Mental rotation and temporal contingencies.

The team worked with neurotypical adults in a lab.

Each person saw rotated shapes on a screen.

They had to decide if the shape was normal or mirror-reversed.

Correct answers earned points.

The catch: faster correct answers earned bigger rewards.

The researchers tracked how rotation angle affected reaction time.

When speed paid more, the mental-rotation curve got flatter.

People still slowed down as angles increased, but much less.

The slope dropped by about half.

Even "fixed" cognitive speed moved with the contingency.

Thrailkill et al. (2018) seems to disagree. They showed that richer reinforcement later causes bigger relapse after extinction.

The studies differ in what they measure. Thrailkill looked at return of old behavior; J et al. looked at real-time speed. High pay can both sharpen skill and strengthen recovery — no true clash.

Gulley et al. (1997) and LeBlanc et al. (2003) echo the same theme: more reinforcers boost both control and accuracy. J et al. stretch that rule into the millisecond domain of mental rotation.

Appel (1968) set the table decades earlier by proving that clock-based contingencies can sculpt response patterns. J et al. simply aim the lens at cognitive, not just motor, timing.

If you want a client to decide or match faster, build payoffs for speed.

Thin schedules can keep the gain while lowering relapse risk shown by Thrailkill et al.

Try speed bonuses in matching-to-sample, visual search, or listener responding programs.

Measure latency, not just accuracy — both can move.