Topographical aspects of brief-stimulus presentations: A re-examination of the problem of conditioned reinforcement

Three pigeons were exposed to second-order schedules in which responding under a fixed-interval (FI) component schedule was reinforced according to a variable-interval (VI) schedule of food reinforcement. Completion of each component resulted in either (1) brief presentation of a stimulus present during reinforcement (paired brief stimulus), (2) brief presentation of a stimulus not present during reinforcement (nonpaired brief stimulus), or (3) no stimulus presentation (tandem schedule). Under the two nonpaired brief stimulus conditions, either a change in keylight color or onset of houselight illumination was used as the brief stimulus. Similar patterns of keypecking occurred under tandem and nonpaired keylight brief-stimulus presentations, whereas nonpaired houselight brief-stimulus presentations generated positively accelerated within-component keypeck patterning for two pigeons. When the same keylight brief stimulus was paired with food, positively accelerated patterns of keypecking were obtained for all pigeons. Differences in the effects of nonpaired brief-stimulus presentations on second-order schedule performance suggest that component schedule patterning under nonpaired brief-stimulus procedures is a function of the particular type of stimulus used (i.e., houselight versus keylight). These results suggest that (1) brief houselight illumination may function as a sensory reinforcer, and (2) a briefly presented food-paired stimulus can function as an effective conditioned reinforcer.