The reinforcement of short interresponse times.

Three pigeons pecked a key on a VI schedule. The twist: only very fast pecks earned extra food. The team tracked every gap between responses.

They wanted to see if paying for quick bursts would reshape the birds' timing.

When short gaps were reinforced, the whole flock of gap-times slid toward shorter values. The birds' response rhythm changed on the spot.

Even under a VI baseline, selective payoff for speed remixed the birds' tempo.

REYNOLDS (1964) showed that DRL 20-s makes pigeons wait longer. Shimp (1967) flips the coin: reward short gaps and the same species speeds up. Together they prove IRTs are clay you can push either way.

Tanno et al. (2009) later showed rats treat reinforced gap-times as cues. Shimp (1967) supplies the first brick: if you mold the gaps, you also craft future stimulus control.

Haring (1985) found that gaps over 1 s listen to outside cues, while rapid-fire gaps do not. Shimp (1967) targeted those rapid gaps and still shifted them, showing even cue-shy responses can be moved with direct payoff.

You now know that timing is not fixed. Want a client to respond faster during tabletop trials? Reinforce the quick responses and ignore the long pauses. The whole response rhythm should tighten, just like with the pigeons. Track interresponse times for ten minutes today and see which ones you can reinforce.