Sign-tracking with an interfood clock.
Keeping brief stimuli in the same order sustains responding between reinforcers better than shuffling them.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Pigeons pecked a key while six color lights blinked in order between food deliveries.
The researcher compared two set-ups: one kept the same color order every cycle, the other shuffled the colors at random.
Both groups waited the same time for food; only the light order changed.
What they found
Birds in the fixed-order group kept pecking the key hard.
Birds in the random-order group soon stopped.
The result shows the birds were following the light sequence, not just watching for food.
How this fits with other research
Downing et al. (1976) saw the same thing earlier: pigeons worked harder when food and brief stimuli came in random order, not fixed.
Matson et al. (2013) later found fixed order helps humans too—four out of seven kids in a multielement FA showed clearer problem behavior when conditions ran ignore→attention→play→demand every cycle.
Miranda-Dukoski et al. (2014) extended the idea: when food odds kept changing, a quick color flash pulled the birds’ choices back on track, showing brief ordered cues can reboot control even in shifting schedules.
Why it matters
If you want steady responding between reinforcers, give a brief signal and keep its order the same.
Try running your brief stimulus in a fixed sequence during DRL, FI, or token boards before the big payoff.
You should see smoother, more predictable client behavior without extra edible rewards.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one brief stimulus (light, click, word) and present it in the same order each cycle before the next edible or break.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Food was presented to pigeons, irrespective of their behavior. The fixed 60-s interfood interval was segmented into ten 6-s periods, each signaled by a distinctive stimulus color, ordered by wavelength. This "interfood clock" reliably generated and maintained successively higher rates of key pecking at stimuli successively closer to food. Under extinction, key pecking ceased. When the standard stimulus sequence was changed to a different sequence for each bird, accelerated responding again emerged and was sustained under each of the new color sequences. However, responding was neither maintained nor acquired when each successive interfood interval provided a different random sequence of the ten stimuli. Thus, the interfood clock generated and maintained sign-tracking under stimulus control, and the resulting behavior was attributable neither to stimulus generalization nor to a simple temporal gradient.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1985 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1985.43-321