Temporal control in rats: analysis of nonlocalized effects from short interfood intervals.
Tight food timing shortens pauses everywhere in the session, but the effect does not stack.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Bromley et al. (1998) watched rats work on fixed-time food deliveries.
They gave food every 30, 60, or 120 seconds in separate parts of the session.
The team timed how long the rats paused after each piece of food.
What they found
Short gaps between food, like 30 s, made pauses shrink in every part of the session.
Even parts that still had long 120-s gaps showed shorter pauses.
Two short-interval blocks did not add together; the pause stayed the same length no matter how close the blocks were.
How this fits with other research
Dodd (1984) showed that food promised more than one hour away does not touch current responding.
The new study tightens that window: food only seconds away can ripple across the whole session.
Glover et al. (1976) found richer food makes pauses grow, while the present work shows frequent food makes pauses shrink.
Together they tell us pause length is pulled by both food size and food timing.
Why it matters
If you run dense reinforcement to build momentum, know the shorter pauses may spill into later, leaner parts of the session.
Plan transition times after rich schedules; the animal may start sooner than you expect.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After a high-rate reinforcement phase, add five extra seconds before the next cue so the learner resets to your target pause.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The present experiment analyzed temporal control of postreinforcement pause duration during within-session changes in the criterion for reinforcement (interfood interval, IFI). Analysis of interval-by-interval changes in the pause revealed localized and nonlocalized effects from short intervals that caused specific changes in performance. In Phase 1, rats were presented with five consecutive 15-s IFIs intercalated into a series of 60-s IFIs. The 15-s set decreased the pause in adjacent and more remote 60-s intervals. In Phase 2, two sets of 15-s intervals were intercalated. The spacing between the two sets varied so that 0, 5, 10, or 15 60-s IFIs separated the sets. The postreinforcement pause tracked all changes in the IFI duration, and the localized effect from a short set extended beyond the next interval to the next few 60-s IFIs. Effects from one set, however, did not combine with a second set: Changes in the pause after two sets were the same regardless of the spacing between sets.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1998 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1998.70-35