DIFFERENTIATION OF A PRECISE TIMING RESPONSE.

MCMILLAN et al. (1965) asked a simple question: can reinforcement teach animals to press a bar for an exact length of time?

They tested pigeons, rats, and humans. A press had to last a set number of milliseconds to earn food or money.

The team used shaping. They started with any press, then only paid for presses that got closer and closer to the target time.

Every species learned the target duration. Birds, rats, and people all adjusted how long they held the bar.

When the target changed, the subjects quickly matched the new time. Reinforcement produced millisecond-level control.

Charlop et al. (1985) repeated the idea with college students. Instead of press length, students had to wait a set time between button taps. Most hit the goal within 30 minutes, showing the effect works fast in adults.

Bauman et al. (1996) later used progressive-interval schedules with rats. The required wait grew longer each time. The rats kept pace, extending their pauses just like the 1965 animals extended their press.

Périkel et al. (1974) added a twist: a light told pigeons when their ratio time was up. With the signal, timing stayed sharp even under long deadlines. The 1965 study had no signal, yet timing still worked, proving the basic shaping power is strong even without extra cues.

You can sculpt exact response durations with simple shaping. Start with any acceptable response, then only reinforce closer and closer approximations. The animal—or client—will zero in on the target time. Use this to teach a child to hold a button for two seconds, a student to pause before answering, or a patient to sustain a movement in rehab. If the goal changes, reshape; the learner will follow.