Effects of response spacing on acquisition and retention of conditional discriminations.

Porritt et al. (2009) tested how gaps between trials affect learning.

They ran conditional-discrimination drills with no delay, short delay, or long delay.

The study used a single-case lab design and tracked both new learning and later recall.

No-delay, rapid-fire trials gave the highest accuracy.

Spacing gaps hurt learning, and where the gap sat changed later recall.

The team showed that tight trial timing matters for both getting it right and keeping it.

Sachs et al. (1969) saw the same in rats: short inter-trial gaps sped learning.

Reed (2012) extended the idea to kids with ASD, finding that even a brief delay between sample and comparison worsened over-selectivity.

Johnson et al. (1994) showed a fix: have the learner say the sample name aloud during the delay; the gap stays, but the trial feels contiguous and learning proceeds.

Together the papers say keep trials close; if you must pause, fill the pause with an overt learner response.

You can raise accuracy tomorrow by cutting dead time between trials.

If a pause is unavoidable, give the learner something to say or do right away.

This tweak costs nothing and helps both typical learners and kids with ASD or ID.