{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019917582417582416, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0020604395604395605, 'mean_word_length': 5.592760180995475, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Beyond the moment: complex behavior in temporally extended environments.

Donahoe, Palmer, and Burgos have provided a valuable contribution toward an account that can accommodate order at both the neurological and behavioral levels. Among the attractive aspects of their account are a neural network model that appears to be remarkably effective at simulating behavior–environment interactions at the level of single responses; an emphasis upon the importance of keeping all behavior–environment relations (operant and nonoperant) within our interpretive window; and an excellent discussion of the subtle range of discriminative functions that the contiguous antecedent environment can acquire. In patterning an explanatory account in accord with the kinds of events that are known to occur at the neurological level, they have raised a number of controversial issues for behavior analysts. The present comments will focus primarily on the issue of scales of analysis and the manner in which the relation between the antecedent environment and behavior is construed by Donahoe et al. Noting that reinforcement strengthens ‘‘the environmental control of responding’’ (p. 193), Donahoe et al. propose that behavior can best be understood as guided by the environment contiguous to it. Environment, as they use the term here, refers explicitly and exclusively to current environmental stimulation, the momentary antecedent context of the behavior in question: