Dawson G R, Dickinson A
University of Cambridge, U.K.
Q J Exp Psychol B. 1990 Aug;42(3):225-39.
In the first study, rats were trained to pull a chain on a schedule (RPI) that regulates the probability of reinforcement to maintain a constant average reinforcement rate without differentially reinforcing long inter-response times (IRTs). Although the response rate was sensitive to the overall rate of reinforcement, performance was unaffected by variations between 1 and 50 in the IRT memory size used in programming the schedule. In the second study, two groups of animals performed on either a random-interval (RI) schedule or a RPI schedule, with reinforcement rates determined by those generated by a third group performing on a random ratio (RR) 20 schedule. The RI group responded at a lower rate than the RPI group, which, in turn, responded at a lower rate than the RR group, even though the three groups experienced comparable rates of reinforcement. The fact that the RPI group responded at a lower rate than the RR group suggests that the standard response rate difference observed between ratio and interval schedules, which have been matched for reinforcement rate, cannot be attributed solely to the fact that conventional interval schedules differentially reinforce long IRTs.
在第一项研究中,训练大鼠按照一种调节强化概率的时间表(RPI)拉动链条,以维持恒定的平均强化率,且不对长反应间隔时间(IRT)进行差别强化。尽管反应率对总体强化率敏感,但在为时间表编程时所使用的IRT记忆大小在1到5(此处原文可能有误,推测为50)之间变化时,行为表现并未受到影响。在第二项研究中,两组动物分别按照随机间隔(RI)时间表或RPI时间表进行操作,强化率由在随机比率(RR)20时间表上操作的第三组所产生的强化率来确定。RI组的反应率低于RPI组,而RPI组的反应率又低于RR组,尽管三组经历了相当的强化率。RPI组的反应率低于RR组这一事实表明,在强化率已匹配的比率和间隔时间表之间观察到的标准反应率差异,不能仅仅归因于传统间隔时间表差别强化长IRT这一事实。