Molecular analyses for operant behavior in dynamic situations

在操作行为的分子分析中，强化延迟、强化潜伏期、试验间隔（ITIs）和反应间隔时间（IRT）是可能的时间变量。我们重点研究了几种动态情况下的一些时间变量：(1)延迟样本匹配（DMTS）任务中ITI和强化延迟的影响，(2)强化延迟对并发FI RI计划选择的影响，(3)抵抗变化实验中IRT的变化，(4)节奏叩击情况下IRT的系统控制，(5)点过程分析在VI和VR计划中IRT的点过程分析。我们得到了以下结果。(1)当使用是-否类型的DMTS任务时，结果表明，可分辨性参数d'随着时间的延长而增加。此外，当需要额外的选择回答时，完成这些回答的时间会增加。(2)鸽子的反应被证明是由一个即时的、更早的强化潜伏期的持续时间和一个表示当前强化潜伏期开始的时间标记所控制的。此外，在自我控制实验中已经证实的偏好反转现象在本实验中以强化延迟代替强化延迟得到证实。(3)为了检验两种干扰因素（预采食和灭绝）的不同影响，我们采用响应周期分布作为一种新的度量。结果表明，两种干扰因素对变化的阻力相等，表明该措施对干扰因素的差异不敏感。然而，正如以前的研究一样，总体反应率评估的对改变的抵抗力不取决于回合内的反应率，而是取决于回合启动率。(4)将敲击行为作为时间序列分析的材料，考察了短刺激间隔（ISIs）随机或周期性扰动时IRTs的变异性，并测量了ISI的判别阈值。当ISI扰动水平接近阈值时，irt由最后一次ISI控制，并随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，这是传统的行为测量如irt或反应率所无法获得的。结果表明，虚拟虚拟时间与虚拟虚拟时间产生的聚类响应相似，但时间结构的性质有较大差异。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