Although procedures originating within the experimental analysis of behavior commonly are used in behavioral neuroscience to produce behavioral endpoints, they are used less often to analyze the behavioral processes involved, particularly at the level of individual organisms (see Soto, 2020). Concurrent‐chains procedures have been used extensively to study choice and to quantify relations between various dimensions of reinforcement and preference. Unfortunately, parametric analysis of those relations using traditional steady‐state, single‐subject experimental designs can be time‐consuming, often rendering these procedures impractical for use in behavioral neuroscience. The purpose of this paper is to describe how concurrent‐chains procedures can be adapted to allow for parametric examination of effects of the reinforcement dimensions involved in impulsive choice (magnitude and delay) within experimental sessions in rats. Data are presented indicating that this procedure can produce relatively consistent within‐session estimates of sensitivity to reinforcement in individual subjects, and that these estimates can be modified by neurobiological manipulation (drug administration). These data suggest that this type of procedure offers a promising approach to the study of neurobiological mechanisms of complex behavior in individual organisms, which could facilitate a more fruitful relationship between behavior analysis and behavioral neuroscience.

Physical inactivity has increasingly affected public health in the United States during the COVID‐19 pandemic as it is associated with chronic diseases such as arthritis, cancer, and heart disease. Contingency management has been shown to increase physical activity. Therefore, the present study sought to evaluate the effects of an escalating schedule of monetary reinforcement with a reset contingency on physical activity, as compared between 2 counterbalanced groups in which a monetary deposit of $25 was either required (deposit group) or not (no‐deposit group). Twenty‐five adults wore Fitbit accelerometers to monitor step counts. An ABA reversal design was used; in the 2 baseline phases, no programmed contingencies were in place for step counts. During intervention, step goals were set using a modified 70th percentile schedule with a 7‐day window: Reaching the first goal would result in $0.25, and incentives increased by $0.25 for each subsequent day in which the goal was met. Failure to reach a goal resulted in a reset of the monetary incentive value to $0.25. Ten out of 12 participants from the deposit group were determined to be responders to intervention, whereas 8 out of 13 participants from the no‐deposit group were determined to be responders to intervention. Overall, there were no significant differences between the groups' step counts. However, the deposit group's intervention was cheaper to implement, which suggests that deposit contracts are a viable modification for physical activity interventions.