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

Open Data