Tanno Takayuki, Silberberg Alan, Sakagami Takayuki
Keio University, Tokyo, Japan.
Learn Behav. 2010 Nov;38(4):382-93. doi: 10.3758/LB.38.4.382.
In the first condition in Experiment 1, 6 rats were exposed to concurrent variable ratio (VR) 30, variable interval (VI) 30-sec schedules. In the next two conditions, the subjects were exposed to concurrent VI VI schedules and concurrent tandem VI-differential-reinforcement-of-high-rate VI schedules. For the latter conditions, the overall and relative reinforcer rates equaled those in the first condition. Only minor differences appeared in time allocation (a molar measure) across conditions. However, local response rate differences (a molecular measure) appeared between schedule types consistently with the interresponse times these schedules reinforced. In Experiment 2, these findings reappeared when the prior experiment was replicated with 5 subjects, except that the VR schedule was replaced by a VI plus linear feedback schedule. These results suggest that within the context tested, the molar factor of relative reinforcement rate controls preference, whereas the molecular factor of the relation between interresponse times and reinforcer probability controls the local response rate.
在实验1的第一个条件下，6只大鼠被置于同时呈现的可变比率（VR）30、可变间隔（VI）30秒的强化程序中。在接下来的两个条件下，实验对象被置于同时呈现的VI VI强化程序以及同时呈现的串联VI-高速率差异强化VI强化程序中。对于后一种条件，总体强化率和相对强化率与第一种条件相同。不同条件下在时间分配（一种总量测量指标）上仅出现了微小差异。然而，不同强化程序类型之间在局部反应率上存在差异（一种分子测量指标），这与这些强化程序所强化的反应间隔时间一致。在实验2中，当用5只实验对象重复先前实验时，这些结果再次出现，只是可变比率强化程序被可变间隔加线性反馈强化程序所取代。这些结果表明，在所测试的情境中，相对强化率这个总量因素控制偏好，而反应间隔时间与强化概率之间的关系这个分子因素控制局部反应率。
