Preference as a function of active interresponse times: a test of the active time model.
Longer pauses between responses make the richer schedule extra attractive—evidence for the Active-Time Model.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Misak et al. (2011) worked with pigeons on two side-by-side keys.
Each key paid off on its own variable-interval 40-s schedule.
The twist: the researchers sorted the birds’ interresponse times into bins.
They wanted to see if longer pauses made the richer schedule even more attractive.
What they found
Birds already liked the VI 40-s side, but the liking jumped after long pauses.
Preference was strongest in the “long-IRT” bin, just as the Active-Time Model predicts.
In plain words, time since the last peck acted like a magnifier for choice.
How this fits with other research
Shimp (1973) first showed that reinforcing specific IRTs can bend the whole response pattern.
Paul’s team moved the same idea into a concurrent choice setup, extending the 1973 finding.
Fantino (1969) argued that animals track expected time to food, not just food rate.
The 2011 data line up with that view: longer IRTs sharpened time-tracking and boosted preference.
Together, the papers form a chain: control of single pauses → control of choice proportions.
Why it matters
If you run concurrent schedules in a classroom or clinic, watch the learner’s pause length.
A long pause may signal that the richer side is about to feel even more powerful.
You can use this moment to deliver high-quality reinforcement and lock in the target response.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →During a concurrent-teaching trial, note when the learner waits three seconds or more, then deliver the stronger reinforcer immediately.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In this article, we describe a test of the active time model for concurrent variable interval (VI) choice. The active time model (ATM) suggests that the time since the most recent response is one of the variables controlling choice in concurrent VI VI schedules of reinforcement. In our experiment, pigeons were trained in a multiple concurrent similar to that employed by Belke (1992), with VI 20-s and VI 40-s schedules in one component, and VI 40-s and VI 80-s schedules in the other component. However, rather than use a free-operant design, we used a discrete-trial procedure that restricted interresponse times to a range of 0.5-9.0 s. After 45 sessions of training, unreinforced probe periods were mixed with reinforced training periods. These probes paired the two stimuli associated with the VI 40-s schedules. Further, the probes were defined such that during their occurrence, interresponse times were either "short" (0.5-3.0 s) or "long" (7.5-9.0 s). All pigeons showed a preference for the stimulus associated with the relatively rich VI 40-s schedule--a result mirroring that of Belke. We also observed, though, that this preference was more extreme during long probes than during short probes--a result predicted by ATM.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2011 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2011.96-215