Stimulus control of differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate responding.
Under DRL schedules, a stimulus can guide long pauses yet leave rapid responses unchanged.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with pigeons on a DRL 8-second schedule.
Birds had to wait at least eight seconds between pecks to earn food.
A colored light told them when the schedule was active.
Researchers changed the light’s wavelength to see if color would control timing.
What they found
Only long pauses followed the color cue.
Quick pecks stayed random; the color did not guide them.
In short, the stimulus grabbed the slow responses and ignored the fast ones.
How this fits with other research
Byrd (1972) saw the same split. Each cue controlled its own response rule; one cue never helped time the other.
Flory et al. (1974) add a twist. They blocked the birds’ side behaviors and the DRL fell apart. Together the three studies show: long pauses need both a cue and a way to fill the wait.
Bensemann et al. (2015) look like they clash. Their DRO plan accidentally raised other behaviors, while our DRL left fast pecks untouched. The gap is method: DRO reinforces “anything but,” so new acts pop up; DRL simply withholds food for fast pecks, leaving them uncontrolled but not strengthened.
Why it matters
When you use DRL to slow a client’s talking or hand-flapping, pair the schedule with a clear signal. The signal will help the learner wait, but only if they already have another move to do while they wait. Teach that filler move first, then add the cue.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Give the client a colored card during DRL and teach a quiet filler activity; the card will now cue the wait time.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Five pigeons were given single-stimulus training on an 8-sec differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule followed by steady-state generalization training using 12 wavelength stimuli. Three birds had a high percentage of reinforced responses on the training schedule and flat generalization gradients of total responses. The birds with fewer reinforced responses had much steeper generalization gradients. Generalization gradients plotted as a function of both stimulus wavelength and interresponse time showed that for most birds, stimulus control was restricted to responses with long interresponse times. Responses with very short interresponse times were not under stimulus control and there was some evidence of inhibitory control of short interresponse times. Interresponse-times-per-opportunity functions, plotted as a function of stimulus wavelength, showed that stimulus wavelength controlled the temporal distribution of responses, rather than the overall rate of response. The data indicate that the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule generates several response categories that are controlled in different ways by wavelength and time-correlated stimuli, and that averaging responses regardless of interresponse-time length obscures this control.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1976 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1976.25-199