The effects of a pre-time-out stimulus on matching-to-sample of humans.
A warning cue before time-out only reduces errors if the time-out is tied to those errors and lasts at least four minutes.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers asked adults to play a matching-to-sample game.
If the player picked the wrong picture, the screen went dark for a short break.
Before some breaks, a red light flashed. The team wanted to know if the light would help players make fewer mistakes.
They also tested breaks that happened no matter what the player did.
What they found
The red light only helped when the break followed a wrong pick.
With a four-minute break, wrong picks dropped.
Right picks also dropped a little, so the light was not perfect.
When breaks came no matter what, the light did nothing.
How this fits with other research
Nigro (1966) ran a similar lab study the same year. He showed that breaks must follow the target act. Random breaks barely changed behavior.
Leander et al. (1972) later tested longer breaks with children. They found fifteen minutes worked as well as thirty, lining up with the four-minute floor seen here.
Byrne et al. (2017) pushed the idea further. They proved a signal still works even when the break is delayed up to thirty-eight seconds.
Together, the four papers draw a clear line: link the break to the act, give a signal, and four minutes seems to be the sweet spot.
Why it matters
If you use time-out in clinic or classroom, first check that it really follows the problem behavior. Then add a brief signal—maybe say “break” or turn on a lamp. Start with four minutes; going longer may not add benefit and could cut good behavior too.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a clear verbal or visual cue right before each contingent time-out and keep it to four minutes.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In each of two experiments human subjects were intermittently reinforced with money on a fixed-ratio schedule for emitting correct matching responses. A pre-time-out stimulus which signaled removal of positive reinforcement was periodically superimposed. In the first experiment the superimposed pre-time-out stimulus was paired with a 1-min or 4-min response-independent time out. In the second experiment the pre-time-out stimulus was paired with a 1-min or 4-min time out contingent on the incorrect responses. The pre-time-out stimulus did not markedly influence performance when the time out was response independent. In contrast, the pre-time-out stimulus markedly suppressed incorrect responding when the time out was contingent on the incorrect responses. When duration of this time-out was increased from 1-min to 4-min, suppression of incorrect responding increased and correct responding was suppressed. Therefore, behavioral suppression by a pre-time-out stimulus was obtained only when the signaled aversive event-time out-was response produced. In this case, suppression was influenced by time-out duration.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1966 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1966.9-487