Fewer peak trials per session facilitate acquisition of peak responding despite elimination of response rate differences

It has been shown in previous research [Kaiser, D.H., 2008. The proportion of fixed interval trials to probe trials affects acquisition of the peak procedure fixed interval timing task. Behav. Process., 77 (1), 100-108] that rats acquired peak responding sooner when fewer peak trials were presented during sessions of training with the peak procedure timing task. One potential problem with that research was that there were large differences in response rates among the groups. The present experiment attempted to examine the effect of proportion of peak trials when differences in response rate were controlled. Two groups of rats were each simultaneously tested with two versions of the peak procedure. One group was tested with 10% peak trials per session, and the other group was tested with 50% peak trials per session. For both of the groups, one of the panel lights and levers was associated with the traditional peak procedure. The other panel light and lever was associated with a similar peak procedure; however, reinforcement was provided at the end of each peak trial. This manipulation eliminated differences in response rate among the groups, however, Group 10% acquired peak responding more quickly than Group 50%, effectively replicating previous work in the absence of a response bias.     

Time estimation by pigeons on a fixed interval: the effect of pre-feeding

Pigeons well trained on a fixed interval 10-s schedule of reinforcement were tested on the peak procedure. In a successive conditions design, they were either pre-fed or not in the experimental setting. Pre-feeding decreased the rate of responding. It also led to a maximum rate of responding that occurred 2-3 s later than in the control condition, where the maximum occurred at the usual time of reinforcement. The shift in peak time in response to pre-feeding shows that peak time may not be a pure measure of timing. The results are also interpreted in terms of timing theories.     

Bombesin effects on responding maintained by a fixed interval schedule of food reinforcement

The present experiment examined rats' responding maintained by a fixed interval two-min schedule of food reinforcement following IP injections of bombesin (4, 6, 16, 32 μg/kg). The results showed that bombesin's effects were rate dependent where the responses per minute emitted during the early portion of the fixed interval were reduced, but responding during the latter portion was unaffected. Bombesin did not reduce overall session responses per minute, pause after reinforcement, or amount of water consumed in the test chamber. The results are in accord with prior research examining the effects of bombesin and cholecystokinin on operant behavior. Together, the data challenge the notion that bombesin affects food-motivated behavior generally; rather, the results indicate that bombesin's effect may interact with the demands required of the animal for reinforcement.     

Within-session modulation of timed anticipatory responding: When to start responding

The peak procedure is widely used in the study of interval timing with animals. Multiple timing measures can be derived from peak responding. These measures are typically presented as averages across many trials based on the implicit assumption that peak responding is stable throughout the session. We tested this assumption by examining whether peak responding changed over the course of the session in 45 mice that were trained on a fixed-interval 30-s schedule. All common measures of peak responding, except stop times, changed over the course of the session: start times increased, response rates and spreads decreased, and, although less reliably, peak times also shifted rightward. These results are congruent with a motivational interpretation, whereby increased satiety leads to the observed behavioral signature of within-session modulation of timed anticipatory responding.     

Investigations of timing during the schedule and reinforcement intervals with wheel-running reinforcement

Across two experiments, a peak procedure was used to assess the timing of the onset and offset of an opportunity to run as a reinforcer. The first experiment investigated the effect of reinforcer duration on temporal discrimination of the onset of the reinforcement interval. Three male Wistar rats were exposed to fixed-interval (FI) 30-s schedules of wheel-running reinforcement and the duration of the opportunity to run was varied across values of 15, 30, and 60s. Each session consisted of 50 reinforcers and 10 probe trials. Results showed that as reinforcer duration increased, the percentage of postreinforcement pauses longer than the 30-s schedule interval increased. On probe trials, peak response rates occurred near the time of reinforcer delivery and peak times varied with reinforcer duration. In a second experiment, seven female Long-Evans rats were exposed to FI 30-s schedules leading to 30-s opportunities to run. Timing of the onset and offset of the reinforcement period was assessed by probe trials during the schedule interval and during the reinforcement interval in separate conditions. The results provided evidence of timing of the onset, but not the offset of the wheel-running reinforcement period. Further research is required to assess if timing occurs during a wheel-running reinforcement period.     

Reward magnitude and timing in pigeons

We investigated the interaction of motivation and timing by manipulating the expected reward magnitude during a peak procedure. Four pigeons were tested with three different reward magnitudes, operationalized as duration of food access. Each stimulus predicted a different reward magnitude on a 5 s fixed-interval schedule. Trials with different reward magnitudes were randomly intermingled in a session. Most pigeons responded less often and started responding later on peak trials when a smaller reward was expected, but showed no differences in response termination or peak times. Reward magnitude was independently corroborated through unreinforced choice trials, when pigeons chose between the three stimuli presented simultaneously. These results contribute to a growing body of evidence that the expected reward magnitude influences the decision to start anticipatory responding in tasks where the reward becomes available after a fixed interval, but does not alter peak times, nor the decision to stop responding on peak trials.     

Amphetamine affects the start of responding in the peak interval timing task

In this paper we investigate how amphetamine affects performance in a PI task by comparing two analyses of responding during peak trials. After training on 24 s fixed interval (FI-24) with 96 s peak trials, rats were given amphetamine for 4 consecutive days at doses of .5 and 1.0 mg/kg. Responses during peak trials were fitted with a Gaussian distribution to estimate the expected time of reinforcement from the peak time. A single trials analysis was also performed to determine the start time and stop time of the transition into and out of a high rate of responding on each peak trial. Amphetamine significantly decreased peak times as measured with the Gaussian curve fitting. However, in the single trials analysis, animals initiated responding significantly earlier, but did not stop responding earlier. Thus, fitting a Gaussian to the average performance across trials sometimes provides a different characterization of the timing process than does analyzing the start and stop of responding on individual trials. In the current experiment, the latter approach provided a more precise characterization of the effects of amphetamine on response timing.     

Effects of partial reinforcement and time between reinforced trials on terminal response rate in pigeon autoshaping

Partial reinforcement often leads to asymptotically higher rates of responding and number of trials with a response than does continuous reinforcement in pigeon autoshaping. However, comparisons typically involve a partial reinforcement schedule that differs from the continuous reinforcement schedule in both time between reinforced trials and probability of reinforcement. Two experiments examined the relative contributions of these two manipulations to asymptotic response rate. Results suggest that the greater responding previously seen with partial reinforcement is primarily due to differential probability of reinforcement and not differential time between reinforced trials. Further, once established, differences in responding are resistant to a change in stimulus and contingency. Secondary response theories of autoshaped responding (theories that posit additional response-augmenting or response-attenuating mechanisms specific to partial or continuous reinforcement) cannot fully accommodate the current body of data. It is suggested that researchers who study pigeon autoshaping train animals on a common task prior to training them under different conditions.     

Temporal generalization accounts for response resurgence in the peak procedure

The peak interval (PI) procedure is commonly used to evaluate animals' ability to produce timed intervals. It consists of presenting fixed interval (FI) schedules in which some of the trials are replaced by extended non-reinforced trials. Responding will often resume (resurge) at the end of the non-reinforced trials unless precautions are taken to prevent it. Response resurgence was replicated in rats and pigeons. Variation of the durations of the FI and the non-reinforced probe trials showed it to be dependent on the time when reinforcement is expected. Timing of both the normal time to reinforcement, and the subsequent time to reinforcement during the probe trials followed Weber's law. A quantitative model of resurgence is described, suggesting how animals respond to the signaling properties of reinforcement omission. Model results were simulated using a stochastic binary counter.     

The effect of stimulus discriminability on strategies for learning multiple temporal discriminations

The goal was to identify training conditions under which temporal intervals that are signaled by different stimuli are memorized (i.e., the temporal behavior is readily shown to be under stimulus control). Undergraduate students were trained on three signaled temporal discriminations using a peak procedure. The intervals were trained in either blocks of trials or with trials intermixed within the session, and then they were given a transfer test with intermixed trials. There were two levels of stimulus discriminability, defined by the similarity of the stimuli. Most participants memorized the intervals when the discriminations were intermixed within the session, or were easy, but not when the discriminations occurred in blocks and were difficult. In the transfer tests, those participants trained in the difficult discrimination that occurred in blocks of trials typically continued to perform as they did during the last-trained interval, regardless of the stimulus presented. These results are better explained by a memory retrieval than a memory storage account.     

The effect of intruded events on peak time: the role of reinforcement history during the intruded event

Pigeons were studied in an extension of a study by Aum et al. [Aum, S., Brown, B.L., Hemmes, N.S. 2004. The effects of concurrent task and gap events on peak time in the peak procedure. Behav. Process. 65, 43-56] on timing behavior under a discrete-trial fixed-interval (FI) procedure during which 6-s intruded events were superimposed on peak-interval (PI) test trials. In Aum et al., one event consisted in termination of the timing cue (gap trial); the other was a stimulus in the presence of which subjects had been trained to respond under an independent random-interval (RI) schedule of reinforcement (concurrent task trial). Aum et al. found a disruption of timing on concurrent task trials that was greater than that on gap trials. The present study investigated history of reinforcement associated with intruded events as a possible explanation of this earlier finding. After training to peck a side key on a 30-s PI procedure, discrimination training was conducted on the center key in separate sessions; red or green 6-s stimuli were associated with RI 24s or EXT (extinction) schedules. During testing under the PI procedure, three types of intruded events were presented during probe trials--the stimulus associated with the RI (S+) or EXT (S-) schedule during discrimination training, or a gap (termination of the side-keylight). Intruded events occurred 3, 9, or 15s after PI trial onset. Effects of reinforcement history were revealed as substantial disruption of timing during the S+ event and relatively little disruption during the S- event. Intermediate effects were found for the gap event. Results indicate that postcue effects are at least partially responsible for the disruptive effects of the S+ event.     

The effects of concurrent task and gap events on peak time in the peak procedure

The effect of a concurrent task on timing performance of pigeons was investigated with the peak interval procedure. Birds were trained to peck a side key on a discrete-trial schedule that included reinforced fixed-interval (FI) 30-s trials and nonreinforced extended probe trials. Then, in separate sessions, birds were trained to peck a 6-s center key for food. In a subsequent test phase, the FI procedure was in effect along with dual-task probe test trials. On those test trials, the 6-s center key (task cue) was presented at 3, 9, or 15s after probe trial onset. During another test phase, a 6-s gap (the FI keylight was extinguished) was presented at 3, 9, or 15s after probe trial onset. Peak time increased with center key time of onset, and was greater under task than gap conditions. Moreover, peak time under task conditions exceeded values predicted by stop and reset clock mechanisms. These results are at variance with current attentional accounts of timing behavior in dual-task conditions, and suggest a role of nontemporal factors in the control of timing behavior.     

Isolated effects of number of acquisition trials on extinction of rat conditioned approach behavior

Four conditioned approach experiments with rats assessed for effects of number of acquisition trials on extinction of conditioned responding, when number of acquisition sessions and total acquisition time were held constant. In Experiment 1, 32 trials per acquisition session led to more extinction responding than did 1 or 2 trials per session but less than did 4 trials per session. In Experiment 2, 2 trials per acquisition session led to more spontaneous recovery than did 32 trials per session. These latter findings are reminiscent of the overtraining extinction effect (OEE). Experiment 3 attempted to reduce the OEE with a preconditioning phase of partial reinforcement. Experiment 4 attempted to reduce the beneficial within-subject effects of increasing the number of acquisition trials on extinction observed by Gottlieb and Rescorla (2010) by extinguishing stimuli in different sessions. Overall, results suggest a procedural asymmetry: between-subject, increasing the number of trials between any pair of trials does not lead to greater persistence of responding during extinction; within-subject, it does. Results are discussed from an associative perspective, with a focus on explanations involving either frustration or comparator mechanisms, and from an information processing perspective, with a focus on Rate Estimation Theory.     

Stimulus change dis-habituates operant responding supported by water reinforcers

The present experiment examined whether habituation contributes to within-session decreases in operant responding for water reinforcers. The experiment asked if this responding can be dishabituated, a fundamental property of habituated behavior. During baseline, rats’ lever pressing was reinforced by water on a variable interval 15-s schedule. During experimental conditions, rats responded on the same schedule and a new stimulus was introduced for 5 min at 15, 30 or 45 min into the 60-min session. The new stimulus was extinction, continuous reinforcement or flashing lights in different conditions. Rate of responding primarily decreased within the session during baseline. Introducing a new stimulus sometimes suppressed (extinction, continuous reinforcement) and sometimes increased (flashing lights) responding while it was in effect. The new stimulus increased responding after it ended and before it was presented in the session. The results are incompatible with the idea that non-habituation satiety factors (e.g., cellular hydration and blood volume) contributed to within-session changes in responding. These satiety factors should increase with increases in consumption, decrease with decreases in consumption and remain constant with constant consumption of water. Nevertheless, all stimulus changes increased operant responding for water. These results support the idea that habituation contributes to within-session decreases in responding for water reinforcers.     

Oscillations following periodic reinforcement

Three experiments examined behavior in extinction following periodic reinforcement. During the first phase of Experiment 1, four groups of pigeons were exposed to fixed interval (FI 16 s or FI 48 s) or variable interval (VI 16 s or VI 48 s) reinforcement schedules. Next, during the second phase, each session started with reinforcement trials and ended with an extinction segment. Experiment 2 was similar except that the extinction segment was considerably longer. Experiment 3 replaced the FI schedules with a peak procedure, with FI trials interspersed with non-food peak interval (PI) trials that were four times longer. One group of pigeons was exposed to FI 20 s PI 80 s trials, and another to FI 40 s PI 160 s trials. Results showed that, during the extinction segment, most pigeons trained with FI schedules, but not with VI schedules, displayed pause-peck oscillations with a period close to, but slightly greater than the FI parameter. These oscillations did not start immediately after the onset of extinction. Comparing the oscillations from Experiments 1 and 2 suggested that the alternation of reconditioning and re-extinction increases the reliability and earlier onset of the oscillations. In Experiment 3 the pigeons exhibited well-defined pause-peck cycles since the onset of extinction. These cycles had periods close to twice the value of the FI and lasted for long intervals of time. We discuss some hypotheses concerning the processes underlying behavioral oscillations following periodic reinforcement.     

Performance of mice in an automated olfactometer: odor detection, discrimination and odor memory

Mice were trained on a variety of odor detection and discrimination tasks in 100- or 200-trial sessions using a go, no-go discrete trials operant conditioning procedure. Odors, presented for 1 s on each trial, were generated by an air dilution olfactometer (for threshold tests) and an easily constructed eight-channel liquid dilution unit (for two- and multiple-odor discrimination tasks). Mice rapidly acquired the operant task and demonstrated excellent stimulus control by odor vapors. Their absolute detection threshold for ethyl acetate was similar to that obtained with rats using similar methods. They readily acquired four separate two-odor discrimination tasks and continued to perform well when all eight odors were presented in random order in the same session and when reinforcement probability for correct responding was decreased from 1 to 0.5. Memory for these eight odors, assessed under extinction after a 32 day rest period, was essentially perfect. Time spent sampling the odor on S+ and S- trials was highly correlated with response accuracy. When accuracy was at chance levels (e.g. initial trials on a novel task), stimulus sampling time on both S+ and S- trials was approximately 0.5-0.7 s. As response accuracy increased, sampling time on S+ trials tended to increase and remain higher than sampling time on S- trials.     

Carbamazepine produces nonspecific effects on cocaine self-administration in rats.

Anecdotal evidence in humans suggest that carbamazepine suppresses cocaine-induced rush and craving. Such claims are unsupported in controlled trials using a placebo control. In the present study, rats were trained to self-administer i.v. cocaine in daily 2-hr sessions in which every tenth lever press delivered 1 mg/kg cocaine. After responding was stable, they were injected before each session with the vehicle for 2 days followed by carbamazepine for 2 days. At a 7 mg/kg dose, carbamazepine was without effect, whereas 15 mg/kg suppressed responding for cocaine only on the second (day 4) day of carbamazepine treatment. With 4 consecutive days of treatment, carbamazepine (15 mg/kg) reduced cocaine-maintained responding slightly, but significantly. In another group of animals trained to lever-press for food reinforcement, carbamazepine (15 mg/kg) also significantly decreased the rate of responding, suggesting that the suppression of responding was not specific to cocaine-reinforced behavior.     

Differences between simultaneous and blocked training detected by a transfer test

Secondary data analysis was used to compare responding early on a transfer test from rats previously trained simultaneously or successively on multiple temporal discriminations for the same number of trials [Guilhardi, P., Church, R.M., 2005 a. Dynamics of temporal discrimination. Learn. Behav., 33, 399-416]. Three fixed intervals (30, 60, and 120 s) were signaled by three stimuli (light, noise, and clicker). Twelve rats were trained with the three stimulus-interval pairs intermixed on each experimental session (simultaneous condition); 12 other rats were trained in successive blocks of 10 sessions on each pair (blocked condition). Then, all rats had a transfer test in which all three stimulus-interval pairs were presented intermixed on each session. Rats in the simultaneous and blocked condition responded similarly during training, but differently during early stages of the transfer test. One possibility is that rats in the blocked condition were controlled by the previous interval, not by the current stimulus. These results challenge the usual assumptions from models of timing and conditioning that both simultaneous and blocked training produce learning of the associations between stimulus and interval in a multiple interval training task.     

Choice behavior in spontaneously hypertensive rats: Variable vs. fixed schedules of reinforcement

Spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) and Wistar rats were evaluated in the successive-encounters procedure (an operant simulation of natural foraging) with the idea of assessing differences between them in their preference for variable schedules of reinforcement. In this procedure, after satisfying a schedule of reinforcement associated with search time, the subjects could “accept” or “reject” another schedule of reinforcement associated with handling time. Two schedules of reinforcement were available: a fixed interval (FI), and a variable interval (VI) with the same mean value. The results indicated preference for the variable schedule in both strains, as suggested by the observation that the VI was always accepted while the FI was often rejected. The difference in FI acceptability between strains was not statistically significant, a result which is relevant for the current debate of SHR as an adequate animal model of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.     

Operant behavior in dwarf hamsters (Phodopus campbelli): Effects of rate of reinforcement and reinforcer flavor variety

We investigated operant behavior in a novel species, the dwarf hamster (Phodopus campbelli). In two experiments, hamsters were trained to lever-press for food reinforcement. In Experiment 1, rate of reinforcement was manipulated across conditions using four variable-interval schedules of reinforcement (delivering one to eight reinforcers per min). As predicted, within-session decreases in responding were steepest on the richest schedule. In Experiment 2, lever-pressing was reinforced by either a constant or a variety of flavored food pellets. Within-session decreases in responding were steeper when the reinforcer flavor remained constant than when it was varied within the session. In both experiments, subjects hoarded most reinforcers in their cheek pouches rather than consuming them in the operant chambers. These results are incompatible with post-ingestive satiety variables as explanations for within-session decreases in operant responding and suggest that habituation to repeatedly presented reinforcers best accounts for subjects’ response patterns. Additionally, a mathematical model that describes behavior undergoing habituation also described the present results, thus strengthening the conclusion that habituation mediates the reinforcing efficacy of food.