The structure of response rate.

Thomas (1968) watched rats press a bar under fixed-interval and fixed-ratio schedules.

He broke each session into tiny time slices to see when responses sped up or slowed.

The goal was to find out if ‘response rate’ is one thing or many pieces stuck together.

Response rate is not a single number.

It is built from separate parts that show up in order.

Reinforcement probability decides which part grows and which part shrinks.

Davison (1969) zoomed in on the last few seconds before food.

He found a dip-peak pattern in interresponse times that Thomas (1968) had hinted at.

The two studies fit like puzzle pieces: 1968 shows the big arc, 1969 shows the final bump.

Catania et al. (1972) added matching-to-sample to the same FI schedule.

Accuracy rose and fell inside the same intervals where Thomas (1968) saw rate parts move.

This means the rate pieces and accuracy waves ride the same clock.

Rogers-Warren et al. (1976) gave adult humans a visible clock during FI.

Responses dropped but stayed efficient, showing the underlying parts can be tamed with extra stimuli.

When you thin a schedule, think in segments, not averages.

Watch for early, middle, and late patterns in each interval or ratio.

If problem behavior surges mid-interval, that segment may need its own support, not a whole-schedule change.