赫恩斯坦的 r(o)随不同强化率的变化。
Variation in Herrnstein's r(o) as a function of alternative reinforcement rate.
出版信息
J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Mar;43(2):215-23. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-215.
In a test of Herrnstein's (1970, 1974) equation for simple schedules, 15 pigeons pecked a key that produced food delivered according to variable-interval schedules. One group of birds was water deprived, and food-reinforced key pecking occurred in the presence of free water. Two other groups were not water deprived; water was present for one and absent for the other. As predicted by Herrnstein, the parameter r(o) was significantly higher in the water-deprived group than in the two nondeprived groups. Contrary to Herrnstein's interpretation of r(o), the rate of drinking varied across schedules. Herrnstein's interpretation can be salvaged by considering r(o) to be an average. However, if r(o) is an average, the equation is not a good explanation of behavior because this average is not valid until all schedules have been sampled. In addition, low percentages of variance accounted for suggest that Herrnstein's equation may be of limited usefulness even as a descriptive model for these situations.
在对赫恩斯坦（Herrnstein）（1970 年，1974 年）的简单时间表方程的测试中，15 只鸽子啄了一个产生食物的键，这些食物是根据可变间隔时间表提供的。一组鸟类被剥夺了水分，而在有自由水的情况下，食物强化的啄击行为发生了。另外两组没有被剥夺水分；一组有饮水，另一组没有。正如赫恩斯坦所预测的那样，在缺水组中，参数 r(o) 明显高于两个非剥夺水分组。与赫恩斯坦对 r(o)的解释相反，饮水率在不同的时间表中有所不同。通过将 r(o)视为平均值，可以挽救赫恩斯坦的解释。但是，如果 r(o)是平均值，则该方程不是对行为的很好解释，因为在所有时间表都被采样之前，此平均值是无效的。此外，方差解释率较低表明，即使作为这些情况下的描述性模型，赫恩斯坦方程的用途也可能有限。
Zotero 插件