A Kinect-based system for automatic recording of some pigeon behaviors.

Contact switches and touch screens are the state of the art for recording pigeons' pecking behavior. Recording other behavior, however, requires a different sensor for each behavior, and some behaviors cannot easily be recorded. We present a flexible and inexpensive image-based approach to detecting and counting pigeon behaviors that is based on the Kinect sensor from Microsoft. Although the system is as easy to set up and use as the standard approaches, it is more flexible because it can record behaviors in addition to key pecking. In this article, we show how both the fast, fine motion of key pecking and the gross body activity of feeding can be measured. Five pigeons were trained to peck at a lighted contact switch, a pigeon key, to obtain food reward. The timing of the pecks and the food reward signals were recorded in a log file using standard equipment. The Kinect-based system, called BehaviorWatch, also measured the pecking and feeding behavior and generated a different log file. For key pecking, BehaviorWatch had an average sensitivity of 95% and a precision of 91%, which were very similar to the pecking measurements from the standard equipment. For detecting feeding activity, BehaviorWatch had a sensitivity of 95% and a precision of 97%. These results allow us to demonstrate that an advantage of the Kinect-based approach is that it can also be reliably used to measure activity other than key pecking.

The stay/switch model of concurrent choice.

This experiment compared descriptions of concurrent choice by the stay/switch model, which says choice is a function of the reinforcers obtained for staying at and for switching from each alternative, and the generalized matching law, which says choice is a function of the total reinforcers obtained at each alternative. For the stay/switch model two schedules operate when at each alternative. One arranges reinforcers for staying there and the other arranges reinforcers for switching from there. Rats were exposed to eight or nine conditions that differed in the arrangement of the values of the stay and switch schedules. The generalized matching law described preferences when arrangements were similar to those found when using two concurrently running interval schedules. It did not, however, describe all preferences when using different arrangements. The stay/switch model described all preferences in one analysis. In addition, comparisons of selected conditions indicated that changing the ratio of obtained reinforcers was neither necessary nor sufficient for changing preference as measured by response ratios. Taken together these results provide support for the stay/switch model as a viable alternative to the generalized matching law and that the critical independent variable is allocation of stay and switch reinforcers.

The stay/switch model describes choice among magnitudes of reinforcers.

The stay/switch model is an alternative to the generalized matching law for describing choice in concurrent procedures. The purpose of the present experiment was to extend this model to choice among magnitudes of reinforcers. Rats were exposed to conditions in which the magnitude of reinforcers (number of food pellets) varied for staying at alternative 1, switching from alternative 1, staying at alternative 2 and switching from alternative 2. A changeover delay was not used. The results showed that the stay/switch model provided a good account of the data overall, and deviations from fits of the generalized matching law to response allocation data were in the direction predicted by the stay/switch model. In addition, comparisons among specific conditions suggested that varying the ratio of obtained reinforcers, as in the generalized matching law, was not necessary to change the response and time allocations. Other comparisons suggested that varying the ratio of obtained reinforcers was not sufficient to change response allocation. Taken together these results provide additional support for the stay/switch model of concurrent choice.

Are behaviors at one alternative in concurrent schedules independent of contingencies at the other alternative?

Some have reported changing the schedule at one alternative of a concurrent schedule changed responding at the other alternative (Catania, 1969), which seems odd because no contingencies were changed there. When concurrent schedules are programmed using two schedules, one associated with each alternative that operate continuously, changing the schedule at one alternative also changes the switch schedule at the other alternative. Thus, changes in responding at the constant alternative could be due to the change in the switch schedule. To assess this possibility, six rats were exposed to a series of conditions that alternated between pairs of interval schedules at both alternatives and a pair of interval schedules at one, constant, alternative and a pair of extinction schedules at the other alternative. Comparing run lengths, visit durations and response rates at the constant alternative in the alternating conditions did not show consistent increases and decreases when a strict criterion for changes was used. Using a less stringent definition (any change in mean values) showed changes. The stay/switch analysis suggests it may be inaccurate to apply behavioral contrast to procedures that change from concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules to concurrent variable-interval extinction schedules because the contingencies in neither alternative are constant.

Some effects of overall rate of earning reinforcers on run lengths and visit durations.

In a concurrent schedule, responding at each alternative is controlled by a pair of schedules that arrange reinforcers for staying at that alternative and reinforcers for switching to the other alternative. Each pair of schedules operates only while at the associated alternative. When only one pair of stay and switch schedules is presented, the rates of earning reinforcers for staying divided by the rates of earning reinforcers for switching controls the mean number responses in a visit and the mean duration of visits. The purpose of the present experiment was to see whether the sum of the rates of earning stay and switch reinforcers changed the way that run length and visit duration were affected by the ratio of the rates of stay to switch reinforcers. Rats were exposed to pairs of stay and switch schedules that varied both the ratio of the rates of earning stay and switch reinforcers and the sum of the rates of earning stay and switch reinforcers. Run lengths and visit durations were joint functions of the ratio of the rates of earning stay and switch reinforcers and the sum of the rates of earning stay and switch reinforcers. These results shows that the effect of the ratio of the sum of the rates of earning stay and switch reinforcers results from processes operating at the alternative, rather than from processes operating at both alternatives.

Momentary maximizing and optimal foraging theories of performance on concurrent VR schedules.

Optimal foraging theory proposes that animals obtain the highest rate of reinforcers for the least effort and momentary maximizing theory proposes that animals make the response that at that instant is most likely to be reinforced. While each theory may account for matching on concurrent schedules, the data supporting each theory are weak. Two experiments assessed these theories by considering concurrent choice as consisting of two pairs of stay and switch schedules. Symmetrical arrangements, which are equivalent to standard concurrent schedules, maintained behavior described by the generalized matching law. Weighted arrangements, in which the programmed rate of earning reinforcers was always greater at one alternative, maintained behavior that was biased towards the weighted alternative, yet the bias was less than that predicted by optimal foraging theory. Asymmetrical arrangements, in which the stay and switch schedules operating at an alternative are the same, maintained behavior that favored one alternative, even though momentary maximizing predicted indifference. The generalized matching law poorly described each rat's pooled data from all conditions but these data were described by an equation based on the stay and switch reinforcers earned per-visit and included elements of optimal foraging and momentary maximizing theories of choice.

Earning and obtaining reinforcers under concurrent interval scheduling.

Contingencies of reinforcement specify how reinforcers are earned and how they are obtained. Ratio contingencies specify the number of responses that earn a reinforcer, and the response satisfying the ratio requirement obtains the earned reinforcer. Simple interval schedules specify that a certain time earns a reinforcer, which is obtained by the first response after the interval. The earning of reinforcers has been overlooked, perhaps because simple schedules confound the rates of earning reinforcers with the rates of obtaining reinforcers. In concurrent variable-interval schedules, however, spending time at one alternative earns reinforcers not only at that alternative, but at the other alternative as well. Reinforcers earned for delivery at the other alternative are obtained after changing over. Thus the rates of earning reinforcers are not confounded with the rate of obtaining reinforcers, but the rates of earning reinforcers are the same at both alternatives, which masks their possibly differing effects on preference. Two experiments examined the separate effects of earning reinforcers and of obtaining reinforcers on preference by using concurrent interval schedules composed of two pairs of stay and switch schedules (MacDonall, 2000). In both experiments, the generalized matching law, which is based on rates of obtaining reinforcers, described responding only when rates of earning reinforcers were the same at each alternative. An equation that included both the ratio of the rates of obtaining reinforcers and the ratio of the rates of earning reinforcers described the results from all conditions from each experiment.

An alternative to the stay/switch equation assessed when using a changeover-delay.

An alternative to the generalized matching equation for understanding concurrent performances is the stay/switch model. For the stay/switch model, the important events are the contingencies and behaviors at each alternative. The current experiment compares the descriptions by two stay/switch equations, the original, empirically derived stay/switch equation and a more theoretically derived equation based on ratios of stay to switch responses matching ratios of stay to switch reinforcers. The present experiment compared descriptions by the original stay/switch equation when using and not using a changeover delay. It also compared descriptions by the more theoretical equation with and without a changeover delay. Finally, it compared descriptions of the concurrent performances by these two equations. Rats were trained in 15 conditions on identical concurrent random-interval schedules in each component of a multiple schedule. A COD operated in only one component. There were no consistent differences in the variance accounted for by each equation of concurrent performances whether or not a COD was used. The simpler equation found greater sensitivity to stay than to switch reinforcers. It also found a COD eliminated the influence of switch reinforcers. Because estimates of parameters were more meaningful when using the more theoretical stay/switch equation it is preferred.

Reinforcing staying and switching while using a changeover delay.

Performance on concurrent schedules can be decomposed to run lengths (the number of responses before switching alternatives), or visit durations (time at an alternative before switching alternatives), that are a function of the ratio of the rates of reinforcement for staying and switching. From this analysis, a model of concurrent performance was developed and examined in two experiments. The first exposed rats to variable-interval schedules for staying and for switching, which included a changeover delay for reinforcers following a switch. With the changeover delay, run lengths and visit durations were functions of the ratios of the rates of reinforcement for staying and for switching, as found by previous research not using a changeover delay. The second directly assessed the effect of a changeover delay on run lengths and visit durations. Each component of a multiple schedule consisted of equivalent stay and switch schedules but only one component included a changeover delay. Run lengths and visit durations were longer when a changeover delay was used. Because visit duration is the reciprocal of changeover rate, these results are consistent with the established finding that a changeover delay reduces the frequency of switching. Together these results support the local model of concurrent performance as an alternative to the generalized matching law as a model of concurrent performance. The local model may be preferred when accounting for more molecular aspects of concurrent performance.