A theory of attending and reinforcement in conditional discriminations.
Reinforcement rate silently steers attention, and you can read that attention by tracking small observing responses.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The authors built a math model. It links reinforcement rate to hidden 'attending' during conditional-discrimination tasks.
They used earlier pigeon data. The model shows how more reinforcers can pull attention and fix odd accuracy patterns.
What they found
The model fits puzzling results. When reinforcement shifts, accuracy swings follow the new rate of attending.
It explains why non-reinforced cues sometimes control choices. Attention drifts to the key with the richest payoff.
How this fits with other research
Ohta (1987) showed pigeons peck a cue more when it predicts food. The model turns that peck into a probability of attending.
Wolchik et al. (1982) found higher correct reinforcement boosts discrimination. The model uses the same link but adds the hidden step of attending.
Meltzer (1983) saw control by non-reinforced cues. The model explains it: reinforcement momentum drags attention even to cues that never pay.
Why it matters
You can’t see attending, but you can watch observing responses. Count how often the learner looks at or orients to each stimulus. If accuracy drops, check which cue is paired with the densest reinforcement schedule. Shift reinforcement toward the correct cue and watch observing spike. This gives you a lever to fix stubborn conditional-discrimination errors without changing the task itself.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Tally the learner’s looks toward each cue for ten trials, then rebalance reinforcement so the correct cue pays off more often.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A model of conditional discrimination performance (Davison & Nevin, 1999) is combined with the notion that unmeasured attending to the sample and comparison stimuli, in the steady state and during disruption, depends on reinforcement in the same way as predicted for overt free-operant responding by behavioral momentum theory (Nevin & Grace, 2000). The rate of observing behavior, a measurable accompaniment of attending, is well described by an equation for steady-state responding derived from momentum theory, and the resistance to change of observing conforms to predictions of momentum theory, supporting a key assumption of the model. When probabilities of attending are less than 1.0, the model accounts for some aspects of conditional-discrimination performance that posed problems for the Davison-Nevin model: (a) the effects of differential reinforcement on the allocation of responses to the comparison stimuli and on accuracy in several matching-to-sample and signal-detection tasks where the differences between the stimuli or responses were varied across conditions, (b) the effects of overall reinforcer rate on the asymptotic level and resistance to change of both response rate and accuracy of matching to sample in multiple schedules, and (c) the effects of fixed-ratio reinforcement on accuracy. Some tests and extensions of the model are suggested, and the role of unmeasured events in behavior theory is considered.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2005 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2005.97-04