PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

F R Warren-Boulton

Publications and source records attributed to F R Warren-Boulton.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Stock optimizing in choice when a token deposit is the operant.

Each of 2 monkeys typically earned their daily food ration by depositing tokens in one of two slots. Tokens deposited in one slot dropped into a bin where they were kept (token kept). Deposits to a second slot dropped into a bin where they could be obtained again (token returned). In Experiment 1, a fixed-ratio (FR) 5 schedule that provided two food pellets was associated with each slot. Both monkeys preferred the token-returned slot. In Experiment 2, both subjects chose between unequal FR schedules with the token-returned slot always associated with the leaner schedule. When the FRs were 2 versus 3 and 2 versus 6, preferences were maintained for the token-returned slot; however, when the ratios were 2 versus 12, preference shifted to the token-kept slot. In Experiment 3, both monkeys chose between equal-valued concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules. Both monkeys preferred the slot that returned tokens. In Experiment 4, both monkeys chose between FRs that typically differed in size by a factor of 10. Both monkeys preferred the FR schedule that provided more food per trial. These data show that monkeys will choose so as to increase the number of reinforcers earned (stock optimizing) even when this preference reduces the rate of reinforcement (all reinforcers divided by session time).

Animals↗
PubMed1988

Maximizing present value: A model to explain why moderate response rates obtain on variable-interval schedules.

In Phases 1 and 3, two Japanese monkeys responded on a multiple variable-ratio 80 variable-interval X schedule, where the value of X was adjusted to ensure equal between-schedule reinforcement rates. Components strictly alternated following the delivery of a food pellet, and each session ended following 50 components. Phase 2 differed from the others only in that the 50 pellets previously earned during the session were delivered together at session's end. Variable-ratio response rates did not decrease across phases, but variable-interval response rates decreased substantially during the Phase 2 procedure. This rate decrease was attributed to the food-at-session's-end manipulation removing the greater immediacy of reinforcement provided by short interresponse times relative to long interresponse times. Without this time preference for short interresponse times, the variable-interval interresponse-time reinforcement feedback function largely controlled response emission, dictating a response-rate reduction. This result was explained in terms of the economic notion of "maximizing present value."

Journal Article↗
PubMed1987

Income and choice between different goods.

In Experiment 1, 3 rats chose between two simultaneously operating variable-interval schedules, one of which provided saccharin water and the other, food. In five conditions, the absolute (and equal) reinforcement rates provided by the pair of equal-valued schedules were manipulated in the range of 36 to 240 per hour. Experiment 2 was identical to Experiment 1 except that these schedules operated successively, arranged by requiring the rat to stand on the side of the chamber correlated with each schedule. Food/saccharin choice ratios were inversely related to reinforcement rate in both experiments, although this effect was stronger in Experiment 2. When delivery rates were high, preference for food over saccharin often reversed as the session progressed. The results were interpretable in terms of economic accounts of choice (e.g., the minimum-needs hypothesis), as well as in terms of traditional psychological accounts (e.g., matching theory).

Journal Article↗
PubMed1985

Reanalysis of the equation for simple action.

De Villiers and Herrnstein (1976) have shown that the equation for simple action, derived from the matching law, predicts change in behavioral output for some 40 experiments in which the value of a single source of reinforcement has been varied. Using only the positive-reinforcement studies they cite that used five or more different reinforcement values, we found the high percentage of variance they report accommodated by this equation (94%) is predicated on instances of averaging rates of behavioral output before making a least-squares fit of the equation. In our reanalysis, which minimizes rate averaging, only 78% of the data variance is accommodated. This diminished data-variance accommodation can be improved by adding parameters that permit the equation's scaling constant to change as a function of reinforcement. Although these parameters permit acceptable levels of accommodation of data variance, they correspond to no obvious psychological processes. These findings support the view that the equation for simple action is an inadequate model for behavioral output.

Journal Article↗