Figure 1.
Group average response rates for each session and a depiction of what session subjects ceased responding.
A clear increase in response rate is observed, on average, as the fixed interval sessions continue throughout the experiment.
Figure 2.
Individual response rates per session for the control, 0-0-X, group.
A slight, general increase in response rate is observed for most subjects as CRF sessions continue.
Figure 3.
Individual response rates per session for the 0-15-X group.
Bee 3′s response pattern clearly differs from the other nine subjects; this relatively high response rate affected the group average performance as depicted in Figure 1. A sudden, yet small, increase in response rate is observed during the transition from CRF to FI-15s, and responding was maintained at a relatively uniform response rate on the FI schedule.
Figure 4.
Individual response rates per session for the 0-30-X group.
An increase in response rate is not observed during the transition from CRF to FI-30s. However, as FI-30s sessions continued, some individuals increase their response rates per session while others maintain uniform responding.
Figure 5.
Individual response rates per session for the 0-60-X group.
An increase in response rate is not observed during the transition from CRF to FI-60s; indeed, a decrease in response rate is observed for some subjects.
Figure 6.
Individual response rates per session for the 0-120-X group.
An increase in response rate is not observed during the transition from CRF to FI-120s.
Figure 7.
Group average number of hole-entering responses across ten bins when including all FI trials and sessions.
A general downward trend is observed for all groups. The first bin, on average, contains the highest number of responses, and the last bin, on average, contains the lowest number of responses for all groups. This ten bin graphical representation resembles more of an extinction curve rather than a traditional FI “scallop” or “break-and-run” pattern of responding.
Table 1.
Hole-entering response rate ordinal comparisons within groups and individuals under the prediction responding would increase across the interval.
Table 2.
Group average and standard deviations of hole-entering response rates for baseline (BL) and FI conditions.
Table 3.
Hole-entering response rate ordinal comparisons within individuals for the final FI session under the prediction that responding would increase across the interval.
Table 4.
PRP ordinal comparisons within groups and individuals under the prediction longer PRPs would be observed during the FI trials compared to baseline trials.
Table 5.
Group average and standard deviations of PRP for baseline (BL) and FI conditions.
Figure 8.
Cumulative hole-entering response records for the final session for Bee 3 in group 0-15-X (PCC value: 0.28) and Bee 9 in group 0-30-X (PCC value: 0.27).
Response duration during reinforcement delivery is not displayed to illustrate a cumulative record of responses occurring between stimulus onset and a reinforced response. Responding resumes immediately following reinforcement consumption, and breaks in responding occurred intermittently during some trials. Short diagonal lines below the cumulative curve indicate reinforcement delivery.
Table 6.
Individual hole-entering responses per minute during the extinction condition.