Schedules of response-independent conditioned reinforcement.
Free reinforcers or stimuli can raise or lower behavior depending on the schedule, and the effect can outlast the pairing.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Périkel et al. (1974) looked at brief-stimulus schedules. These are tiny lights or sounds that come on no matter what the animal does.
They asked: does the timing of these free stimuli change how the animal works? They tried two set-ups: interval and time schedules.
What they found
Interval schedules made early low response rates go up. Time schedules made the same low rates go down.
Once the brief stimulus had been paired with food, its effect stuck around even after the food stopped.
How this fits with other research
Rogers-Warren et al. (1976) later added these free stimuli on top of a fixed-interval baseline. The FI scallop flattened and overall rates dropped. This extends the 1974 work by showing the same stimuli can wreck a trained pattern.
Burgess et al. (1986) reviewed dozens of studies and found that free reinforcement usually lowers response rates. Their summary includes the 1974 mixed data and explains why low-rate free reinforcers can sometimes raise rates—an apparent contradiction that is really about schedule interaction.
Cohen et al. (1993) went further and showed that resistance to disruption only holds in multiple schedules, not simple ones. This builds on the 1974 finding that schedule type decides the final behavior.
Why it matters
If you run noncontingent reinforcement or use tokens, think about the schedule. A fixed-time delivery might calm one client but energize another. Check baseline rates first, then watch if the effect lingers after you fade the backup reinforcer.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Track client response rate for five minutes before starting NCR, then match the delivery schedule to the direction you want—interval to speed up, time to slow down.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Rates and patterns of responding of pigeons under response-independent and response-dependent schedules of brief-stimulus presentation were compared by superimposing 3-min brief-stimulus schedules on a 15-min fixed-interval schedule of food presentation. The brief-stimulus schedules were fixed time, fixed interval, variable time, and variable interval. When the brief stimulus was paired with food presentation, its effects depended upon the schedule and ongoing rates. Fixed- and variable-interval brief-stimulus schedules enhanced the low rates normally occurring early in the 15-min interval, whereas fixed- and variable-time schedules suppressed these rates. Although the overall rates later in the interval were not affected to any great extent, the fixed brief-stimulus schedules generated patterns of positively accelerated responding between stimulus presentations. These patterns appeared less frequently under the variable brief-stimulus schedules. Initially, when not paired with food delivery, presentations of the brief stimulus produced relatively little effect on either response rate or patterning. However, once the stimulus had accompanied food presentation, the original performance under the nonpaired condition was not recovered. The effects were more like those occurring when the stimulus was paired with food.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1974 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1974.21-433