Molecular analyses for operant behavior in dynamic situations

强化延迟、强化潜伏期、试验间隔（ITIs）和反应间时（IRT）是操作行为分子分析中可能的时间变量。我们关注的是几种动态情况下的一些时间变量：（1）在延迟匹配到样本（DMTS）任务中ITI和强化延迟的影响，（2）在并行FI RI时间表中强化延迟对选择的影响，（3）在抵抗改变实验中IRT的变化，（4）在有节奏敲击情境中系统IRT控制，（5）VI和VR方案中IRT的点过程分析。我们得到了以下结果。(1)当使用是非型DMTS任务时，结果表明，区分度参数d '随着时间的延长而增加。此外，当需要额外的选择答案时，完成这些答案的时间增加了。(2)猪的反应被证明是由持续时间的立即 ...更多信息 前一强化潜伏期和通过信号通知当前强化潜伏期开始的时间标记。此外，在本实验中，使用强化潜伏期而不是强化延迟，证明了在自我控制实验中已经证明的偏好逆转现象。(3)为了研究两种干扰物（prefeeding和灭绝）的不同影响，我们使用了响应回合的分布作为一种新的措施。结果表明，两种干扰物对变化的抵抗力相同，表明该措施对干扰物的差异不敏感。然而，在以往的研究中，阻力的变化评估的总体响应率不依赖于响应率内回合，但对回合启动率。(4)利用敲击行为作为时间序列分析的材料，我们研究了有节奏的引导音的短刺激间间隔（ISI）随机或周期性扰动时IRT的变异性，并测量了ISI的辨别阈值。当ISI扰动水平接近阈值时，IRT受最后一个ISI的控制，并根据ISI扰动周期周期性变化。(5)点过程分析可以直接分析反应的时间结构，这是不能从传统的行为措施，如IRT或反应率。结果表明，VI和轭VR时间表产生了相似的集群反应，但时间结构的性质是很大的不同。少

Reinforcement delay, reinforcement latency, intertrial intervals (ITIs), and interresponse time (IRT) are possible candidates of temporal variables in molecular analysis of operant behavior. We focused on some temporal variables in the several dynamic situations : (1) the effects of ITI and reinforcement delay in the delayed matching to sample (DMTS) task, (2) effects of reinforcement latency on choice in concurrent FI RI schedules, (3) changes in IRTs in the resistance-to-change experiments, (4) systematic IRT control in the rhythmic tapping situation, and (5) point-process analysis of IRTs during VI versus VR schedules. We obtained the following results.(1) When a DMTS task of yes-no type was used, the results showed that the discriminability parameter, d', increased as it is lengthened. Furthermore, when additional responses for choice were required, time for completing these responses increased. (2) Pigeons' responding was demonstrated to be controlled by duration of an immediately … More preceding reinforcement latency and by a time marker that signaled the onset of a present reinforcement latency. Furthermore, the preference reversal phenomenon that has been demonstrated in self-control experiments was demonstrated in the present experiment that used reinforcement latency instead of reinforcement delay. (3) In order to examine the different effects of two disruptors (prefeeding and extinction), we used distribution of response bouts as a new measure. The results showed the equal resistance to change on both the disruptors, suggesting that this measure was not sensitive to the differences of the disruptors. However, as in previous studies, resistance to change assessed by the overall response rates depended not on the response rates within bouts but on the rates of bout-initiation. (4) Using tapping behavior as a material for time series analysis, we examined variability of IRTs when short inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs) of rhythmic guiding sounds were perturbed randomly or cyclically, and also measured discriminative thresholds of the ISI. When ISI perturbation level was close to the threshold, IRTs were controlled by the last ISIs and varied cyclically corresponding to the ISI perturbation cycle. (5) Point-process analysis can directly analyze time structure of responses, which cannot obtained from conventional behavioral measures such as IRTs or response rates. The results suggested that VI and yoked VR schedules generated the similarly clustered responses, but that the properties of time structure were quite different. Less