University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2014 Summer;47(2):314-24. doi: 10.1002/jaba.114. Epub 2014 Apr 17.
We compared 2 variations of differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) procedures: spaced-responding DRL, in which a reinforcer was delivered contingent on each response if a specified interval had passed since the last response, and full-session DRL, in which a reinforcer was presented at the end of an interval if the response rate was below criterion within the specified interval. We used a human-operant procedure and analyzed within-session responding to assess any similarities or differences between procedures. Data revealed a positive contingency between responding and reinforcement under the spaced-responding DRL schedule and a negative contingency under the full-session DRL schedule. Furthermore, 60% of the participants discontinued responding by the last full-session DRL session. Implications for the appropriate procedural and taxonomical usage of both DRL schedules are discussed.
我们比较了两种差异强化率(DRL)程序的变体:间隔反应 DRL,其中如果在上一次反应之后经过了指定的时间间隔,那么每一次反应都会得到强化;以及全程 DRL,其中如果在指定的时间间隔内反应率低于标准,那么在间隔结束时会呈现强化物。我们使用了人类操作性程序,并分析了会话内的反应,以评估程序之间的任何相似或不同之处。数据显示,在间隔反应 DRL 时间表下,反应和强化之间存在正关联,而在全程 DRL 时间表下则存在负关联。此外,60%的参与者在最后一次全程 DRL 会话中停止了反应。讨论了这两种 DRL 时间表在程序和分类学使用方面的适当性。