ABA Fundamentals

Sign-tracking with an interfood clock.

Palya (1985) · Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 1985
★ The Verdict

Keeping brief stimuli in the same order sustains responding between reinforcers better than shuffling them.

✓ Read this if BCBAs using token boards, brief praise, or color cues during wait-times.
✗ Skip if Clinicians who deliver every reinforcer immediately with no gaps.

01Research in Context

01

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.

02

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.

03

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.

04

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.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

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

Intervention
other
Design
single case other
Population
not specified
Finding
positive

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