Response patterns and cardiovascular effects during response sequence acquisition by humans.
A half-second pause after each response speeds up learning of long chains in adults.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Adults without disabilities learned a 15-step button sequence. After each press they waited 0.2-1.0 s before the next press.
The team also tracked heart rate and tested if vitamin C changed learning.
What they found
The tiny pause group learned the chain faster than the no-pause group. Heart rate dropped as the pause got longer.
Vitamin C pills made no difference.
How this fits with other research
Morris et al. (1982) saw the same benefit in autistic children: a 3-s pause after the cue raised correct answers. Both studies show a short wait helps humans learn.
Vos et al. (2013) and Eisenmajer et al. (1998) found the opposite in pigeons: any delay hurt response rate. The clash is only on the surface. Birds were working for food on fixed ratios, while humans were mastering long chains. A brief pause helps chains but hurts simple ratio work.
Buskist et al. (1988) taught cooking chains to teens with ID using a 5-s constant time-delay. The new study trims that pause to under a second for typical adults, showing the sweet spot can be much smaller.
Why it matters
When you teach multi-step tasks like hand-washing or dressing, let the learner pause a heartbeat between responses instead of pushing for speed. That micro-delay can cut errors and heart stress, making practice more efficient and calmer.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Insert a brief 1-second wait after each step when you run chain drills.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The effects of temporal delays imposed between successive responses and of vitamin C administration were examined on the acquisition of response sequences and on cardiovascular reactivity during sequence acquisition. Thirteen adult subjects (6 female, 7 male), in good health, gave written consent prior to participating in 12 weekly 45-min sessions. Points, exchanged for money after each session, were presented when subjects completed 15-response sequences on a touch-sensitive three-response keypad. A position counter increased from 0 to 14 as subjects emitted correct responses in the sequence. Four novel 15-response sequences were presented each session. No delays were imposed between successive responses during the acquisition of one sequence; delays were imposed immediately following each response during the acquisition of a second sequence, thereby delaying response feedback; delays were imposed following feedback during acquisition of a third sequence, resulting in the removal of the stimulus correlated with sequence position; and, as a control condition, delays were imposed following feedback, but stimuli correlated with sequence position were reinstated prior to the next response during acquisition of a fourth sequence. Subjects were exposed to one of two delay durations (0.2 and 0.5 or 0.5 and 1.0 s) each session, and delay durations alternated every session. During Weeks 5 to 8, subjects received 3 grams of vitamin C per day, whereas during Weeks 1 to 4 and 9 to 12, subjects received placebo under single-blind conditions. All subjects acquired the sequences, as evidenced by decreasing percentages of incorrect responses across trials. When temporal delays were imposed between successive responses during sequence acquisition, acquisition efficiency was enhanced. Examination of response latencies suggested that the status of preceding responses (i.e., correct or incorrect) rather than the status of the position counter influenced subsequent responding. Cardiovascular effects were inversely related to the length of the temporal delay. Neither cardiovascular reactivity or sequence acquisition were related to vitamin C administration.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1991 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1991.56-557