Effects of brief post-sample cues signaling presence or absence of reinforcers in delayed matching-to-sample.

When short-term memory is assessed in the delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) procedure, performance is better when cues signal larger reinforcer magnitudes or higher reinforcer probabilities for correct responding. Previous studies demonstrating signaled-magnitude or signaled-probability effects presented cues for a prolonged period during the sample stimulus and/or retention interval. The present study asked whether a signaled-probability effect would occur with brief post-sample cues that signaled the presence or absence of reinforcement. Five pigeons responded in a DMTS task in which sample stimuli were sometimes followed by a 0.5-s cue signaling that reinforcers would either be available or not available in the current trial, and the retention interval varied from 0.5 s to 20 s. A reliable signaled-probability effect was found when reinforcers were arranged independently and for all correct responses, whereas a smaller, less systematic effect was found when reinforcers were arranged dependently and probabilistically. These findings highlight the importance of reinforcement contingencies and contingency discriminability in remembering, and add to the evidence showing that cues signaling differential reinforcement in DMTS may affect processes during the retention interval and comparison phase, rather than attention to the sample stimulus.

Signaled reinforcement: Effects of signal reliability on choice between signaled and unsignaled alternatives.

When reinforcer availability on one alternative of a concurrent schedule is signaled by a discriminative stimulus, responding on that alternative decreases. We investigated how the correlation between signal presentation and reinforcement (signal reliability) affects choice between signaled and unsignaled alternatives. Six pigeons responded in a concurrent schedule, in which reinforcers on one alternative were signaled by a key-color change. Across conditions, the probability of reinforcement following signal presentation varied (the probability in its absence was the complement). As signal reliability increased, response rates and latencies following signal onset on the signaled alternative decreased, whereas responding on the unsignaled alternative remained unchanged. Because the signal did not alter overall reinforcer rates, these findings are consistent with matching theories and research suggesting that responding on one alternative of a concurrent schedule depends on reinforcer, but not response, rates on other alternatives. However, these findings are inconsistent with others demonstrating concomitant changes in responding on signaled and unsignaled alternatives. We consider whether a response-competition account of concurrent performance can explain these discrepancies, and suggest avenues for future studies to investigate the mechanisms underlying effects of signaled reinforcement in concurrent schedules.