Reinforcement omission on temporal go-no-go schedules.

The team used a go-no-go setup with pigeons. Birds pecked on two keys. One key paid off after a short wait. The other paid off after a longer wait.

Sometimes the food never came. The researchers watched how the missed payoff changed the birds' timing and rate of pecks.

Missing the payoff sped up pecking when the birds had learned to pause first. It slowed pecking when they had learned to respond first.

The schedule had already trained a rhythm. The same omission pushed that rhythm in opposite directions.

Jensen et al. (1973) ran a similar test the next year. They saw that omission in one part of a schedule made the next part surge or dip. Both studies show that what happens after a missed payoff depends on the timing the bird already knows.

Harzem et al. (1978) went further. They rewarded pigeons for long pauses and saw pauses shrink. This flips the common belief that rewarding a behavior always boosts it. Together with Staddon (1972), the picture is clear: time rules override simple reward rules.

Baron et al. (1966) had earlier seen short-lived contrast jumps across schedule parts. E's work adds the missing piece: omission can either lift or sink later responding, depending on the trained pause pattern.

Your client already has a response rhythm, even if you never set a clock. When reinforcement fails—say, the vending machine eats a dollar or the token board is empty—the next burst of behavior will follow the timing history you built. If the learner usually waits before acting, expect faster responding after a miss. If the learner usually acts quickly, expect a slowdown. Check the pattern before you blame motivation or attention.