| phenomenon | responding under interval schedules of reinforcement— “Interval schedules of reinforcement maintained pigeons' key-pecking in six experiments.” |
| claim-type | mechanism— “It was concluded that the rate of responding maintained by a given interval schedule depends not on the overall rate of reinforcement provided but rather on the summation of different local effects of reinforcement at different times within intervals.” |
| method — evidence | — “In Exp. 1, the relative durations of a sequence of intervals from an arithmetic progression were held constant while the mean interval was varied.” |
| mechanism | The effect of a reinforcement spreads along the continuum of time since reinforcement, so responding at any moment is controlled by reinforcement probability smeared over a surrounding window rather than at that instant alone— “The basic premise in converting probabilities of reinforcement to local rates of reinforcement is that the effect of a given probability of reinforcement may spread over time and may depend on the closeness in time of other opportunities for reinforcement.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | That temporal spread is interpreted as a gradient of temporal generalization around the moment of reinforcement— “The spread of the effect of reinforcement at one time since reinforcement to local rates of responding at other times could be interpreted in terms of a gradient of temporal generalization.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Overall response rate is produced indirectly: reinforcement rate acts on local response rates at each time after reinforcement, and the overall rate is their weighted average— “Rather, a given rate of reinforcement produces a given overall rate of responding through its effects on local rates of responding at different times after reinforcement.” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | Time since reinforcement acts as a discriminative stimulus dimension, so intervals reliably paired with nonreinforcement come to control low response rates just as other stimulus dimensions do— “Times since reinforcement that are consistently correlated with nonreinforcement may come to control low rates of responding in much the same way as do other stimulus properties (e.g., intensity, wavelength).” | mechanisms[3] |
| qualifies | Reynolds and Catania (1961); Catania and Reynolds (1963) — the authors' own earlier publication— “The choice between these two functions was based more on logical considerations, i.e., that rate of responding should approach zero as rate of reinforcement approaches zero, than on the superiority of the fit of the power function to the data. This mathematical representation, however, does not provide an adequate fit to the data from… | claim_relations[0] |
| qualifies | Reynolds and Catania (1962); Reynolds (1966); Stubbs (1968)— “Despite the possibility of temporal control, the performances maintained by Fl schedules do not appear to be as well under the control of time since reinforcement as the capacity of the pigeon to discriminate durations would suggest (Reynolds and Catania, 1962; Reynolds, 1966; Stubbs, 1968).” | claim_relations[1] |
| builds-on | Millenson (1966); Anger (1956)— “The tendency for IRTs to shorten even in schedules of reinforcement in which long IRTs are differentially reinforced (e.g., VI schedules: Anger, 1956) has prompted the suggestion that short IRTs are more susceptible to reinforcement than long IRTs (Millenson, 1966).” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | rate of reinforcement - the overall rate a schedule provides, which the paper concludes is NOT what determines responding— “It was concluded that the rate of responding maintained by a given interval schedule depends not on the overall rate of reinforcement provided but rather on the summation of different local effects of reinforcement at different times within intervals.” | senses[0] |
| sense | rate of reinforcement - the local rate at a particular time within an interval, which the paper concludes is what responding tracks— “the rate of responding at a particular time within an interval was shown to depend at least in part on the local rate of reinforcement at that time, derived from a measure of the probability of reinforcement at that time and the proximity of potential reinforcements at other times.” | senses[1] |
| sense | rate of responding - a quantity that changes within a single interval, not a single value per schedule— “The rate of responding also increased as time passed within the individual intervals of a given schedule.” | senses[2] |
| sense | 'local rate of reinforcement' - AN OPERATIONAL DEFINITION ITS OWN AUTHORS CALL ARBITRARY, WITH THE REJECTED ALTERNATIVES NAMED: other assignments of time to opportunities are 'possible, SUCH AS BISECTION ... using the geometric rather than the arithmetic mean, or the assignment to a given opportunity of the time since the last opportunity. The present technique, though arbitrary, seems to involve the simplest ad hoc assumptions.' The choice is defended on SIMPLICITY, not on correctness, and the competitors are printed so a reader can substitute one. This record already distinguishes the overall rate of reinforcement from the local one; this is the further fact that the local one is a construct with a dial on it.— “such as bisection of the time interval separating two successive opportunities using the geometric rather than the arithmetic mean, or the assignment to a given opportunity of the time since the last opportunity. The present technique, though arbitrary, seems to involve the simplest ad hoc assumptions.” | senses[3] |
| sense | `Reinforcements per opportunity` - A NAME SHAPED LIKE A RATE THAT DENOTES A PROBABILITY. `Reinforcements per opportunity is defined as the probability of reinforcement for the first response that occurs after a particular time since reinforcement.` The `X per Y` form is how this literature writes rates (`reinforcements per hour` appears in the same paper), so the name invites the reader to expect a count over a denominator and delivers a bounded probability instead. The definition is explicit precisely because the name is misleading.— “Reinforcements per opportunity is defined as the probability of reinforcement for the first response that occurs after a particular time since reinforcement.” | senses[4] |
| sense | `opportunity for reinforcement` - THE DEFINITION IS A DISJUNCTION, AND THE TWO LIMBS ARE NOT THE SAME TEST. `a point on the continuum of time since reinforcement at which the probability of reinforcement is greater than zero, or at which at least one interval ends.` The first limb is a property of the schedule; the second is a property of the sample of intervals actually run. They coincide in the limit and can differ in a finite experiment.— “An opportunity for reinforcement is defined as a point on the continuum of time since reinforcement at which the probability of reinforcement is greater than zero, or at which at least one interval ends.” | senses[5] |
| control | arithmetic variable-interval schedules run with and without a 0-second interreinforcement interval, compared directly within the present experiment — held — rules out the 0-second interval as the source of the local response-rate pattern - the two schedules are the same arithmetic VI otherwise— “The present experiment directly compared local rates of responding maintained by arithmetic VI schedules with and without a 0-sec interval.” | controls[0] |
| differs in | Reynolds and Catania (1961); Catania and Reynolds (1963) — the authors' own earlier publication — WHETHER THE FUNCTION IS FITTED TO A GROUP OR TO AN ANIMAL, AND WHY THE FORM WAS CHOSEN. Two admissions in one passage: 'The choice between these two functions was based more on logical considerations ... than on the superiority of the fit of the power function to the data', and 'This mathematical representation, however, does not provide an adequate fit to the data from individual pigeons.' The published law was fitted to the group average, chosen on a priori grounds rather than fit, and fails on every individual - said by its own authors— “The choice between these two functions was based more on logical considerations, i.e., that rate of responding should approach zero as rate of reinforcement approaches zero, than on the superiority of the fit of the power function to the data. This mathematical representation, however, does not provide an adequate fit to the data from…— “does not provide an adequate fit to the data from individual pigeons” | claim_relations[0] |
| differs in | Reynolds and Catania (1962); Reynolds (1966); Stubbs (1968) — CAPACITY VERSUS CONTROL. 'the performances maintained by FI schedules do not appear to be as well under the control of time since reinforcement as the capacity of the pigeon to discriminate durations would suggest.' What an animal CAN discriminate and what its behaviour IS controlled by come apart, so a discrimination result does not license an inference about what governs performance— “Despite the possibility of temporal control, the performances maintained by Fl schedules do not appear to be as well under the control of time since reinforcement as the capacity of the pigeon to discriminate durations would suggest (Reynolds and Catania, 1962; Reynolds, 1966; Stubbs, 1968).”— “Despite the possibility of temporal control, the performances maintained by Fl schedules do not appear to be as well under the control of time since reinforcement as the capacity of the pigeon to discriminate durations would suggest” | claim_relations[1] |
| differs in | Millenson (1966); Anger (1956) — WHAT AN UNEXPECTED DIRECTION OF CHANGE IS TAKEN TO SHOW. Inter-response times shorten 'even in schedules of reinforcement in which long IRTs are differentially reinforced', i.e. against the contingency, and the literature's reading is a property of the reinforcement process itself - 'that short IRTs are more susceptible to reinforcement than long IRTs'. A behaviour that moves opposite to the arranged contingency is explained by postulating an asymmetry in what reinforcement can act on— “The tendency for IRTs to shorten even in schedules of reinforcement in which long IRTs are differentially reinforced (e.g., VI schedules: Anger, 1956) has prompted the suggestion that short IRTs are more susceptible to reinforcement than long IRTs (Millenson, 1966).”— “The tendency for IRTs to shorten even in schedules of reinforcement in which long IRTs are differentially reinforced (e.g., VI schedules: Anger, 1956) has prompted the suggestion that short IRTs are more susceptible to reinforcement than long IRTs” | claim_relations[2] |
| retracted | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · local rate of reinforcement —distinct-from→ overall rate of reinforcement — RE-GROUNDED. The old span stated a conclusion without naming either rate. This sentence names both AND DISTINGUISHES THEM BY EXPERIMENT: '…while the overall rate of reinforcement is held constant…' - one is held fixed while the other moves, which is the strongest form a distinction can take: not observed, but constructed.— “If the distribution of intervals in a schedule is changed while the overall rate of reinforcement is held constant, the decrease in the local rate of reinforcement at one time after reinforcement must be accompanied by an increase at some other time after reinforcement.”— “It was concluded that the rate of responding maintained” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | local rate of reinforcement —causes→ rate of responding — 0.9— “the rate of responding at a particular time within an interval was shown to depend at least in part on the local rate of reinforcement at that time” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | terminal rate of responding —part-of→ rate of responding — The terminal rate is the local rate AT A PARTICULAR MOMENT - a restriction of the general measure, which is why 'part-of' and not 'is-a'.— “the terminal rate of responding (the local rate of responding just before reinforcement) increased as the overall rate of reinforcement increased” | concept_edges[3] |
| weight | terminal rate of responding —part-of→ rate of responding — 0.9— “the terminal rate of responding (the local rate of responding just before reinforcement) increased as the overall rate of reinforcement increased” | concept_edges[3] |
| note | overall rate of reinforcement —causes→ terminal rate of responding — DIRECTION CHECKED AGAINST THE SENTENCE, AND MY FIRST VERSION HAD IT BACKWARDS. 'INCREASED AS the overall…' - the reinforcement rate is what the SCHEDULE SETS and the responding is what the animal does, so the schedule variable is the cause. I wrote the edge the other way round while writing a note that said the reinforcement rate was the manipulated side; the dry run is where that was caught. Weight 0.7 records the paper's own hedge - in general, however - stated immediately after 'No systematic relationship…' for the FI rates.— “the terminal rate of responding (the local rate of responding just before reinforcement) increased as the overall rate of reinforcement increased” | concept_edges[4] |
| weight | overall rate of reinforcement —causes→ terminal rate of responding — 0.7— “the terminal rate of responding (the local rate of responding just before reinforcement) increased as the overall rate of reinforcement increased” | concept_edges[4] |
| evidence status note | concept — PAGE FURNITURE IS SPLICED INTO THE QUOTE - the page number and the running head, '342 A. CHARLES CATANIA and G. S. REYNOLDS', between 'successive op-' and the rest of the word. The words on either side of it were never continuous on the page; read the quote with it deleted.— “Other plausible techniques for assigning time to successive op- 342 A. CHARLES CATANIA and G. S. REYNOLDS portunities for the purpose of calculating local rates of reinforcement are possible, such as bisection of the time interval separating two successive opportunities using the geometric rather than the arithmetic mean, or the assignment to… | concepts[4] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the earlier published power function: the authors state it was fitted— “In an earlier version of this paper (Reynolds and Catania, 1961; Catania and Reynolds, 1963), a power function was proposed, on the basis of a fit to average data for the group of pigeons” | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the earlier power function applied to any individual pigeon: the authors state it does not fit individual data— “This mathematical representation, however, does not provide an adequate fit to the data from individual pigeons.” | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the published functional form as an empirical result: the authors state the choice rested on logical considerations rather than superiority of fit— “The choice between these two functions was based more on logical considerations, i.e., that rate of responding should approach zero as rate of reinforcement approaches zero, than on the superiority of the fit of the power function to the data.” | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — pooling or comparing the quantitative results across pigeons: the authors state— “In the present research, different pigeons served in different experiments, and the magnitude of the individual differences among pigeons suggests that such an analysis would not stand up well to comparisons across pigeons.” | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — a single reinforcement-responding function covering all pigeons: the paper says the derivation is complicated by each pigeon's idiosyncratic data— “The derivation of a mathematical function describing the relationship between reinforcement and responding for all pigeons is complicated by the idiosyncratic character of each pigeon's data” | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — any claim that the VI and FI functions share a form: the paper states this cannot be decided from the figure presented— “it is not possible to say whether or not the VI and Fl functions have the same form” | limitations[5] |
| for which use | limitation — the quantitative details and their coordination across schedule types: the paper places these beyond its scope— “the coordination of the overall-rate functions from VI schedules with the local rates in Fl and two-valued interval schedules are beyond the scope of this paper.” | limitations[6] |
| replication | untested |
| no type for this | temporal separation → time since reinforcement — THE TWO CANNOT BE SEPARATED IN THIS STUDY - the DESIGN form / It bounds what the paper's own results can mean, and it lives in a methods paragraph where nothing downstream will find it. A 1968 methods sentence naming its own confound, in a paper nobody would search for it in.— “Thus, the temporal separation of the two opportunities confounded with the time since reinforcement at which the earlier opportunity occurred.” | unhoused_relations[0] |
| limitation | A function these authors published earlier was fitted to the group average rather than to any animal.— “In an earlier version of this paper (Reynolds and Catania, 1961; Catania and Reynolds, 1963), a power function was proposed, on the basis of a fit to average data for the group of pigeons” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | That earlier published function is stated not to fit the data of individual animals.— “This mathematical representation, however, does not provide an adequate fit to the data from individual pigeons.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The choice between two candidate functional forms was made on a priori grounds rather than on which fitted the data better.— “The choice between these two functions was based more on logical considerations, i.e., that rate of responding should approach zero as rate of reinforcement approaches zero, than on the superiority of the fit of the power function to the data.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | Individual differences between animals are large enough that the authors say a unified quantitative analysis would not survive comparison across them.— “In the present research, different pigeons served in different experiments, and the magnitude of the individual differences among pigeons suggests that such an analysis would not stand up well to comparisons across pigeons.” | limitations[3] |
| limitation | Deriving a single function across all animals is stated to be complicated by the idiosyncratic character of each animal's data.— “The derivation of a mathematical function describing the relationship between reinforcement and responding for all pigeons is complicated by the idiosyncratic character of each pigeon's data” | limitations[4] |
| limitation | Whether the variable-interval and fixed-interval functions share a form is stated to be undecidable from the data presented.— “it is not possible to say whether or not the VI and Fl functions have the same form” | limitations[5] |
| limitation | Several quantitative extensions are placed outside the paper's scope.— “the coordination of the overall-rate functions from VI schedules with the local rates in Fl and two-valued interval schedules are beyond the scope of this paper.” | limitations[6] |
| limitation | AND THE AUTHORS LATER USE THAT ARBITRARINESS AGAINST THEIR OWN RESULT: `There is no reason to believe that the arbitrary method of calculation of local rates of reinforcement takes into account either the properties of the 0-sec interval`. A DEFINITIONAL CHOICE DECLARED ARBITRARY WHEN IT IS MADE AND THEN CITED AS A REASON TO DISCOUNT A FINDING THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND CHARACTERS LATER. The same paper does it a third time near the end - `the computation of local rates of reinforcement is most arbitrary at early and late times after reinforcement` - so the qualification is tracked, not mentioned once and forgotten.— “There is no reason to believe that the arbitrary method of calculation of local rates of reinforcement takes into account either the properties of the 0-sec interval” | limitations[7] |