The effects of reinforcement frequency and response requirements on the maintenance of behavior.

Six rats responded under fixed-interval and tandem fixed-interval fixed-ratio schedules of food reinforcement. Basic fixed-interval schedules alternated over experimental conditions with tandem fixed-interval fixed-ratio schedules with the same fixed-interval value. Fixed-interval length was varied within subjects over pairs of experimental conditions; the ratio requirement of the tandem schedules was varied across subjects. For both subjects with a ratio requirement of 10, overall response rates and running response rates typically were higher under the tandem schedules than under the corresponding basic fixed-interval schedules. For all subjects with ratio requirements of 30 or 60, overall response rates and running response rates were higher under the tandem schedules than under the corresponding basic fixed-interval schedules only with relatively short fixed intervals. At longer fixed intervals, higher overall response rates and running rates were maintained by the basic fixed-interval schedules than by the tandem schedules. These findings support Zeiler and Buchman's (1979) reinforcement-theory account of response strength as an increasing monotonic function of both the response requirement and reinforcement frequency. Small response requirements added in tandem to fixed-interval schedules have little effect on reinforcement frequency and so their net effect is to enhance responding. Larger response requirements reduce reinforcement frequency more substantially; therefore their net effect depends on the length of the fixed interval, which limits overall reinforcement frequency. At the longest fixed intervals studied in the present experiment, reinforcement frequency under the tandem schedules was sufficiently low that responding weakened or ceased altogether

Implementation of pressure ulcer guidelines: what constitutes a successful strategy?

Various guidelines on pressure ulcer prevention and management have been produced but their recommendations are not always applied to practice. Does the literature provide any evidence on how they can best be implemented?Tooher R, Middleton P and Babidge W.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14648963?dopt=Abstrac