Discrimination of variable schedules is controlled by interresponse times proximal to reinforcement.
The pause that earned the last reinforcer, not the long-term rate, drives schedule discrimination.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Takayuki and team worked with rats to see how the animals tell one reinforcement schedule from another. They compared variable-ratio (VR) schedules with tandem schedules that mixed variable-interval, differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate, and differential-reinforcement-of-high-rate parts. The rats had to press a lever to earn food.
The researchers tracked every lever press and the tiny pauses between presses, called interresponse times. They asked: do rats look at the whole pattern of presses, or just the last few pauses right before the food arrives?
What they found
Rats could tell VR from the other schedules only when the last few reinforced pauses were very different. If the pause pattern just before food stayed the same, the rats acted as if the schedules were identical.
The study backs a copyist timing model: animals copy, or repeat, the pause that just worked. Long-term rate did not guide choice; only the most recent pause mattered.
How this fits with other research
Galbicka et al. (1981) showed that clear signals tied to each schedule help animals match response rates to payoff rates. Tanno et al. (2012) zoom in tighter, showing that even without extra signals, the last few pauses alone can do the job.
Smith et al. (1975) found that the number of responses in a fixed interval can itself become a cue. The 2012 study widens that idea: not just response count, but the tiny pauses between responses, can act as the cue.
Castañe et al. (1993) saw that any intermittent schedule makes rats defecate, pointing to the time between any two food deliveries. Takayuki refines this: only the pauses that end in food, not the overall wait, control what the rat does next.
Why it matters
When you shape a new skill or thin a schedule, think about the pause that just earned reinforcement. If you want the learner to tell two schedules apart, make the last response pattern noticeably different. Do not trust that overall rate will guide discrimination; tighten or loosen the required pause right before the reinforcer. Try inserting a brief DRL or DRH just before payoff to sharpen the difference.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →End your next VR schedule with one clearly different response-to-pause ratio and watch if the learner notices the change.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In Experiment 1, food-deprived rats responded to one of two schedules that were, with equal probability, associated with a sample lever. One schedule was always variable ratio, while the other schedule, depending on the trial within a session, was: (a) a variable-interval schedule; (b) a tandem variable-interval, differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule; or (c) a tandem variable-interval, differential-reinforcement-of-high-rate schedule. Completion of a sample-lever schedule, which took approximately the same time regardless of schedule, presented two comparison levers, one associated with each sample-lever schedule. Pressing the comparison lever associated with the schedule just presented produced food, while pressing the other produced a blackout. Conditional-discrimination accuracy was related to the size of the difference in reinforced interresponse times and those that preceded it (predecessor interresponse times) between the variable-ratio and other comparison schedules. In Experiment 2, control by predecessor interresponse times was accentuated by requiring rats to discriminate between a variable-ratio schedule and a tandem schedule that required emission of a sequence of a long, then a short interresponse time in the tandem's terminal schedule. These discrimination data are compatible with the copyist model from Tanno and Silberberg (2012) in which response rates are determined by the succession of interresponse times between reinforcers weighted so that each interresponse time's role in rate determination diminishes exponentially as a function of its distance from reinforcement.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2012 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2012.98-341