A comparison of ratio and interval reinforcement schedules with comparable interreinforcement times.

The team compared two classic schedules: fixed-ratio (FR) and fixed-interval (FI). They kept the time between reinforcers the same on both schedules. This let them see how schedule type alone changes pausing and running.

Lab rats pressed a lever for food. Sessions alternated between FR and FI while the researchers timed every pause and response burst.

FR schedules produced shorter pauses than FI when the inter-reinforcement time was short. At longer times the pattern flipped and FI pauses became shorter.

Both schedules still showed the familiar pause-run shape, but the size of the pause shifted with time and schedule type.

Rider et al. (1984) extends this idea. They showed that pause length tracks total inter-reinforcement time more than the seconds of actual work. This helps explain why matched times still give different pauses.

Tanguay et al. (1982) adds a practical twist. They inserted a brief timeout after each FR reinforcer and saw the next pause shrink. This supports the 1980 finding that FR pauses are flexible and can be shortened with small procedural tweaks.

Wilson et al. (1973) is a direct predecessor. They proved that post-reinforcement pause and running rate are the clearest way to measure FI performance. Capehart et al. (1980) used those same two metrics to make the FR-FI comparison fair.

When you shape skill fluency, the first response after reinforcement sets the pace. If you use FR, short inter-reinforcement times keep pauses minimal. If you stretch the ratio or move to FI, expect longer pauses and plan extra prompts or timing cues. You can also borrow the timeout trick from Tanguay et al. (1982) to shorten pauses without changing the schedule requirement.