Table 1 |
||||
|
Training and testing schedule for reinforcer magnitude matching task (Experiment 1B) Subjects were trained to respond on two levers (designated A and B) separately and then concurrently under interval schedules of reinforcement. In sessions 8–27, their preference for reinforcers of different magnitudes was assessed. The third column, labelled 'fA', indicates the fraction of responses that would be allocated to lever A [i.e. A/(A+B)] were the subject to obey the matching law [31]. All concurrent (two-lever) schedules were subject to a 2 s changeover delay (COD), described in the Methods. |
||||
|
Day |
Condition |
fA |
Lever A |
Lever B |
|
|
||||
|
1 |
One-lever training |
-- |
RI-2s, 1-pellet reinforcer |
absent |
|
2 |
One-lever training |
-- |
absent |
RI-2s, 1-pellet reinforcer |
|
3 |
One-lever training |
-- |
RI-15s, 1-pellet reinforcer |
absent |
|
4 |
One-lever training |
-- |
absent |
RI-15s, 1-pellet reinforcer |
|
5 |
One-lever training |
-- |
RI-30s, 1-pellet reinforcer |
absent |
|
6 |
One-lever training |
-- |
absent |
RI-30s, 1-pellet reinforcer |
|
7 |
Two-lever training |
0.5 |
RI-30s, 1-pellet reinforcer |
RI-30s, 1-pellet reinforcer |
|
8–11 |
1:1 magnitude |
0.5 |
RI-60s, 1-pellet reinforcer |
RI-60s, 1-pellet reinforcer |
|
12–19 |
4:1 magnitude |
0.8 |
RI-60s, 4-pellet reinforcer |
RI-60s, 1-pellet reinforcer |
|
20–27 |
1:4 magnitude |
0.2 |
RI-60s, 1-pellet reinforcer |
RI-60s, 4-pellet reinforcer |
|
|
||||
|
Cardinal and Cheung BMC Neuroscience 2005 6:9 doi:10.1186/1471-2202-6-9 |
||||
