Skinner and Pavlov had innovative ways to measure both the times of their subject's responses, as well as the rate of their responses. Since then, different subfields within the study of animal behavior have prioritized either the rate or timing of responses, creating a divide in data and theory. Both timing and conditioning fields have proven fruitful, producing large bodies of empirical data and developing sophisticated models. Despite their individual successes, a unified view of simple behavior is still lacking. This may be caused, at least in part, by the differential emphasis on data collection and analysis techniques. The result is that these subfields produce models that fit their data well, but fail to translate to the other domain. This is startling given the fact that both subfields use nearly identical experimental procedures. To highlight similarities within the subfields, and provide empirical data in support of this integration, 18 Sprague-Dawley rats were trained on trace, delay, and backward conditioning procedures. Using these empirical data we discuss how traditional summary measures used by these subfields can be limiting, and suggest methods that may aid in the integration of these subfields toward common goals.