Bribeproof mechanisms for two-values domains

Schummer (Journal of Economic Theory 2000) introduced the concept of bribeproof mechanism which, in a context where monetary transfer between agents is possible, requires that manipulations through bribes are ruled out. Unfortunately, in many domains, the only bribeproof mechanisms are the trivial ones which return a fixed outcome. This work presents one of the few constructions of non-trivial bribeproof mechanisms for these quasi-linear environments. Though the suggested construction applies to rather restricted domains, the results obtained are tight: For several natural problems, the method yields the only possible bribeproof mechanism and no such mechanism is possible on more general domains.Comment: Extended abstract accepted to SAGT 2016. This ArXiv version corrects typos in the proofs of Theorem 7 and Claims 28-29 of prior ArXiv versio

Contact Force and Scanning Velocity during Active Roughness Perception

Haptic perception is bidirectionally related to exploratory movements, which means that exploration influences perception, but perception also influences exploration. We can optimize or change exploratory movements according to the perception and/or the task, consciously or unconsciously. This paper presents a psychophysical experiment on active roughness perception to investigate movement changes as the haptic task changes. Exerted normal force and scanning velocity are measured in different perceptual tasks (discrimination or identification) using rough and smooth stimuli. The results show that humans use a greater variation in contact force for the smooth stimuli than for the rough stimuli. Moreover, they use higher scanning velocities and shorter break times between stimuli in the discrimination task than in the identification task. Thus, in roughness perception humans spontaneously use different strategies that seem effective for the perceptual task and the stimuli. A control task, in which the participants just explore the stimuli without any perceptual objective, shows that humans use a smaller contact force and a lower scanning velocity for the rough stimuli than for the smooth stimuli. Possibly, these strategies are related to aversiveness while exploring stimuli

Quantifying Individual Variation in the Propensity to Attribute Incentive Salience to Reward Cues

If reward-associated cues acquire the properties of incentive stimuli they can come to powerfully control behavior, and potentially promote maladaptive behavior. Pavlovian incentive stimuli are defined as stimuli that have three fundamental properties: they are attractive, they are themselves desired, and they can spur instrumental actions. We have found, however, that there is considerable individual variation in the extent to which animals attribute Pavlovian incentive motivational properties (“incentive salience”) to reward cues. The purpose of this paper was to develop criteria for identifying and classifying individuals based on their propensity to attribute incentive salience to reward cues. To do this, we conducted a meta-analysis of a large sample of rats (N = 1,878) subjected to a classic Pavlovian conditioning procedure. We then used the propensity of animals to approach a cue predictive of reward (one index of the extent to which the cue was attributed with incentive salience), to characterize two behavioral phenotypes in this population: animals that approached the cue (“sign-trackers”) vs. others that approached the location of reward delivery (“goal-trackers”). This variation in Pavlovian approach behavior predicted other behavioral indices of the propensity to attribute incentive salience to reward cues. Thus, the procedures reported here should be useful for making comparisons across studies and for assessing individual variation in incentive salience attribution in small samples of the population, or even for classifying single animals

Associative factors underlying the pigeon's key pecking in auto-shaping procedures

Key pecking in pigeons can be engendered by associating response-independent food presentations with illumination of a key. Specific pairings of key and food are not necessary for this phenomenon. Differential positive association between key and food (defined in terms of relative densities of reinforcement), however, is necessary and sufficient to produce and maintain key pecking. Thus, the occurrence of key pecking in auto-shaping can be considered to depend on associative processes similar to classical conditioning. Consequently, auto-shaped pecking can be virtually eliminated by the addition of food presentations in the intertrial interval, thus removing the association between key and food. Initial exposure to random reinforcement, or reinforcement only in the absence of the key, results in lower rates of pecking in subsequent auto-shaping procedures

Maintenance Of Key Pecking By Stimulus-Contingent And Response-Independent Food Presentation

Three naive pigeons were exposed to a series of two-component multiple schedules of response-independent food presentation. The component schedules were sometimes identical (non-differential procedures) and sometimes different (differential procedures). High rates of key pecking were maintained in all the differential procedures, and pecking decreased substantially in non-differential procedures, even when the frequency of food presentation in non-differential procedures was higher than in differential procedures. It is suggested that the high rates of key pecking were maintained not by adventitious response-reinforcer contingencies, but by differential contingencies between the stimulus (keylight) and food. The role of such contingencies in the phenomenon of behavioral contrast is discussed

The associative relation underlying autoshaping in the pigeon

Fifteen pigeons were exposed to either response-independent or response-dependent schedules of water reinforcement, whereby water was injected directly into the unrestrained pigeons' mandibles. Key-contact responses were released by a lighted key correlated with water, but not by a lighted key uncorrelated with water. A negative response-reinforcer contingency suppressed autoshaped key-contact responses, resulting in responding directed away from the lighted key. In all pigeons, water injected directly into the mandibles elicited a consummatory fixed-action pattern of “mumbling” and swallowing. The lighted key correlated with water released a broader set of both appetitive and consummatory responses: approach to the lighted key, “bowing”, “rooting”, “mumbling”, and swallowing. Key-contact responses were “rooting” and “mumbling” motions of the beak on the surface of the key. Views of autoshaping based on stimulus substitution or stimulus surrogation do not fully explain the origin of autoshaped responses not previously elicited by the reinforcer. The present findings are consonant with views of conditioning that emphasize the large degree of biological pre-organization in conditioned response patterns, and the importance of associative factors in the control of such patterns