Reinforcement values of visual patterns compared through concurrent performances.

Staddon (1972) set up two response keys for pigeons. Each key delivered food on its own variable-interval schedule.

One key also showed simple visual patterns. The other showed more complex patterns. The birds could switch keys at any time.

Birds pecked the key with complex patterns more often. The extra visual detail acted like a stronger reinforcer.

The result held steady across sessions. Complexity itself boosted responding, not just faster food delivery.

CATANIDINSMOOR (1962) showed that concurrent VI schedules keep response patterns clean if you add a changeover delay. E used the same setup, so the complexity effect is not masked by schedule overlap.

Geckeler et al. (2000) later copied the concurrent VI design with children with autism. They swapped pattern complexity for child-chosen reinforcers. Choice also lifted response rates, proving the method works outside the pigeon lab.

Macht (1971) tested reinforcer duration instead of visual detail. Duration alone shifted time allocation. Together the papers say any property that makes food "better"—duration or look—will steer behavior under concurrent schedules.

When you run two tasks at once, the richer-looking reinforcer will win. For clients who earn tokens or brief videos, pick the more detailed picture or the busier animation. You should see faster or steadier responding on that task without touching the delivery schedule. Try it next session: keep the same pay-out times, just upgrade the visual.