dissertation of M. D. Baldock, "The by Terrace et al. (1975). However, Perkins
Effects of Trial and Intertrial Interval Durations et al.'s study focused mainly on the main-
on the Acquistion and Maintenance of the Auto- tenance of "autopecks" and not on their
shaped Key Peck." These data were also partially acquisition.
reported at the Eastern Psychological Association
meeting in Philadelphia, April 1974. Brown and Jenkins's (1968) study sug-
M. D. Baldock is now at the Australian Na- gests joint effects of trial and intertrial du-
tional University, Education Research Unit, The ration. In one of their groups, the key light
Research School of Social Sciences, Box 4 PO, was on continuously throughout training,
Canberra, A.C.T. 2600, Australia. and the hopper appeared at the same inter-
Requests for reprints should be sent to J. Gibbon,
New York State Psychiatric Institute, 722 West vals as were used for the autoshaping group
168 Street, New York, New York 10032. in which the light preceded food and was
264
TRIAL AND INTERTRIAL DURATIONS IN AUTOSHAPING 265

extinguished in the intertrial interval. No chambers with the centered key. Accordingly, no
pecking occurred in the continuous group. further distinction will be made between the two
types of chambers.
Such a group might be thought of as analo- A force of approximately 18 g was required to
gous to one in which the intertrial interval displace each of the response keys to interrupt the
is very short and the trial occupies virtually normally closed contact at the back of the key.
all of the period between reinforcements (7 Each contact closure provided a brief "feedback"
— 0). The only conditioning that is possible click. Each chamber was equipped with a 1S-W
houselight mounted in the roof. The houselight
here would be temporal conditioning to the was illuminated continuously except during hopper
spacing of reinforcements. activation when a hopper light was the only illu-
At the other extreme, one may consider mination. Under all conditions, a trial was defined
a situation in which the intertrial duration by the interval during which the response key was
transilluminated by a green light. This stimulus
occupies most of the period between food was generated by an IEE projection device (Model
presentations and the key light comes on #10M54-Q-44B) which directed the output of a
very briefly before or nearly simultaneously 28-V bulb (GE 1828) through a green Wrattan
with reinforcement (T — 0 ) . Temporal con- filter onto the rear of the response key. The lumi-
nance of the homogeneous field of green light was
ditioning would again seem to be the only -1.2 log ftL.
basis for associative effects here (cf. Stad- Procedure: Hopper training. Prior to auto-
don & Simmelhag, 1971). shaping, each subject was required to satisfy an
The present experiments examined the eating criterion. At the start of hopper training,
contribution of I and T values between these a naive subject was placed in an experimental
chamber in which the response key had been cov-
extremes. Experiment 1 studied fixed trial ered. The only source of illumination in the cham-
and variable intertrial durations. Experi- ber was the hopper light. Prior to placing the bird
ment 2 studied fixed trial and fixed inter- in the chamber, a few grains of food were scat-
trial durations. In both experiments, an at- tered on the floor immediately in front of the hop-
per aperture. Typically, subjects ate this grain al-
tempt was made to encompass a substantial most immediately and subsequently ate from the
range of values of both variables and to in- food hopper. Whenever the subject inserted its
clude combinations for which the ratio of head into the hopper, it interrupted the beam of
these two parameters was constant. light directed at a photocell; 3% sec later, the
hopper was lowered and the houselight illuminated
the chamber. Following an average interval of 20
Experiment 1 sec, the hopper was raised again.
Upon completion of 10 eating trials, the first
Method session was terminated after the first sequence of
5 trials with eat latencies less than or equal to
Subjects. The subjects were 136 male and fe- 1.5 sec. If no such sequence occurred, the session
male white Carneaux pigeons. At the start of the terminated after 50 eating trials. Every subject
experiment, each pigeon was experimentally naive. was required to satisfy the latency criterion twice
Their ages ranged from 6 to 9 months. Through- during no more than four hopper training sessions.
out the experiment, subjects were maintained at Subjects which did not do so were excluded from
80% ± 3% free-feeding weight. the experiment. This screening resulted in an at-
Apparatus. Four experimental chambers were trition rate of about 20%.
used. Each was made from modified Coleman ice Procedure: Autoshaping. Figure 1 shows the
chests with internal dimensions of 30 cm wide X experimental design on double log coordinates.
31 cm high X 31 cm long. Three of the chambers The / values are shown on the #-axis and T
had the response key located behind a circular values are shown on the y-axis. Combinations with
aperture in the middle of the front panel, directly constant ratios are those with a common positive
above the hopper opening. The fourth chamber was diagonal. In each case, T was fixed and / repre-
originally a two-key chamber. One of these keys sented the mean of an approximately exponentially
was covered (and painted flat black) throughout distributed sample of intertrial intervals. The dis-
the experiment. In the fourth chamber, the opera- tribution for I = 96 sec is given in Appendix A.
tive key was located approximately 7 cm to the The other / distributions may be obtained from
left of the hopper opening. In all chambers the this by multiplying all the intervals by the appro-
center of the response key was 20.32 cm above the priate constant (e.g., all intervals are halved to
floor. A pilot study demonstrated that there were obtain the 48-sec distribution).
no differences between the acquisition and per- After satisfying the magazine criterion, birds
formance of subjects conditioned in the chamber were randomly formed into groups and studied in
with the offset key and subjects conditioned in the sessions lasting for 25 trials. \Sessions began with
266 GIBBON, BALDOCK, LOCURTO, GOLD, AND TERRACE

an intertrial interval of a duration that was the from these groups were subjected to analysis
mean value of the variable sample programmed of variance. The measure used was the log
for that bird for that condition. Thus, for exam-
ple, birds in the groups at / = 96 sec were ex- of the number of trials subjects experienced
posed to an intertrial interval of 96 sec at the prior to satisfying an acquisition criterion
beginning of each session. Subjects were studied of a sequence of three out of four trials in
either for 20 sessions without a response or for a row with at least one response. This mea-
20 sessions beyond the session in which they first
began to peck the key. sure reflects the beginning of sustained re-
sponding and is less variable than trials to
the first peck. The log transform was used to
Results
reduce an otherwise substantial correlation
Acquisition. Acquisition results con- between mean and standard deviation. Tests
firmed and extended our earlier findings of homogeneity of variance on the logged
(Terrace et al., 1975). The earlier study data (Pearson & Hartley, 1970, Table 31,
found trials to acquisition to be a negative interpolated for k = 20) approached but did
power function of / value. In the present not reach significance. Thus, the log trans-
study, this relationship was found to hold form reduced inhomogeneity.
within each T value. However, the trial du- The analysis of variance confirmed a very
ration modulated the overall level of acquisi- large effect of intertrial interval, F(4, 85) =
tion. When T was long, acquisition was re- 10.23, p < .001, and also a reliable effect
tarded, and when T was shortened (down of trial duration, F(3, 85) = 2.85, p < .05.
to T = 2 sec), acquisition was facilitated. The interaction between these two variables
One group of four subjects, studied at the was not significant, indicating that the log
combination I = 96 sec, T = 1 sec, did not transform resulted in parallel effects of the
acquire key pecking. Acquisition data on in- intertrial interval at different trial values.
dividual subjects is contained in Appendix Group medians of individual subject's
B. Four trial durations (T = 4, 8, 16, and number of trials to acquisition are shown in
32 sec) were studied at a broad range of Figure 2 as a function of intertrial interval
intertrial interval values (/ = 24, 48, 96, with trial duration as a parameter. Both
384, and 768 sec), and acquisition data axes are logged. The four functions shown
in the figure are least squares fits and there-
fore describe a power relationship between
1.5 2 3 acquisition and / values. The correlations on
individual functions all exceeded .98, and
64
the associated F for regression (cf. Draper,
-5 32 1966, pp. 38-41, and Ergun, 1956) is ac-
cordingly very large, F(l, 9) = 340.0, p <
.001. Individual slopes were found not to
differ reliably from each other and are well
represented by the pooled estimate of $ =
— .777. Evidently, changing trial duration
alters only the level of these functions. At
a given trial duration, increasing the inter-
e 24 48 96 384 768 trial interval facilitates acquisition at about
INTERTRIAL INTERVAL (I in sec) the same rate as increasing the intertrial in-
Figure 1. Experimental design: Entries in the
terval by the same factor at a different trial
graph are the number of subjects studied at the co- duration.
ordinate combination of intertrial interval (I, ab- Changing trial duration changes the in-
scissa) and trial interval (T, ordinate) values. tercepts of these functions, so that the pro-
(Both axes are logged so that constant ratios of portionality constant in the underlying
I IT [indicated along the top of the figure] result
in diagonal lines. Groups with a common ratio are power function relating the two variables
those connected by these diagonals.) depends on T. This dependence is shown in
TRIAL AND INTERTRIAL DURATIONS IN AUTOSHAPING 267

Figure 3, which plots the proportionality 4000


constant of each regression line against trial
value. The ordinate represents the interpo-
lated number of reinforcements to acquisi-
tion at / = 1 sec. Again, the plot is a power 1000
function to a first approximation, and the
regression fit accounts for a substantial por- 400
tion (90%) of the variance. The slope of
this line is very close in absolute value to
the slopes of the functions in Figure 2. In-
deed, this slope (/3 — .750) lies closer to
the best estimate of the common slope of 4 8 16 32
the functions in Figure 3 than do any of TRIAL DURATION (T)
the individual functions. If we regard these Figure 3. Proportionality constant of the functions
slopes as the same and denote them by /?, of Figure 2 as a function of trial (T) duration.
the relationship in Figure 2 means that (The best fit regression line is indicated. Inter-
trial interval [/] and trial duration are in sec-
onds.)

where N is the number of pairings to acqui- to acquisition is a power function of the


sition and K(T) is the proportionality con- ratio of intertrial interval and trial dura-
stant. Similarly, the function in Figure 3 tions. That is,
means that
K(T) ^aTP.
The median number of trials needed for
But this implies that the number of trials acquisition is shown as a function of the I/T
ratio for all groups that acquired responding
x ------ x 4 T"4 in Figure 4. As expected from the above
•-• 8 T - 8
I-----• 16 T-16 considerations, the relationship is approxi-
•--------432 T=32 mately linear on double log coordinates. A
200 regression line calculated from data of 21
of the 25 groups is shown as the solid line.
100 It accounts for 92% of the variance. Four
70 *v *x groups were excluded (indicated by boxed
50 \NkX points in the figure) as aberrant data. They
30 were from groups with either a very short
20 trial (2 sec) or a very large I/T ratio
(96/1). With these exceptions, the acquisi-
10 tion data appear to conform quite closely
7
5
to the relationship described by Equation I.1
Variability was considerable for most of
3 the groups studied and covaried with cen-
2 tral tendency. This covariation was reduced
but not eliminated by the logarithmic trans-
24 48 96 384 768 form. The correlation between log standard
INTERTRIAL INTERVAL
deviation and log median acquisition score
for the data of Figure 4 was r — .68.
Figure 2. Median trials before reaching the acqui- Most subjects began pecking during a
sition criterion as a function of intertrial interval
(in seconds), with trial ( T ) value (in seconds) 1
as the parameter. (Both axes are logged, and the The regression is highly significant with or
best fit regression lines are indicated for each trial without the aberrant points: F(l, 19) = 206 or
value.) F(l, 23) =40.7, />s<.001 in both cases.
268 GIBBON, BALDOCK, LOCURTO, GOLD, AND TERRACE

crease from top to bottom. The right-most


6 4
24 12 functions. are averages of the data at each
24 8
P 150 4
8
intertrial interval. Data from the 1st day of
S
05 100
9 48
96 8
4 responding are quite similar to data from
96 4 the first 4 days of responding. These rates,
I IS 384
D 24
8
16
in turn, are generally lower than those ob-
£ 4! 24
32
tained after prolonged training, though the
g £ B
V 48
| 48
96
24
16
32 differences are small. This is clearest in the
3 io
>
^ 96 16
384
•768
32
64 average functions in the right-hand column
4 384
768
16
32 of the figure. Particularly for the long inter-
T 768 16
E 6 trial intervals, the three functions are very
i;
2
S 96 2 similar. There was a tendency in the aver-
B 364 4
aged functions toward a lower rate in the
D 768 8
first fifth of the signal, followed by an in-
2 3 5 7 10 20 30 50 70 100 crease as the trial elapsed. This curvature
INTERTRIAL/TRIAL DURATION (I/T) was more gradual and more pronounced for
the long intertrial intervals than for the
Figure 4. Median trials to satisfy the acquisition
criterion as a function of intertrial-to-trial dura- short intertrial intervals. There was no clear
tion ratio (I/T). (The axes are logged, and the effect of intertrial interval on the overall
regression function shown as the dashed line was level of responding.
calculated excluding points enclosed in boxes. / The effect of trial duration was more
and T are in seconds.)
complex. Responding at the longest inter-
trial interval values (bottom two rows of
Figure 5) showed little effect for changing
trial. However some subjects, particularly
T values in either overall level or in the
those studied at the longer 7 values, did not.
degree of curvature evinced at different T
The proportion of subjects whose first re-
sponse occurred during a trial was .844 for values. However, at the shorter intertrial
intervals, a clear reduction in level of re-
subjects with 7^48 sec, and .634 for sub-
sponding was observed with increasing T
jects with 7 ^ 96 sec. This difference was
values. For example, at 7 = 48 sec and 7 =
reliable, X 2 ( l ) = 34.77, p < .01, though the 96 sec, the rates of responding for the 32-sec
relationship was not very strong when ex-
trial groups are considerably below the rates
amined at individual 7 values.
at shorter trial durations.
Responding was engendered faster at the
long 7 values, but with the concomitant re- This reduction in rate is associated also
sult that "errors" of initial pecks in the ab- with less curvature in the functions. One
sence of a trial signal emerged more fre- might expect after long training that timing
quently. For all birds, responding during the of the trial duration would emerge, with re-
intertrial interval dropped to very low lev- sponse rates increasing as the time for re-
els within a few days beyond the day on inforcement is approached. This appears to
which the first peck occurred. be true only for the long intertrial interval
Sustained responding. Responding was values and is not evident after long training
examined at successive intervals in the trial for the short 7 values. Particularly when T
signal for a representative subset of the is long, continued training may even result
groups in the study. In Figure 5, response in a decrease in rate as the trial elapses.
rates are presented at successive fifths of the The ratio of intertrial-to-trial time is im-
signal: for the 1st day of responding in plicated to some degree by the interaction
which at least 10 signals contained a re- observed here with long trial durations and
sponse (indicated by X s ) , for the first 4 days short intertrial durations exerting a de-
(open circles), and for the final 4 days of pressing effect on responding. However, the
responding (filled circles). Within each precision observed in our acquisition mea-
row, 7 values are constant and T values in- sure is not matched here. For example, the
crease from left to right. The 7 values in- depressed functions for Group 7 = 48 sec,
TRIAL AND INTERTRIAL DURATIONS IN AUTOSHAPING 269

T — 32 sec do not have the same character and there was a substantial effect for trial
as those for the Group / = 24 sec, T = 16 duration, F(3, 47) = 10.58, p < .001. The
sec. Similarly, compare 1 — 96 sec, T — 4 interaction approached but did not reach
and 8 sec with / = 384 sec, T = 16 and 32 significance, F(9, 47) = 1.84, .05 <p< .10.
sec. However, the missing data technique
The overall mean response rate in the (Winer, 1971, p. 48) was required in this
trial for each subject over the final 4 days of analysis, and this tends to minimize inter-
training was logged and the data subjected action effects.
to an analysis of variance. The analysis The trial duration effect is shown in Fig-
confirmed the general findings noted above. ure 6 on double log coordinates. The best fit
There was no effect for intertrial interval, power function, indicated by the line, ac-
T=4 T=8 T-16 T=32 AVERAGE

1=24

1=48

1=96

1=384

1=768

3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 I 3 5
FIFTHS OF THE TRIAL
Figure S. Response rate on a log scale in successive fifths of the trial signal for selected groups.
Intertrial (/) values increase from top to bottom of the figure, and trial (T) values increase
from left to right. (Xs are for the 1st day of responding [with at least 10 trials responded to],
open circles are for the first 4 days of responding, and filled circles for the last 4 days of
responding.)
270 GIBBON, BALDOCK, LOCURTO, GOLD, AND TERRACE

UJ ZOO r schedule. The group median latencies from


h-
24 8 the 1st session and the 15th session of train-
2. 100
• 48
8 ing were examined statistically, and the
2 4
70 M 96
I 96
8 trend toward lowered latency with training
IT 4
D
I 384
24
8
16
was found to be reliable, matched-pairs
of 40
<
I 48
96
16
32 *(19) =2.37, /K.05.

384
4 384
32
16
Latencies showed some dependence both
| ZO 768
768
32
16
early and late in training on the trial dura-
0 384
tion, but not on the intertrial duration. In
(B 10 El 768 8 Figure 8 median latency from the 1st ses-
48 32
sion and from the 15th session is shown in
4 7 10 20 40
the left and right panels as a function of
TRIAL DURATION (sec) trial duration. Both axes are logged. There
Figure 6. Responses per minute as a function of is a clear trend in both sets of data for in-
trial (7*) value on double log coordinates. (The creasing latency with increasing trial dura-
best fit power relationship is indicated by the line. tion, although there is somewhat more scat-
Intertrial interval [/] and T are in seconds.)
ter in the data after prolonged training. The
straight line functions represent the best
counts for about 41% of the variance in
fitting power relationships, and the regres-
these data. sion analysis was significant for both func-
Representative latency distributions pooled
over subjects within a group are shown in
Figure 7. The conditions selected span the
range of trial durations (4—32 sec) and in-
clude two groups with the same trial dura-
tion (T = 16 sec), but very different I/T
ratios (1.5 and 24). Two groups differing
in both / and T values have the same ratio
(1-96 sec, T = 8 sec and / = 384 sec,
T = 32 sec; I/T = 12). The upper distri-
bution for each group represents the first 40
trials of responding and the lower distribu-
tion the last 40 trials. Medians are indicated
by the vertical dashed line. The class inter-
val size for Group / = 24 sec, T = 4 sec is
.5 sec, while for the remaining distributions,
class intervals are 1 sec. In all cases, distri-
butions were found to be skewed toward the
low end, generally with a mode in the first
or second category. This skew was quite
representative of individual subjects. The
distributions seemed to be "complete" in the
sense that latencies were rarely as long as 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
the trial duration. This feature characterized CLASS INTERVAL
all the distributions we have observed ex- Figure 7. Distributions of latency of the first re-
cept those obtained for Groups T = 2 sec. sponse in the trial signal for selected groups. (La-
The minimum latency that birds may pro- tencies were pooled over subjects within each
duce in our paradigm appears to be of the group and are presented separately for the first 40
order of 1 or 2 sec. and last 40 trials of responding. Note that the
class interval size for the distributions in the upper
The effect of training may be observed left is .5 sec, while for the remaining groups it is
as an increase in the skew due to a general 1 sec. Intertrial interval [/] and trial [T] intervals
shortening of latencies with exposure to the are in seconds.)
TRIAL AND INTERTRIAL DURATIONS IN AUTOSHAPING 271

|St SESSION I5ttl SESSION

4 10 20 40 4 10 20 40
TRIAL DURATION

Figure 8. Median latency (in seconds) of the first response in the trial as a function of trial
(T) duration (in seconds) for the 1st and the 15th sessions (left and right panels, respec-
tively). (The lines are the best fitting power relationships. 7=intertrial interval in seconds.)

tions, Fs(l, 18) =43.0 and 16.55, ps < .001, was a shift toward more control over sus-
for the 1st and 15th session, respectively. tained responding by the trial duration. Re-
The shortening of latency with continued sponse rates stabilized quite rapidly and
training is reflected here in a lower level showed no effect of absolute intertrial in-
and somewhat steeper slope for the function terval value and little effect of the ratio of
describing the 15th-session data. There is / to T, but substantial decrements at long
also a suggestion of a floor effect with la- T durations. Latency of the first response
tencies rarely exhibited below about 1 sec. of the trial was also insensitive to / values
Such an effect would result in some curva- or I/T ratios and showed a modest relation-
ture in the relationship for the ISth-session ship to T values.
data, but a lack-of-fit test performed on both The positive relationship between latency
functions failed to reveal reliable nonlinear- and T was the only indication that the dura-
ity. Thus, the power relationship appears to tion of the trial was "timed." However, the
be a reasonable description of the control failure to find an increase in response rate
exerted by trial duration on the latency of toward the end of the signal argues against
the first peck. timing in any accurate sense. Particularly
in view of the finding of depressed respond-
Discussion ing late in the trial at long T values, it is
doubtful that longer latencies with longer
The central finding of Experiment 1 was values of T reflect any sharp differentiation
that relative rather than absolute durations of when reinforcement is due.
of / and T controlled the speed with which Our previous report on the intertrial in-
autoshaped responding was acquired. The terval effect (Terrace et al., 1975) suggested
number of trials to acquisition was approxi- that rapid acquisition at long / values oc-
mately a power function of I/T. The ratio curred because the trial signal represented
relationship covered nearly two orders of a larger improvement in "predictiveness"
magnitude, with a suggestion that at very than when the intertrial interval was short.
large ratios acquisition is not as rapid as a One construction of predictiveness is ob-
strict power relationship would predict. Pos- tained by discretizing time in the session
sibly, very large ratios retard acquisition. A into subintervals containing trials and sub-
recent report (Griffin, 1975) describes ac- intervals containing intertrial intervals, and
quisition as a U-shaped function of I/T, correlating these with reinforcement and
with the descending portion a power func- nonreinforcement. This discretized time as-
tion comparable to the one we report. sumption, under appropriate restrictions,
Once autoshaped pecking emerged, there may be shown to result in increasing cor-
272 GIBBON, BALDOCK, LOCURTO, GOLD, AND TERRACE

relation with increasing values of / (Gibbon, lected because it meant that most subjects
Berryman, & Thompson, 1974). However, would experience all of these intervals at
this sort of analysis ignores the potential least once before key pecking emerged. If
contribution of temporal cues to predictive- an internal representation of these variable
ness. From the strictly statistical point of intertrial times is somehow averaged by
view, the correlation between trial signal subjects before conditioning is complete,
and food remains the same whether inter- then the question arises as to what sort of
trial durations are variable or fixed, as long averaging (e.g., arithmetic, geometric) it is.
as they have the same mean values. An An additional aim of Experiment 2 was to
alternative view would regard temporal un- provide data on this point, since fixed /
certainty about trial onset as a potential con- values are not averaged.
tributor to learning the association between
the signal and food. In the extreme case, Method
if subjects were able to estimate very accu-
rately the time at which food delivery was Subjects. The subjects were 64 white Carneaux
scheduled, a trial signal indicating the same pigeons approximately 9 months old at the start
of training. Throughout the experiment, each sub-
thing would be redundant. Accordingly, ject was maintained at 80% ± 3% of its free-
blocking of conditioning to the trial signal feeding weight.
might be observed, similar to the well-docu- Apparatus. The apparatus was the same as that
mented blocking of redundant cues in fear used in Experiment 1.
conditioning (Kamin, 1969; Rescorla & Procedure. Subjects were assigned in groups
of four to four I and T values combined factorially
Wagner, 1972). (7 = 48, 96, 192, and 384 sec; T = %, 12, 16, and
A blocking hypothesis of this sort is spec- 32 sec). The factorial combinations resulted in
ulative. A demonstration would require pre- four I IT ratios (I/T = 3, 6, 12, and 24) that con-
training with a fixed interreinforcement tained more than one group. This provided a basis
for assessing whether the ratio relationship ob-
interval and subsequent assessment of re- served in Experiment 1 would hold for the fixed
tarded acquisition of autoshaping at that in- intertrial condition.
terval relative to control groups studied at The magazine-training and autoshaping-training
comparable testing parameters. However procedure in Experiment 2 was the same as that
followed in Experiment 1 except for the constant
indirect evidence on this point is provided duration of the intertrial interval.
by Experiment 2 reported below, in which
intertrial intervals were fixed at values
equal to the mean intertrial intervals of Ex- Results
periment 1. If temporal predictiveness is a Acquisition. Experiment 2 replicated the
feature of association learning in autoshap- finding of Experiment 1 that both increasing
ing, comparable to context effects (Tomie, the intertrial duration and decreasing the
1976), then temporal cues under fixed I trial duration resulted in more rapid acqui-
might compete with the key-light signal, re- sition. Acquisition scores from all birds (the
sulting in retarded acquisition. number of trials to satisfy the acquisition
criterion) were logged and an analysis of
Experiment 2 variance performed on the data. The inter-
trial interval and trial duration effects were
In Experiment 1, temporal cues for re- large, Fs(3, 44) = 7.36 and 7.95, ps < .001,
inforcement were reduced by making / for / and T, respectively, and no interac-
variable. In Experiment 2, we studied fixed tion was present. The acquisition data for
intertrial interval durations over a range of each bird are presented in Appendix C.
/ values spanning the center of the ratio A central finding for Experiment 1 was
relation (Figure 4). The variable intertrial that acquisition speed was approximately
times programmed in Experiment 1 were constant for constant values of the ratio of
scheduled to repeat the sampling distribu- the arithmetic mean of / to T. Figure 9
tion every 25 trials. This number was se- shows median trials to acquisition as a func-
TRIAL AND INTERTRIAL DURATIONS IN AUTOSHAPING 273

tion of this ratio for Experiment 2. The


100
solid line through the data is the best fit
power function. It accounts for 82% of the M 70
Q
variance of these medians. The function ob- LJ 40
tained in Experiment 1 is shown as the u.
dashed line. The slopes appear to be within tr 20
sampling error of each other.2 o
Variability of acquisition scores in the Q 10
two experiments was quite comparable. A
comparison of the error variance from the 7 10 20 40 70
analysis of variance performed on the logged SD FOR VARIABLE I
acquisition data from both experiments was Figure 10. Scattergram relating standard devia-
nonsignificant, -F(44, 85) = 1.096. Given tions (SDs) for groups receiving comparable in-
the considerable covariation of standard de- tertrial (/) and trial (T) values from Experiment
1 (abscissa) and Experiment 2 (ordinate). (The
viation and median acquisition score ob- heavy line is the regression function; the dashed
served in Experiment 1, this suggests a line represents equality of the two values.)
similar covariation in Experiment 2. Nine of
the groups in Experiment 2 received inter- sion function is represented by the heavy
trial and trial values equal to mean inter- line. Evidently, fixing the intertrial interval
trial and trial combinations studied in Ex- does not reduce variation in the number of
periment 1. The standard deviations of ac- trials required to begin responding. Indeed,
quisition scores for these nine pairs of if anything, variance was somewhat greater
groups are presented on double log coordi- in Experiment 2, particularly at the long
nates in scattergram form in Figure 10. The intertrial intervals when standard deviations
correlation between standard deviations in in Experiment 1 were small. The dashed
the two experiments is r — .647, and this line of slope 1.0 represents equality of these
value reliably differs from zero, t(7) = scores, and most of the points fall on or
2.65, p < .025. The corresponding regres- above this line.
Sustained responding. Responding was
recorded in tenths of the trial signal for all
400 groups in Experiment 2. Response rates
from the 1st day of responding ( X s ) , the
200 first 4 days of responding (open circles),
and the final 4 days of responding (filled
100 circles) are shown in Figure 11. Trial dura-
70 tions increase from left to right within each
40
row. Intertrial interval values increase from
top to bottom of the figure. A quite similar
20
picture emerges here as was found in Ex-
periment 1. Looking down the right-most
(average) column, more gradual curvature,
10
from little responding early in the trial to
7
more rapid responding late in the trial, can
be observed as / is increased. The increasing
7 10 20 40 70 curvature is evident for the individual T
I/T values as well. Decreased responding early
Figure 9. Median trials to acquisition in Experi- 2
ment 2 as a function of intertrial-to-trial duration If the aberrant groups of Experiment 1 are
ratio (I/T). (The heavy line is the regression included, the comparison of slopes is of borderline
fit for the Experiment 2 data. The dashed line is significance: F(l, 37) =4.89, .025 < p < .05. How-
the regession fit from Experiment 1. T is in sec- ever, if only the 96/1 groups are omitted (Experi-
onds.) ment 2 had no ratio this large), F = 1.05.
274 GIBBON, BALDOCK, LOCURTO, GOLD, AND TERRACE

in the signal is greatest at / = 384 sec and pronounced at the shorter 7 values and less
shows a more gradual approach to higher clear at the long 7 values.
rates than at the smaller 7 values. The effect Average response rates from the last 4
is roughly proportional; the reduction seems days of training were logged and subjected
to occur in the first one or two tenths of the to analysis of variance. There was a clear
signal independently of the absolute size of effect of T value, F(3, 46) = 3.93, p <
the signal (compare, for example, T = 16 .025, and no effect for 7 value or interac-
sec and T = 32 sec for 7 = 384 sec). tion. The control by trial duration may be
As in Experiment 1, responding on the observed in Figure 12, which shows on
1st day is quite similar to responding over double log coordinates the rate for each
the first 4 days, and these values are gen- group as a function of trial duration. The
erally somewhat lower than the rates sub- best fit power relation, represented by the
jects exhibit at the end of training. Again, line, accounts for about 38 % of the variance
also, the effects of trial duration are more in these data.
complex. There is a tendency toward re- Figure 13 presents group median latency
duced absolute levels of responding with in- from the 1st and 15th sessions as a function
creasing trial duration, and this finding is of trial duration. Both axes are logged, and

T=8 T-12 T«I6 T=32 AVERAGE

1 = 48

1=96
7

r 1=192

. ^^ 1=384

10 I 5 10 I 5 10 I 5 10 I
TENTHS OF THE TRIAL
Figure 11. Response rates on a log scale in successive tenths of the trial signal at each combi-
nation of intertrial (/) and trial (T) duration (in seconds). (/ values are constant within
rows and increase from top to bottom. T values increase from left to right. The average within
each / value is at the extreme right. Rates for the 1st day are indicated by Xs, for the first
4 days by open circles, and for the last 4 days by filled circles.)
TRIAL AND INTERTRIAL DURATIONS IN AUTOSHAPING 275

l T also. The increase in latency with trial du-


200
8 48 8 ration is substantial only at the T = 32 sec
• 48 12 duration, with the shorter trial durations
100 1 48 16
A 48 32 producing roughly comparable latencies.
70 • 96 8 While both regression analyses show signifi-
96 12 cance, Fs(l, 14) = 10.61 and 10.56, ps <
96 16
40 96 32 .01, there is a suggestion both early and late
192 8 in training that the power relationship is
192 12 not the best one for these data, lack-of-fit
20 192 16
192 32 Fs(2, 12) = 2.27 and 3.42, . ! < / > < .25 and
384 8 .05 < p < .1 for the 1st- and 15th- session
384 12 data, respectively. Thus, while the effects
10 384 16
384 32 observed here are in the same direction as
those observed in Experiment 1, the result
10 20 40 of fixing the intertrial interval appears to be
TRIAL DURATION (sec) an attenuation of the dependence of latency
on trial duration.
Figure 12. Response rates from the last four days In Experiment 1, responding in the inter-
of training in Experiment 2 as a function of trial trial interval was sporadic and dropped out
duration on double log coordinates. (The best fit-
ting power relationship is the straight line. I — in- quite rapidly as subjects acquired substan-
tertrial interval in seconds, T = trial interval in tial rates in the trial signal. This was less
seconds.) true for Experiment 2. Five of the 16 groups
showed maintained, though very low, rates
the straight line functions are the best fit-
of response even after prolonged training.
ting power relationships. These data are also
Responding was recorded in successive
similar to the results from Experiment 1.
In Experiment 1, the effect of training was fifths of the intertrial interval and is shown
a reduction in overall latency. That effect on a log scale in Figure 14. Again, rows
in these data was marginal, matched-pairs represent constant intertrial intervals and T
t(l5) = 1.60, .05 < p < .1. The adequacy values increase from left to right. The /
of the power fits is more questionable here values increase from top to bottom. Open

l T
e 48 8
Ist SESSION 15th SESSION 48 12
I 48 16
A 48 32
10 •
96 8
I 96 12
0 96 16
4 96 32
o 192 8
o 192 12
D 192 16
oo 192 32
t 384 8
• 384 12
« 384 16
• 384 32
6 10 20 40 6 10 20 40

TRIAL DURATION (sec)


Figure 13. Group median latency from the 1st and 15th sessions as a function of trial dura-
tion on double log coordinates. (Power relationships are indicated by the straight lines. / =
intertrial interval in seconds, T = trial interval in seconds.)
276 GIBBON, BALDOCK, LOCURTO, GOLD, AND TERRACE

circles represent data from the first 4 days rates that all groups exhibit during the
after acquisition of responding in the trial, trial signal.
and filled circles are data from the final 4 A clear trend in the character of these
days of training. Functions are not presented functions may be discerned from the right-
unless rates were above .5 per min. This most column, which represents the average
was the case for 11 of the 16 groups after at each 7 value. When I is short, responding
prolonged training. However, all groups increases over successive fifths of the inter-
showed some responding early in acquisi- trial interval so that response rates are high-
tion. Of the five groups showing responding est just before the next trial signal is due
after prolonged training, only Groups / = to be presented. As / increases, however,
48 sec show responding at any substantial this trend diminishes and is replaced by the
level (about 4 responses per min). These reverse (concave upward) form in which
rates, while maintained throughout training, response rates decline monotonically as the
are about 10 to 20 times lower than the intertrial interval elapses. The two inter-

T=8 T«I2 T=I6 T=32 AVERAGE


20
10 1=48
4

2
I

0.4

1=96

1=192

0.4

2
I 1=384

0.4
0.3
L
0.1
I 3 5 13 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 i 3 5
FIFTHS OF THE TRIAL
Figure 14. Response rate on a log scale in successive fifths of the intertrial interval (/) at each
combination of / and trial duration (T) for Experiment 2. (/ values are constant within a row
and increase from top to bottom. T values increase from left to right. The average within a
given / value is shown on the extreme right. Open circles are data from the first 4 days after
responding to the trial signal was initiated, and filled circles are data from the last 4 days of
training.)
TRIAL AND INTERTRIAL DURATIONS IN AUTOSHAPING 277

mediate / values show intermediate function when it is small associative strength is ac-
forms, with 7 = 96 sec resulting in roughly quired slowly or not at all.
constant rates over the intertrial interval. An alternative view might hold that ac-
This change in the form of the functions ap- quisition scores reflect both associative
pears also to be representative of particular learning about the signal and performance
I, T combinations. variables which affect how strongly that as-
The change in curvature from concave sociative learning is indexed. For example,
down to concave up with increasing 7 values we will argue below that at very short trial
may result in part from pooling over a durations birds may be unable to show con-
larger absolute amount of postreinforcement ditioned responding when associative con-
time when calculating rates in successive ditioning might nevertheless be present.
fifths of the larger 7 values. For example, Differences across training conditions are
the / = 48 sec function corresponds in ab- then confounded with differences in the con-
solute time to the first half of the 7 = 96 sec ditions under which associative responding
function, which in turn corresponds to the is assessed. The present experiments (and
first half of the 7 = 192 sec function, and so acquisition studies in general) are not de-
on. Data were not collected in absolute time signed to discriminate these alternatives,
since reinforcement, and so the point may and thus it remains possible that key peck-
not be evaluated definitively, but a compari- ing, once acquired, reflects both the training
son of the first two points in the 1 — 96 sec conditions and factors unrelated to associa-
function with the first four points in the 7 tive conditioning that might influence per-
= 48 sec function suggests that at least the formance of the response. However, some
absolute levels of these functions are chang- features of the data argue against the latter
ing reliably with 7 value. Responding is interpretation. Sustained responding, both
about three or four times as great for early and late in training in both experi-
Groups 7 = 48 sec than for Groups 7 = 96 ments, was insensitive to the intertrial in-
sec, and curvature is evident throughout the terval variable. If nonassociative perform-
range for the smaller 7 value as well. There ance factors were involved in early condi-
is also a tendency, evident in the individual tioned responding, one might expect those
functions for different T values, for inter- same factors to show continued control over
trial responding to be lower with longer T sustained responding. However, continued
values, paralleling this same trend for re- training resulted in a modest degree of con-
sponding during the signal (Figure 11). trol over responding by the trial duration,
but virtually no control over responding by
the intertrial duration. Yet these two factors
General Discussion interact powerfully in acquisition. It seems
The central finding in both experiments more likely to us that the emergence of re-
was that relative rather than absolute trial sponding here reflects quite directly the
and intertrial times controlled the speed power of the training conditions to estab-
with which responding to the signal for re- lish an associative link between key light
inforcement emerged. One interpretation of and food. When associative strength is suf-
this result would regard the point in train- ficient, the signal functions as a "sign stim-
ing at which responding first occurs as an ulus" (Hearst & Jenkins, 1974) and re-
index of equivalent associative strengths for sponding is evoked.
the signal across different training conditions. The interaction of trial and intertrial du-
According to this view, pecking results ration in the acquisition of responding was
once a threshold of associative strength is evident over a range of nearly two orders
reached. However, this threshold is reached of magnitude. In this range, subjects seemed
at different rates under different training to require a number of reinforced trials be-
conditions. When the I/T ratio is large, fore pecking, which was approximately a
associative strength is acquired rapidly, and power function of the I/T ratio. This rela-
278 GIBBON, BALDOCK, LOCURTO, GOLD, AND TERRACE

tionship held both when the intertrial inter- Quite apart, however, from the form of
vals were variable and / values were the the relationship between N and I/T, the
arithmetic mean of the variable sample and ratio effect itself places a powerful con-
when intertrial intervals were fixed. At val- straint on any theory which purports to
ues below //T—1.0, birds did not acquire encompass this result. The ratio effect is
at all, and at I/T — 96, acquisition appeared reminiscent of Weber's law for time dis-
to be retarded relative to the power func- crimination (e.g., Stubbs, 1968) in that the
tion prediction. The reasons for these limits trial duration must represent a constant
are probably not the same. At the lower fraction of the intertrial duration for com-
limit, when trial durations are as long or parable speeds of conditioning. However,
longer than intertrial periods, subjects may temporal discrimination in the sense of ac-
never learn the association between signal curate timing does not appear to be in-
and food for the same reasons that this volved. Two considerations force that con-
learning is retarded as the ratio of 7 to T clusion. First, accurate timing of the trial
is reduced. That is, the degradation of asso- duration might be expected to result in more
ciative value with decreasing I/T may sim- rapid responding toward the end of the sig-
ply exceed the threshold for autoshaped key nal, when reinforcement is due. This does
pecking at ratios of about 1.0. not develop to any substantial degree until
At the upper end, the ratio relationship late in training—and then only when / val-
may fail for several different reasons. Large ues are long and fixed. Early in training,
ratios perforce require either very short responding—once it has begun in the trial—
trial values or very long intertrial values. appears to be roughly constant throughout
If T is less than or equal to 2 sec, birds may the remainder of the signal. Since only the
not be functionally in a position to deliver acquisition data are controlled by the trial-
a response with a short enough latency for to-intertrial ratio, some alternative construc-
it to be recorded during a trial, particularly tion is required to explain this result.3
when trial onset times are variable, as in Additional evidence is provided by the
Experiment 1. Thus, subjects may acquire acquisition function of Experiment 2. If
some associative strength to the signal yet some internal representation of time values
may not be able to index that strength with of the trial relative to the intertrial time are
our dependent variable measure. Conversely, important in acquisition, then it is surely
when trial durations are moderate and inter- not an accurate time representation or we
trial durations are very long, subjects may would have observed some effect when the
not be "attending" when the trial signals intertrial interval was constant. If the num-
come on, due to roosting or other activities ber of trials before acquisition occurs were
in the experimental chamber. This may re- sufficiently large, one might expect some
sult in functionally fewer reinforced trials, temporal conditioning to the constant inter-
thus again retarding acquisition. reinforcement interval in the fixed / case,
In the center portion of the I/T range, but not to the variable interreinforcement
the speed of acquisition is reasonably well intervals programmed in Experiment 1.
described by a power function. We do not Since the acquisition functions from the two
presently know why this relationship, as experiments were indistinguishable, it seems
opposed to some other monotone decreasing that the number of trials before responding
function of I/T, is the proper one. Regres- begins is insufficient to substantially reduce
sion analysis of the log of the number of
trials to acquisition as a function of un- 3
Data from a companion experiment with prob-
logged ratio values results in considerably abilistic reinforcement (Farrell, Terrace, Gibbon,
more scatter and lower correlations. Of & Locurto, 1974) suggest that timing of the trial
course, this simply means that a simple ex- signal develops more powerfully with extended
ponential relationship to I/T is less appro- training under partial reinforcement. However,
these data confirm the present finding that no time-
priate than the power relationship that we correlated changes in response rate are observed
exhibit. immediately after pecking emerges.
TRIAL AND INTERTRIAL DURATIONS IN AUTOSHAPING 279

variability in the internal representation of there was some tendency for responding to
the intertrial interval when that interval is occur after reinforcement, followed by a de-
constant. Thus, whatever mechanism is pro- cline as the intertrial interval elapsed. If the
posed for specifying the occurrence of the increase observed at short 7 values reflects
key peck, it cannot depend critically on ac- anticipation, then the decrease as 7 elapses
curate timing of the two intervals. at long 7 values may reflect inability to an-
The independence of acquisition from the ticipate trial onset. In neither case—an-
regularity or irregularity of trial spacing is ticipation or failure to anticipate—did the
further reflected in comparable variability of acquisition of responding reflect these differ-
acquistion scores in the two experiments. ences. Rather, intertrial responding devel-
Evidently, birds experiencing variable inter- oped only after trial responding was es-
trial periods integrate them in a linear man- tablished.
ner so that their effect is comparable to Latency of the first trial response in the
that on birds receiving a single 7 value two experiments differed somewhat in its
equal to the arithmetic mean of the variable dependence on T. In Experiment 1, in which
sample. If internal representations of trial trial onset was variable and thus unantici-
and intertrial times are averaged over suc- pated, latency depended more on the dura-
cessive experiences when / is variable, then tion of the trial. In Experiment 2, this
the similar acquisition in the two experi- dependence was attenuated, particularly at
ments argues against a logarithmic repre- relatively short T values. Such a finding
sentation of time (a "Fechnerian" scale in may reflect an increase in readiness to re-
the sense of Luce & Galanter, 1963). An spond relatively early in the trial when the
acquisition function based on the geometric trial onset is—however imprecisely—antici-
mean of our sample (Appendix A) would pated. Why a dependence on T should be
be off by a factor of about two from the evident at all, however, is not clear. Cer-
acquisition function we obtained in Experi- tainly, latency here does not reflect timing
ment 2. The power function representation of the duration of the signal, since the la-
would not be altered by a geometric averag- tency distributions are invariably highly
ing procedure, since our variable samples skewed toward the low end of the trial and
were computed as multiples of a standard were "complete" well before the trial had
sample. Thus, a Fechnerian internal repre- elapsed. Also, response rates over successive
sentation of the relevant time values might portions of the trial failed to indicate any
well lead to the same power function as a clear evidence of timing.
linear internal representation of the relevant The main results of these experiments
times values. What would differ, however, bear importantly on theoretical positions
is the level of the two functions. A linear that would tie the autoshaping phenomenon
internal representation should result in the to stimulus-stimulus contingency learning
comparability between Experiment 1 and in general. Below we sketch two theoretical
Experiment 2 that we observe, while a loga- approaches and the constraints that the pres-
rithmic transform should alter the levels of ent data force upon them.
the functions for the two experiments in the
direction of more rapid acquisition in the
fixed 7 case. Re scoria-Wagner Theory
The constant intertrial interval used in Rescorla and Wagner (1972) and Wag-
Experiment 2 resulted in very similar pat- ner and Rescorla (1972) have proposed a
terns of acquisition, but some differences in theoretical account of association learning
maintained behavior. At the shortest 7 value which may be adapted to the autoshaping
(48 sec), some anticipation of trial onset situation. In their theory, excitatory control
was evident in the pattern of increased re- is acquired by a conditioned stimulus (CS)
sponding over the intertrial period. At the which is reinforced in compound with back-
longer 7 values, intertrial responding was ground stimuli. The speed with which the
not maintained with prolonged training, but stimulus acquires its associative value is
280 GIBBON, BALDOCK, LOCURTO, GOLD, AND TERRACE

directly related to two stimulus parameters: no good reason why they must counter-
a learning rate parameter that is character- balance in just equal measure.
istic of the subject and the reinforcer and a The finding of some dependence between
salience parameter that roughly interprets sustained responding and trial duration is
as the "conspicuousness" of the CS. The consonant with Rescorla-Wagner theory if
background stimuli also increase in associa- one regards the discretized time unit as a
tive value, at a rate determined by their reasonable manner for estimating differen-
salience, as they are reinforced in com- tial reinforcement probabilities. On this con-
pound with the CS. The central feature of struction, long trials result in low probabili-
the theory is that growth of the compound ties of reinforcement and in the theory are
is proportional to the discrepancy between associated therefore with low asymptotes of
the sum of the current associative strengths associative value. On the other hand, the
of all stimuli present and the obtainable dependence between rate of acquisition and
asymptote. This results in an exponential T value is not very strong, while depen-
growth function. In this context, the effect dence between asymptote and T value in
of the intertrial interval is to introduce un- the theory is direct.
reinforced "trials" on the background stim-
uli alone during the time intervening be-
tween reinforced background-plus-CS trials. Contingency Theory
Qualitatively, it is clear that increasing the A second view of associative learning that
amount of extinction on the background re- is somewhat less precise in its detail evolves
sults in a lower compound associative value from Rescorla's (1967, 1968) analysis of
of trial plus background on a subsequent the role of correlation in establishing ex-
reinforced trial. The result is that these citatory/inhibitory fear conditioning. Gibbon
trials increase associative value relatively et al. (1974) proposed a quantitative metric
more rapidly (per reinforcement) than for the correlational view summarized in
trials in which the background has not been root mean-square contingency, <£. This co-
extinguished to such low levels. In the efficient is argued to reflect the degree of
Rescorla-Wagner theory, temporal param- potential association that a given paradigm
eters therefore influence the rate at which may engender. A discretized time assump-
associations are learned but not the eventual tion is again required here to dichotomize
level of associative strength. The present conditioning sessions into trial units of CS
acquisition data are consonant with this and no CS, and cross-classify these events
view in that long 7 values facilitate acquisi- against reinforcement and nonreinforcement.
tion. The main features of this correlational
The ratio effect, however, strains this ac- analysis are consonant with current data
count. If we discretize time into "trial on contingency learning in autoshaping
units," increasing the trial duration corre- (Gibbon, Locurto, & Terrace, 1975), and
sponds to decreasing the probability of re- several features of the present data appear
inforcement, while increasing the intertrial compatible with this approach also. Increas-
interval corresponds to providing more fre- ing / corresponds to increasing the cor-
quent extinction trials for the background relation between signal and food. More im-
stimuli. It is readily shown that decreasing portantly, if reinforcement probability is
probability of reinforcement lowers the maintained constant, the correlation between
asymptote as well as the rate of approach, signal and reinforcement is unchanged when
and increasing the frequency of extinction the intertrial-to-trial durations are main-
trials by increasing I increases the effec- tained in the same ratio. While at first blush
tiveness of each reinforcer. Thus, one might this would seem to handle the I/T ratio
argue that the effects of lowered probability effect, on reflection, the discretized time-
of reinforcement are counterbalanced by the unit assumption may be seen to violate an-
effect of increasing /. However, there seems other feature of the correlation analysis.
TRIAL AND INTERTRIAL DURATIONS IN AUTOSHAPING 281

When T and / periods are both extended Ergun, S. Application of the principle of least
and the discretized time unit is maintained squares to families of straight lines. Journal of
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 1956, 48,
constant, not only are trial and intertrial 2063-2068.
frequencies increased, but reinforcement Farrell, L., Terrace, H. S., Gibbon, J., & Locurto,
probability is decreased. Unless reinforce- C. Partial reinforcement in auto-shaping: Acqui-
ment rate per trial unit is maintained con- sition, maintenance and extinction. Proceedings
stant while trial and intertrial times are of the 45th Annual Convention of the Eastern
Psychological Association, 1974, 74, 183.
changed, effects may be expected in the di- Gibbon, J., Berryman, R., & Thompson, R. L.
rection of lowered correlation values with Contingency spaces and measures in classical
increased absolute trial duration. Thus, and instrumental conditioning. Journal of the
while in a general way the correlational ap- Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1974, 49,
732-764.
proach seems appropriate, the strong con- Gibbon, J., Locurto, C., & Terrace, H. S. Signal-
straint of the ratio effect appears to com- food contingency and signal frequency in a con-
promise this view as well. tinuous trials auto-shaping paradigm. Animal
While these theoretical positions are some- Learning and Behavior, 1975, 3, 317-324.
Gormezano, L, & Moore, J. W. Classical condi-
what strained by the ratio effect, neither tioning. In M. Marx (Ed.), Learning: Pro-
are embarrassed by the similiarity of the cesses. London: Macmillan, 1969.
functions obtained in Experiments 1 and 2. Griffin, R. W. Classical conditioning of directed
That is, fixed or variable / values, on the motor behavior in rats and pigeons: Effects of
intertrial interval duration and variation. Pro-
discretized time assumption, make no dif- ceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the
ference to correlation calculations, nor to Eastern Psychological Association, 1975, 75, 79.
learning rates according to the Rescorla- Hearst, E., & Jenkins, H. M. Sign-tracking: The
Wagner theory. Both of these accounts are stimulus-rcinforcer relation and directed action
(Monograph of the Psychonomic Society). Aus-
insensitive to temporal regularities and so tin, Tex.: Psychonomic Journals, 1974.
the results of the two experiments are con- Kamin, L. J. Predictability, surprise, attention and
sonant with either position. conditioning. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church
The ratio effect may require some funda- (Eds.), Punishment and Aversive Behavior,
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969.
mental rethinking about the associative Luce, R. D., & Galanter, E. Discrimination. In
learning process in autoshaping. At the very R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter, Hand-
least, the translation of our theoretical con- book of mathematical psychology (Vol. 1).
structs in time requires elaboration. One ap- New York: Wiley, 1963.
proach might regard the subjective trial Pearson, E. S., & Hartley, H. O. (Eds.) Bio-
metrika tables for statisticians (Vol. 1). Cam-
unit as rescaled when trial durations are bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.
changed. Subjects must then be regarded Perkins, C. C., Jr., Beavers, W. O., Hancock,
as calculating the frequency of unreinforced R. A., Jr., Hemmendinger, P. C., Hemmen-
intertrial periods by a comparison with the dinger, D., & Ricci, J. A. Some variables affect-
ing rate of key pecking during response-indepen-
trial duration. While an elaboration of this dent procedures (autoshaping). Journal of the
view may eventually turn out to be correct, Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1975, 24,
at this level of analysis, it does little more 59-72.
than rename our ratio effect. We need to Rescorla, R. A. Pavlovian conditioning and its
proper control procedures. Psychological Re-
understand how the scaling process works view, 1967, 74, 71-80.
and how the comparison between trial and Rescorla, R. A. Probability of shock in the pres-
intertrial, or trial and background, is made. ence and absence of CS in fear conditioning.
Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psy-
chology, 1968, 66, 1-5.
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. A theory of
References Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the ef-
fectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforce-
Brown, P., & Jenkins, H. M. Autoshaping of the ment. In A. Black & W. Prokasy (Eds.), Clas-
pigeon's keypeck. Journal of the Experimental sical conditioning. New York: Appleton-Cen-
Analysis of Behavior, 1968, 11, 1-8. tury-Crofts, 1972.
Draper, N. R., & Smith, H. Applied regression Staddon, J. E. R., & Simmelhag, V. L. The "su-
analysis. New York: Wiley, 1966. perstition" experiment: A re-examination of its
282 GIBBON, BALDOCK, LOCURTO, GOLD, AND TERRACE

implications for the principles of adaptive be- context conditioning. Journal of Experimental
havior. Psychological Review, 1971, 78, 3-43. Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1976,
Stubbs, A. The discrimination of stimulus dura- 2, 323-334.
tion by pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Wagner, A. R., & Rescorla, R. A. Inhibition in
Analysis of Behavior, 1968, 11, 223-238. Pavlovian conditioning: Application of a theory.
Terrace, H. S., Gibbon, J., Farrell, L., & Baldock, In R. A. Boakes & M. S. Halliday (Eds.), In-
M. D. Temporal factors influencing the acquisi- hibition and learning. New York: Academic
tion and maintenance of an autoshaped keypeck. Press, 1972.
Animal Learning and Behavior, 1975, 3, 53-62. Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental
Tomie, A. Interference with autoshaping by prior design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

Appendix A
Table Al
Intertrial Interval (I; in sec) Comprising
the Sample for I = 96

2.00 23.75 52.25 93.00 164.75


6.00 29.00 59.25 103.50 189.00
10.00 34.25 66.50 115.75 221.75
14.50 40.00 74.50 129.50 272.00
19.00 46.00 83.25 145.50 405.00

Appendix B
Table Bl
Acquisition Data for Each Subject: Experiment 1

Number of trials to Number of trials to


1st 1st satisfy 1st 1st satisfy
response response acquisition response response acquisition
/ T I/T Bird in tri il in I criterion / T I/T Bird in trial in / criterion

6 2 3 Y.306 104 119 118 24 8 3 Y.315 52 51 55


Y.308 134 128 141 Y.316 129 204 136
Y.309 105 128 116 Y.317 64 24 80
Y.310 34 48 45 Y.320 31 21 44
Y.671 261 268 268
6 4 1.5 Y.311 158 179 161 Y.829 98 103 103
Y.312 95 127 104 Y.694 56 51 59
Y.313 170 Y.696 27 42 29
— —
Y.314 26 51 29
24 4 6 Y.452 95 143 134 24 12 2 Y.719 180 229 230
Y.453 10 31 28 Y.724 29 51 52
Y.454 46 57 49 Y.726 94 405 103
Y.455 29 33 31 Y.731 103 129 105
TRIAL AND INTERTRIAL DURATIONS IN AUTOSHAPING 283

Table Bl (continued)
Number of trials to Number of trials to
1st 1st satisfy 1st 1st satisfy
response response acquisition response response acquisition
1 T I/T Bird in trial in / criterion / T I/T Bird in trial in / criterion

24 16 1.5 Y.501 84 99 101 96 8 12 Y.464 43 42 48


Y.502 18 33 20 Y.465 15 19 18
Y.606 75 79 78 Y.466 4 11 13
Y.543 126 151 129 Y.467 56 53 60
36 24 1.5 Y.468 132 134 135 96 16 6 Y.407 33 39 38
Y.469 161 38 173 Y.410 4 29 31
Y.470 1 36 73 Y.411 9 9 20
Y.489 11 11 54 Y.417 43 22 46

48 4 12 Y.422 16 18 19 96 32 3 Y.319 61 64 65
Y.424 10 14 13 Y.409 90 85 104
Y.426 15 17 18 Y.414 17 6 21
Y.429 7 11 10 Y.416 51 55 54
Y.741 24 27 26 Y.677 151 144 163
Y.742 32 37 34 Y.695 69 76 71
Y.743 5 9 7 Y.705 53 62 67
Y.744 17 29 23 Y.708 33 42 40

48 8 6 Y.413 42 49 46 384 4 96 Y.325 1 4 3


Y.415 19 20 22 Y.326 1 1 9
Y.425 49 58 Y.328 13 15 38
Y.428 27 43 30 Y.329 29 23 32
Y.721 194 201 Y.658 47 43 55
Y.723 23 35 31 Y.659 6 3 7
Y.739 49 52 52 Y.660 6 10 26
Y.740 37 40 39 Y.651 1 1 2
384 8 48 Y.330 2 5 5
48 16 3 Y.431 58 70 67 Y.331 1 1 3
Y.436 39 53 54 Y.332 1 2 3
Y.445 27 30 30 Y.333 17 18 175
Y.446 43 51 55 Y.828 12 11 14
Y.745 13 119 115 Y.830 5 1 9
Y.747 101 101 104 Y.832 6 8 9
Y.748 57 130 66 Y.836 133 133 141
Y.749 78 89 80
384 16 24 Y.460 3 3 9
48 24 2 Y.653 221 — 229 Y.461 4 3 10
Y.654 258 — 271 Y.462 17 16 19
Y.655 26 27 32 Y.463 1 1 8
Y.656 5 4 23
384 32 12 Y.456 47 43 50
48 32 1.5 Y.491 21 15 24 Y.457 12 12 15
Y.493 90 77 103 Y.458 10 1 13
Y.494 114 179 126 Y.459 12 16 15
Y.495 146 151 151
768 8 96 Y.684 8 9 11
96 1 96 Y.321 28 3 Y.727 11 19 35
Y.322 56 135 Y.733 24 26 35
Y.323 134 131 Y.734 1 1 20
Y.324 —
— 768 16 48 Y.496 5 5 7
96 2 48 Y.585 26 7 35 Y.583 9 10 11
Y.591 11 12 14 Y.498 4 6 6
Y.601 95 21 108 Y.500 12 11 14
Y.603 18 19 225
768 32 24 Y.664 78 79 84
96 4 24 Y.418 62 6 66 Y.657 4 6 6
Y.419 22 22 25 Y.662 1 1 2
Y.420 5 6 8 Y.663 9 7 19
Y.421 9 13 12
Y.837 24 9 32 768 64 12 Y.720 85 95 106
Y.838 1 1 3 Y.725 59 60 61
Y.839 7 8 10 Y.737 45 47 47
Y.840 15 16 18 Y.738 38 40 40

Note. I = intertrial interval; T = trial interval.

(Appendix C is on the next page.)


284 GIBBON, BALDOCK, LOCURTO, GOLD, AND TERRACE

Appendix C

Table Cl
Acquisition Data for Each Subject: Experiment 2

Number of Number of
trials to trials to
satisfy satisfy
acquisition acquisition
I T I/T Bird criterion I T I/T Bird criterion

48 12 4 Y.7S6 52 384 16 24 Y.896 34


Y.761 19 Y.901 11
Y.793 85 Y.904 10
Y.808 57 Y.910 2
96 12 8 Y.813 36 48 8 6 Y.902 77
Y.846 5 Y.903 49
Y.847 78 Y.697 30
Y.849 28 Y.969 55
192 12 16 Y.881 34 48 16 3 Y.909 105
Y.882 4 Y.912 72
Y.884 11 Y.893 62
Y.888 29 Y.905 33
384 8 48 Y.7SS 14 192 32 6 Y.971 21
Y.807 12 Y.920 84
Y.823 15 Y.678 156
Y.704 123 Y.929 27
96 32 3 Y.809 123 192 16 12 Y.944 33
Y.771 62 Y.945 8
Y.833 45 Y.946 131
Y.844 35 Y.949 17
96 8 12 Y.729 63 192 8 24 Y.894 90
Y.806 16 Y.895 5
Y.817 23 Y.935 28
Y.880 17 Y.936 7
96 16 6 Y.801 90 384 12 32 Y.989 10
Y.831 20 Y.992 8
Y.835 21 Y.350 10
Y.842 42 B.49 9
384 32 12 Y.818 35 48 32 1.5 Y.917 411
Y.820 14 Y.987 236
Y.841 224 Y.993 —
Y.886 28 Y.998 440

Note. I = intertrial interval; T = trial interval.

Received July 14, 1976


Revision received January 3, 1977

You might also like