McKenzie Andrew T, Cleaveland J Mark
Department of Psychology, Vassar College, Box 298, 124 Raymond Avenue, Poughkeepsie, NY 12603, United States.
Behav Processes. 2010 May;84(1):470-5. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.09.006. Epub 2009 Oct 6.
In this experiment we show that the active time model (ATM) accurately predicts probe data from multiple concurrent VI VI schedules. Subjects were trained under a concurrent VI 30-s VI 60-s and a concurrent VI 60-s VI 120-s schedule. Two types of unreinforced probes were then conducted. The first paired the two VI 60-s stimuli. These stimuli, while equivalent in their associated absolute rates of reinforcement, differed in their relative rates of reinforcement. The second probe paired the VI 30-s stimulus with the relatively rich VI 60-s stimulus. In contrast with the first probe, these stimuli differed in their absolute rates of reinforcement, while being similar in their relative rates. During the first set of probes, birds preferred the VI 60-s stimulus trained with the VI 120-s schedule. During the second set of probes, birds were indifferent to the two stimuli. These results are less extreme than others reported in the literature. Nonetheless, we found that ATM accurately fit individual subject data in both sets of probes. In contrast a variant of scalar expectancy theory did not fit the data at either the individual or group level.
在本实验中,我们表明主动时间模型(ATM)能够准确预测来自多个并发可变间隔(VI)时间表的探测数据。实验对象在并发的30秒可变间隔 VI-60秒可变间隔以及并发的60秒可变间隔 VI-120秒可变间隔时间表下接受训练。然后进行了两种类型的无强化探测。第一种将两个60秒可变间隔的刺激配对。这些刺激虽然在其相关的绝对强化率上相等,但在相对强化率上有所不同。第二种探测将30秒可变间隔的刺激与相对丰富的60秒可变间隔刺激配对。与第一种探测不同,这些刺激在绝对强化率上不同,而在相对强化率上相似。在第一组探测期间,鸟类更喜欢与120秒可变间隔时间表一起训练的60秒可变间隔刺激。在第二组探测期间,鸟类对这两种刺激无偏好。这些结果不如文献中报道的其他结果那么极端。尽管如此,我们发现ATM在两组探测中都能准确拟合个体受试者的数据。相比之下,标量期望理论的一个变体在个体或群体水平上都不能拟合这些数据。