The role of reinforcement in controlling sequential IRT dependencies.
Reinforcement must follow the next response for IRT dependencies to emerge—pause length alone is not enough.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team compared two DRL schedules. In one, reinforcement only came after the correct pause and the next response. In the other, food dropped no matter what the rat did next.
They recorded thousands of pauses between lever presses. The goal was to see if long pauses stick around when the reinforcer is not tied to the next press.
What they found
Long pauses only stayed long when reinforcement followed the next lever press. When food arrived no matter what, the pause-length pattern vanished.
In plain words, the link between one pause and the next is not about time. It is about the reinforcer showing up right after the next response.
How this fits with other research
Jones et al. (1992) later showed that whole strings of spaced presses can turn into one unit. Their work extends Angle (1970) by proving that, with enough training, the unit can grow beyond a single pause.
Atnip (1977) offered a theory that wraps around the 1970 data: reinforcement works through relative rates, not absolute seconds. The theory makes the rat result predictable.
Galbicka et al. (1981) used mild shock instead of food. They shrank long pauses and grew short ones. Together with Angle (1970), the pair shows both reward and punishment sculpt the same pause clock.
Why it matters
If you want steady long pauses during DRL, deliver the reinforcer right after the next response. Skip that step and the pattern falls apart. Check your reinforcement loop before you blame the learner for "forgetting" the wait time.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Program your DRL so the token or snack comes right after the timed response, not later in the session.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Sequential dependencies were investigated with two rats in a mixed and in a tandem differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate-responding schedule. In each schedule, 5-sec and 15-sec components were presented in fixed alternation. In the mixed schedule, a 5-sec interresponse time followed a 15-sec interresponse time and a 15-sec interresponse time followed a 5-sec interresponse time in predictable sequence. The correlation between prior and subsequent interresponse times, however, existed only when the prior interresponse time resulted in reinforcement. In the tandem schedule, an interresponse time greater than 5 sec in the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 5-sec component was not associated directly with reinforcement. One subject demonstrated sequential response patterns similar to those noted in the mixed schedule, even though the prior 5-sec interresponse time was not reinforced in the tandem schedule. The results indicate that the prior interresponse time length alone is not sufficient to influence the subsequent interresponse time length. Implications are, however, that a temporal response pattern arises when an interresponse interacts with schedule contingencies to control the interreinforcement interval.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1970 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1970.14-145