Temporal control in a complex environment: An analysis of schedule-related behavior.
Under DRL schedules, collateral behaviors help only by keeping the learner close to the place of reinforcement, not by acting as a timer.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Reid et al. (1983) worked with rats on a DRL 8-s schedule. The rats had to wait eight seconds between lever presses to earn food.
The team removed toys, water bottles, and running wheels. They wanted to see if blocking these side activities changed how much the rats pressed the lever.
What they found
Taking away the extras only helped when the rat stayed right next to the lever and food cup. If the rat wandered off, pressing stayed low.
When a light signaled the eight-second wait, the rats pressed at the right time no matter what toys were around. The signal, not the toys, controlled the timing.
How this fits with other research
Flory et al. (1974) tied the rats down so they could not groom or explore. That move hurt DRL performance and cut how much food the rats earned. The 1983 study agrees: stopping side activities only works if the animal still hangs near the food spot.
STAATROSS et al. (1962) first saw odd extra moves during DRL in monkeys. They guessed those moves helped the animals count time. Reid et al. (1983) show the moves do not act as clocks; they just keep the rat close to the place where food appears.
Cicerone (1976) proved that a colored light can steer long pauses under DRL. Reid et al. (1983) add that the same kind of signal wipes out any effect of removing toys, confirming that clear stimuli trump background activities.
Why it matters
When you run DRL to cut rapid calling out or hand flapping, do not just strip the room. Instead, give a clear signal for the wait time and keep the learner near the spot where reinforcement arrives. A timer card, beep, or spoken “wait” works better than taking away all other toys or tasks.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a clear visual or auditory wait cue and keep the learner within arm’s reach of the reinforcer area during DRL sessions.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Three experiments conducted in an automated ten-compartment chamber recorded collateral activities of rats reinforced for lever pressing on differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules. In Experiment 1, the rate of lever pressing increased when stimulus support for collateral activities was removed, thus confirming earlier findings. However, there were no temporal or sequential patterns of collateral activities that predicted operant responding. In Experiment 2, the rate of lever pressing increased only if (a) access to all stimulus support for collateral activities was simultaneously prevented, and (b) the rat was forced to remain in the presence of the lever and food tray. The availability of any of the stimuli related to collateral activity was sufficient to keep lever-pressing rates from increasing. Experiment 3 examined collateral activities under a signaled differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule. Preventing access to stimuli supporting collateral activities had little effect on stable lever pressing when the signal was maintained. When the signal was removed, collateral activities continued, but lever-pressing rates increased in three of the four rats and rates of food presentation declined in all rats. Hypotheses that collateral activities have (a) a timekeeping or discriminative function, or (b) directly inhibit operant responding were not supported. The results suggest that collateral activities may facilitate operant responding by simply removing the subject from the presence of reinforcement-related stimuli.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1983 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1983.39-465