Reinforcement contingencies and signal detection.
Paying errors can blur stimulus control, so audit your error-correction or reinforcement-for-errors policies during skill acquisition.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Wolchik et al. (1982) worked with pigeons in a signal-detection task. Birds pecked left or right keys when lights appeared.
The team changed how often correct pecks or error pecks paid off. They wanted to see if richer error pay would hurt the birds’ accuracy.
What they found
When wrong pecks also earned grain, the pigeons got worse at telling the signals apart.
Higher pay for correct pecks sharpened the birds’ choices. Reinforcement for errors quietly weakened stimulus control.
How this fits with other research
Kodera et al. (1976) showed that even “errorless” training can later create contrast. Their birds rarely made errors, yet contrast still appeared. Wolchik et al. (1982) adds: if you do let errors pay, expect poorer discrimination to begin with.
Heinicke et al. (2012) moved the question to children with developmental disabilities. They found that delayed reinforcement already slows learning. Pair their result with Wolchik et al. (1982) and you get a double warning: delays hurt, and paying errors can hurt more.
Tanno et al. (2009) showed rats can use the time between responses as a cue. Together these studies say the details of when and why you pay matter across species, tasks, and learners.
Why it matters
Check your error-correction routines today. If a child gets an edible or praise after a wrong answer, you may be softening stimulus control. Instead, withhold reinforcement for errors and deliver it right away for correct responses. This keeps the signal clear and learning fast.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Remove any accidental reinforcement for wrong answers; reserve immediate rewards for correct responses only.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Pigeons were trained to discriminate temporal stimuli in a discrete-trial signal-detection procedure. Pecks to one side key were reinforced intermittently after exposure to one duration, and pecks to the other side key were reinforced intermittently after exposure to a different duration. In Experiment I, the allocation of reinforcers was varied systematically for correct responses and for errors, using a procedure that controlled the obtained numbers of reinforcers. When reinforcers were allocated symmetrically, the level of discrimination decreased as the proportion of reinforcers for errors increased. When reinforcers were allocated asymmetrically, the decrease in discrimination was less systematic. Bias toward one or the other side key roughly matched the ratio of reinforcers obtained by pecks at those keys, independent of the level of discrimination. In Experiment II, the overall rate of reinforcement for correct responses was varied both within and between experimental conditions. The level of discrimination was positively related to the overall rate of reinforcement. The discrimination data of both experiments were interpreted in relation to the contingencies of reinforcement and nonreinforcement, characterized by the average difference in reinforcement probability for correct responses and errors.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1982 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1982.37-65