Resistance to change and frequency of response-dependent stimuli uncorrelated with reinforcement.
Neutral response-produced stimuli can armor behavior against disruption even though they are not reinforcers.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Pigeons pecked a key for food on a variable-interval schedule.
Each peck also turned the key light red for half a second, but the color had zero link to food delivery.
The researchers then added mild disruption: pre-feeding or free food while the key stayed available.
They counted how many pecks survived the disruption compared with baseline.
What they found
The brief red flashes made the pecking last longer against disruption.
Higher flash rates gave stronger protection, but the birds never pecked faster.
The color was not a reinforcer; it only slowed the drop in responding when conditions got tough.
How this fits with other research
LeBlanc et al. (2003) showed that richer food schedules protect behavior from disruption. The 2009 study keeps the food schedule the same and still boosts protection by adding uncorrelated flashes.
Paul et al. (1987) found that stimuli paired with extinction lose value and cut responding. Here, the flashes were paired with nothing, yet they helped, showing value is not required for resistance.
Gulley et al. (1997) proved that more food reinforcers tighten stimulus control. Our target paper flips the focus: non-reinforcing stimuli can still shield behavior, so frequency matters even without contingency.
Why it matters
You can make target responses tougher against distraction without adding extra reinforcers. Insert brief, response-produced sensory events—click, flash, vibration—at higher rates during practice. Keep the real reinforcers steady; the neutral cues alone can buy you persistence when the client faces novelty or satiation.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Program a brief neutral stimulus—like a soft beep—to follow each correct response during maintenance sessions and watch if accuracy holds when you later introduce distraction.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Stimuli uncorrelated with reinforcement have been shown to enhance response rates and resistance to disruption; however, the effects of different rates of stimulus presentations have not been assessed. In two experiments, we assessed the effects of adding different rates of response-dependent brief stimuli uncorrelated with primary reinforcement on relative response rates and resistance to change. In both experiments, pigeons responded on variable-interval 60-s schedules of food reinforcement in two components of a multiple schedule, and brief response-dependent keylight-color changes were added to one or both components. Although relative response rates were not systematically affected in either experiment, relative resistance to presession feeding and extinction were. In Experiment 1, adding stimuli on a variable-interval schedule to one component of a multiple schedule either at a low rate (1 per min) for one group or at a high rate (4 per min) for another group similarly increased resistance to disruption in the components with added stimuli. When high and low rates of stimuli were presented across components (i.e., within subjects) in Experiment 2, however, relative resistance to disruption was greater in the component presenting stimuli at a lower rate. These results suggest that stimuli uncorrelated with food reinforcement do not strengthen responding in the same way as primary reinforcers.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2009 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2009.92-199