Antecedent reinforcement contingencies in the stimulus control of an auditory discrimination.

Rees et al. (1967) tested how rats learn an auditory discrimination. The rats pressed a bar in a box. Tones told them when presses would pay off.

The team used a multiple schedule. One tone meant food was ready. Another tone meant no food. They watched which tone controlled pressing.

Discrimination only showed up under the multiple schedule. The rats pressed hard after the sound that used to bring food, even if that sound was not paying now.

Local food in the sound period did not drive the choice. The overall schedule structure did.

Hilton et al. (2010) later used the same multiple-schedule trick to calm high-rate social approaches in an adult with intellectual disability. The basic rat rule held: schedule structure, not momentary payoff, built control.

Reid et al. (2005) showed preschool kids kept the rule even after the cues were removed. Once the schedule structure taught them when to ask for attention, they no longer needed the colored wristbands.

WEISSMAN (1963) looked like a clash. Pigeons kept pecking in extinction when the limited-hold window shrank. The birds seemed to ignore the schedule. The difference is timing. Very short windows blur the signal. When the cue is clear, as in R et al., the multiple schedule wins.

You now know that stimulus control grows from the schedule frame, not from how much reinforcement sits in each second. If a learner keeps responding in extinction, first check whether your S-delta cue is sharp and the schedule is truly multiple. A clear, consistent S-delta tied to a full extinction period can save you from thickening reinforcement that is not needed.