ABA Fundamentals

Effects of signaling on temporal control of behavior in response‐initiated fixed intervals

Fox et al. (2016) · Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 2016
★ The Verdict

A single flash at the first response makes the fixed interval start faster but finish messier.

✓ Read this if BCBAs shaping new chains or tolerance under FI-like schedules in clinic or classroom.
✗ Skip if Practitioners working solely on rate reduction or DRL timing.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Fox and colleagues asked a simple question. What happens if you flash a bright light right when the first response starts a fixed-interval clock?

They used pigeons in a response-initiated fixed-interval schedule. The bird’s first peep started a timer. After the set time, the next peck paid off.

Sometimes the first peck also turned on a white light. Other times it did not. The team watched how fast the birds pecked and how well they timed the interval.

02

What they found

The signal sped up the first response. Birds pecked sooner after the last food delivery when the light came on.

But the same signal made later timing sloppier. Spread-out responding and more early pecks showed the birds were less sure when food was due.

In short, the cue helped the start and hurt the finish of the interval.

03

How this fits with other research

Robertson et al. (2013) set the baseline. They showed that simply adding a response-initiation requirement already raises early pecking and makes intervals more variable. Fox’s team kept that setup and layered on the signal, proving the cue—not just the initiation rule—drives the extra speed.

Arnett (1972) seems to disagree. That study found any added clock cue cuts response rate and stretches the post-food pause. Fox saw faster, not slower, responding. The gap is real but explainable: B’s cue stayed on for every response, acting like a tiny delay, while Fox’s cue flashed only once, acting like a green light.

Wolchik et al. (1982) add a twist. They showed that signaling even a half-second delay can trim rapid, off-time responses. Fox’s signal did the opposite at the start, but it also loosened later precision, echoing the same theme: salient cues rearrange when responses occur.

04

Why it matters

If you run FI schedules with clients, remember that a single bright event at the start works like a starter’s pistol. It can cut the post-reinforcement pause but may scatter responding across the rest of the interval. Use the signal when you want quick initiation, then watch for drift. Fade or add extra cues later if steady timing matters for the skill you are teaching.

FREE CEUs

Get CEUs on This Topic — Free

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.

60+ on-demand CEUs (ethics, supervision, general)
New live CEU every Wednesday
Community of 500+ BCBAs
100% free to join
Join The ABA Clubhouse — Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Try adding a brief visual cue only on the first correct response of your FI schedule; track if the client starts sooner but spreads later responses.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
single case other
Population
not specified
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

Behavior and events distributed in time can serve as markers that signal delays to future events. The majority of timing research has focused on how behavior changes as the time to some event, usually food availability, decreases. The primary objective of the two experiments presented here was to assess how behavior changes as time passes between two time markers when the first time marker was manipulated but the second, food delivery, was held constant. Pigeons were exposed to fixed-interval, response-initiated fixed-interval, and signaled response-initiated fixed-interval 15- and 30-s schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, first-response latencies were systematically shorter in the signaled response-initiated schedules than response-initiated schedules, suggesting that the first response was a more effective time marker when it was signaled. In Experiment 2, responding in no-food (i.e. "peak") trials indicated that timing accuracy was equivalent in the three schedule types. Compared to fixed interval schedules, timing precision was reduced in the signaled response-initiated schedules and was lowest in response-initiated schedules. Results from Experiments 1 and 2 coupled with previous research suggest that the overall "informativeness" of a time marker relative to other events and behaviors in the environment may determine its efficacy.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2016 · doi:10.1002/jeab.226