RELATIVE EFFECTS OF DELAYED REINFORCEMENT AND PARTIAL REINFORCEMENT ON ACQUISITION AND EXTINCTION

1961 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
DENNIS COGAN
1973 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. N. Wilton ◽  
R. O. Clements

Three groups of rats were trained on a delayed reinforcement schedule in an L-shaped runway. The running response, completed just before the turn of the runway, initiated the delay and exposed the rats to one of two delay stimuli. For two of the groups partial reward (50%) followed the delay. For one of these groups the delay stimuli and trial outcomes were correlated, making the delay stimuli informative with respect to the trial outcome some seconds before the outcome occurred. For the other group the delay stimuli and outcomes were uncorrelated, so information was not delivered until the occurrence of the trial outcome. The third group was reinforced on every trial (CRF), so no information followed responding at all. The results were that the partial reinforcement animals trained with correlated stimuli ran most quickly, followed by the partial reinforcement animals trained with uncorrelated stimuli, and then by the animals that were reinforced on every trial. The results were explained by the hypothesis that stimuli antedating the goal are increased in reinforcing strength when they transmit information, with the increase being proportionally greater the further the stimuli are from the goal.


1974 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 218-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul T. P. Wong ◽  
K. L. Traupmann ◽  
Steve Brake

In a foru-phase experiment, phase I was runway training under four different reinforcement conditions: partial reinforcement (PRF), partial delayed reinforcement (PDR), constant delayed reinforcement (CDR), and consistent reinforcement (CRF). During phase 2 extinction, PRF and PDR groups did not differ; both groups were more persistent than group CDR, which was in turn superior to the CRF control. Phase 3 was CRF reacquisition for all groups. During phase 4 extinction, PRF group was more presistent than the other three groups which did not differ. A Pavlovian counter-conditioning hypothesis was proposed to account for the absence of durable persistence following PDR training.


2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah A. Michalek ◽  
Marco Vasconcelos ◽  
Peter J. Urcuioli

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document