Stimulus specificity and dishabituation of operant responding in humans.

Matson et al. (2013) asked college students to press a computer key for points.

After the students slowed down (habituated), the team changed the reinforcer.

They tried new point amounts, new pictures, or new schedules.

Each change was tiny—just enough to see if responding bounced back.

Every small change brought a quick burst of key pressing.

The burst was short, but it happened with every new twist.

Stimulus specificity worked: even a new color re-energized the behavior.

King et al. (1990) showed that letting people collect their own points keeps them sensitive to amount. L et al. used auto-delivered points, yet still saw dishabituation. The two studies together tell us both delivery method and stimulus change matter.

Tager-Flusberg (1981) first showed pigeons peck faster when the key signal changes. L et al. now prove the same rule holds for human keystrokes, extending the animal work to adult humans.

Neuringer (1973) found flat generalization after simple presence-absence training. L et al.’s sharp jumps in responding seem to clash, but the difference is timing: A tested steady-state control while L tested momentary recovery right after a change.

If a client’s correct responses drift downward, don’t overhaul the program. First try a micro-change: swap the token color, vary the praise wording, or adjust the schedule slightly. These mini-shifts can buy you fresh responding without extra cost or setup. Use them when you need a quick boost during long sessions or when materials are limited.