The proportion of fixed interval trials to probe trials affects acquisition of the peak procedure fixed interval timing task

A common procedure for studying the ability of animals to time is the peak procedure. With the peak procedure, animals are first trained on a fixed interval schedule (i.e., 30s). After the animals have been well trained on the fixed interval schedule, probe trials are introduced. On probe trials, the stimulus is presented longer (i.e., 90s) and the animal does not receive reinforcement for responding. When animals are first presented with probe trials responding remains flat following the point that reinforcement normally occurs on fixed interval trials. The descending slope that eventually emerges is acquired with experience with probe trials. The present experiments manipulated the percentage of probe trials compared to FI trials across groups of rats. It was hypothesized that the descending limb of peak responding would be acquired more quickly when there were many probe trials per session as this might facilitate extinction of responding beyond the interval that reinforcement normally occurs. It was found, however, that acquisition of peak responding occurred best when there were few probe trials per session.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

An Assessment of Fixed Interval Timing in Free-Flying Honey Bees (Apis mellifera ligustica): An Analysis of Individual Performance

Interval timing is a key element of foraging theory, models of predator avoidance, and competitive interactions. Although interval timing is well documented in vertebrate species, it is virtually unstudied in invertebrates. In the present experiment, we used free-flying honey bees (Apis mellifera ligustica) as a model for timing behaviors. Subjects were trained to enter a hole in an automated artificial flower to receive a nectar reinforcer (i.e. reward). Responses were continuously reinforced prior to exposure to either a fixed interval (FI) 15-sec, FI 30-sec, FI 60-sec, or FI 120-sec reinforcement schedule. We measured response rate and post-reinforcement pause within each fixed interval trial between reinforcers. Honey bees responded at higher frequencies earlier in the fixed interval suggesting subject responding did not come under traditional forms of temporal control. Response rates were lower during FI conditions compared to performance on continuous reinforcement schedules, and responding was more resistant to extinction when previously reinforced on FI schedules. However, no “scalloped” or “break-and-run” patterns of group or individual responses reinforced on FI schedules were observed; no traditional evidence of temporal control was found. Finally, longer FI schedules eventually caused all subjects to cease returning to the operant chamber indicating subjects did not tolerate the longer FI schedules.     

Interval timing in Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens)

The present study evaluated the temporal performance of Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens) given short-term exposure to four fixed interval (FI) schedules of reinforcement, FI 30, 60, 120, and 240 s, during which a reinforcer (mirror image) was given for the first response (swimming through a hoop) after the interval requirement had elapsed. Response levels were generally low early in an interval and increased as the interval elapsed; wait times and break points in an interval increased with increases in the FI requirement. The results were similar to that obtained with other species and different types of responses and reinforcers, and demonstrate that the procedure is a feasible method for studying interval timing in fish.     

Learning to stop or reset the internal clock

In the present experiments, after training rats in a standard fixed interval (FI) 30 s schedule, we induced a change in the strategy employed during gap trials, by presenting during FI with gaps training, 9-s interruptions of the FI discriminative stimulus in 40% of the trials; in one type of interruption, after the discriminative stimulus resumed, the FI was re-started; in the second type of interruption, the FI had to be completed considering the time before the interruption. The effect of these manipulations was tested in a peak-interval with gaps procedure. The main result was that the strategy employed during gap trials depended on the type of interruption experienced during the training phase, both in a comparison between subjects (experiment 1) and within subjects (experiment 2).     

Reinforcer concentration effects on a fixed-interval schedule

Four rats received training on a mixed FI 30-s FI 150-s schedule, where the different FI values were associated with different levers. During baseline, the reinforcer was a 30% concentration of condensed milk. During subsequent testing sessions, the reinforcer concentration was varied within sessions over values of 10, 30, 50, and 70%. Measures of behaviour were taken from the FI 30-s lever during trials where the reinforcer was delivered for responses on the other lever. Increasing the reinforcer concentration which began the interval (a) increased the time to start responding in the interval, and (b) increased the location of the response peak on the FI 30-s lever (often to values well above 30s). Response rate at the peak, and spread of the response rate versus time function, changed much less with reinforcer concentration. The data are discussed relative to predictions derived from Scalar Expectancy Theory, the Behavioural Theory of Timing, and the Tuned-trace model.     

EMG Biofeedback: The Effects of CRF, FR, VR, FI, and VI Schedules of Reinforcement on the Acquisition and Extinction of Increases in Forearm Muscle Tension

Biofeedback was used to increase forearm-muscle tension. Feedback was delivered under continuous reinforcement (CRF), variable interval (VI), fixed interval (FI), variable ratio (VR), and fixed ratio (FR) schedules of reinforcement when college students increased their muscle tension (electromyograph, EMG) above a high threshold. There were three daily sessions of feedback, and Session 3 was immediately followed by a session without feedback (extinction). The CRF schedule resulted in the highest EMG, closely followed by the FR and VR schedules, and the lowest EMG scores were produced by the FI and VI schedules. Similarly, the CRF schedule resulted in the greatest amount of time-above-threshold and the VI and FI schedules produced the lowest time-above-threshold. The highest response rates were generated by the FR schedule, followed by the VR schedule. The CRF schedule produced relatively low response rates, comparable to the rates under the VI and FI schedules. Some of the data are consistent with the partial-reinforcement-extinction effect. The present data suggest that different schedules of feedback should be considered in muscle-strengthening contexts such as during the rehabilitation of muscles following brain damage or peripheral nervous-system injury.     

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.     

Dishabituation with component transitions may contribute to the interactions observed during multiple schedules

Rates of responding by rats were usually higher during the variable interval (VI) 30-s component of a multiple VI 30-s fixed interval (FI) 30-s schedule than during the same component of a multiple VI 30-s VI 30-s schedule (Experiment 1). Response rates were also usually higher during the FI 30-s component of a multiple VI 30-s FI 30-s schedule than during the same component of a multiple FI 30-s FI 30-s schedule (Experiment 2). The differences in response rates were not observed when the components provided VI or FI 120-s schedules. These results were predicted by the idea that differences in habituation to the reinforcer between multiple schedules contribute to behavioral interactions, such as behavioral contrast. However, differences in habituation were not apparent in the within-session patterns of responding. Finding differences in response rates in both experiments violates widely-held assumptions about behavioral interactions, including that behavioral contrast does not occur for rats and that improving the conditions of reinforcement decreases, rather than increases, response rate in the alternative component.     

Training history affects magnitude of spontaneous recovery from extinction of appetitive conditioned responding

Three experiments examined spontaneous recovery from extinction of appetitive conditioned responding (CR) as a function of training history. Rats first received reinforced and non-reinforced conditioning trials. Groups of rats were equated for total number of reinforced trials but differed in the number of non-reinforced trials, or in the order of reinforced and non-reinforced trials. CR was then extinguished in all groups. Subsequently, the extent of recovery of CR was assessed in a test session performed either 1 or 17 days after the last extinction session. After a 17-day delay, rats that had received all reinforced trials immediately prior to the first extinction session showed stronger recovery than did rats having received all reinforced trials at the beginning of training, or interspersed among non-reinforced trials. No significant spontaneous recovery was observed after a 1-day test delay. These results, which may be of clinical relevance with respect to relapse after therapy, are explained in terms of the training schedules generating differences in strength of inhibitory associations, and a relatively long, but not a short, test delay attenuating these associations.     

"The stone which the builders rejected...": Delay of reinforcement and response rate on fixed-interval and related schedules

The article deals with response rates (mainly running and peak or terminal rates) on simple and on some mixed-FI schedules and explores the idea that these rates are determined by the average delay of reinforcement for responses occurring during the response periods that the schedules generate. The effects of reinforcement delay are assumed to be mediated by a hyperbolic delay of reinforcement gradient. The account predicts that (a) running rates on simple FI schedules should increase with increasing rate of reinforcement, in a manner close to that required by Herrnstein's equation, (b) improving temporal control during acquisition should be associated with increasing running rates, (c) two-valued mixed-FI schedules with equiprobable components should produce complex results, with peak rates sometimes being higher on the longer component schedule, and (d) that effects of reinforcement probability on mixed-FI should affect the response rate at the time of the shorter component only. All these predictions were confirmed by data, although effects in some experiments remain outside the scope of the model. In general, delay of reinforcement as a determinant of response rate on FI and related schedules (rather than temporal control on such schedules) seems a useful starting point for a more thorough analysis of some neglected questions about performance on FI and related schedules.     

Influence of the reinforcement magnitude on omission effects

Reinforcement Omission Effects (ROEs), indicated by higher rate of responses after nonreinforced trials in a partial reinforcement schedule, have been interpreted as behavioral transient facilitation after nonreinforcement induced by primary frustration, and/or behavioral transient inhibition after reinforcement induced by demotivation or temporal control. The size of the ROEs should depend directly on the reinforcement magnitude. The present experiment aimed to clarify the relationship between reinforcement magnitude and the omission effects manipulating the magnitude linked to discriminative stimuli in a partial reinforcement FI schedule. The results showed that response rates were higher after omission than after reinforcement delivery. Besides, response rates were highest immediately after the reinforcement omission of a larger magnitude than of a smaller magnitude. These data are interpreted in terms of ROEs multiple process behavioral facilitation after nonreinforcement, and behavioral transient inhibition after reinforcement.     

Interval timing in rats: tracking unsignaled changes in the fixed interval schedule requirement

The present experiment examined interval timing in rats under dynamic conditions. A session began with FI60 s intervals, changed to a FI20 s, FI30 s, or FI40 s schedule at an unpredictable point, and then returned to a FI60 s schedule after the rats received 1, 8, or 24 successive short FI intervals. Variations in the duration and number of shorter intervals occurred across sessions and conditions. We observed rapid control of wait time duration by the FI duration of the preceding interval (one-back tracking), and changes in wait time depended on the number and duration of the shorter intervals. Furthermore, we observed proportional and scalar timing effects in overall wait time duration. The results provide information about the relation between interval timing under dynamic and steady state conditions.     

Dynamics of temporal control in rats: the effects of a brief transition in interval duration

Five rats lever-pressed for liquid reinforcers delivered according to a fixed-interval (FI) reinforcement schedule, where the interval requirement changed at an unpredictable point within a session. In a short square wave (SSW) condition, eight 30-s intervals were intercalated in a series of 120-s intervals so that the intervals changed from 120 to 30 s then back to 120 s. In a long square wave (LSW) condition the intervals changed from 120 to 480 s then back to 120 s. We observed rapid temporal control of post-reinforcement wait time duration by the IFI duration in the SSW condition only: Wait times decreased significantly during a transition to shorter (30 s) intervals; whereas wait times did not reliably increase during a transition to longer (480 s) intervals. Furthermore, in the SSW condition, wait time in post-transition intervals was shorter than that observed during pre-transition intervals. The results show that rats' wait times are sensitive to moment-to-moment changes in interval duration and that the dynamics depend on the direction in which the intervals change.     

Psychological distance to reward: equating the number of stimulus and response segments

Psychological distance to reward, or the segmentation effect, refers to the preference for a terminal link of a concurrent-chains schedule consisting of a simple reinforcement schedule (e.g. fixed interval [FI] 30s) relative to its chained-schedule counterpart (e.g. chained FI 15s FI 15s). This experiment was conducted to examine whether the segmentation effect is due to the number of terminal-link stimulus and response segments per se. Three pigeons pecked under a concurrent-chains schedule in which identical variable-interval (VI) schedules operated in the initial links. In each session, half the terminal-link entries followed one initial-link key and the other half followed the other initial-link key. The initial-link keys correlated with the different terminal links were manipulated across conditions. In the first three conditions, each terminal link contained a chained fixed-time (FT) FT schedule, and in the final three conditions, each terminal link contained a chained FI FI schedule. In each condition, in one terminal link (alternating), the order of two key colors correlated with the different schedule segments alternated across terminal-link entries, whereas in the other terminal link (constant), the order of two other key colors was identical for each entry. With the chained FT FT schedule terminal links, there was indifference between the alternating and constant terminal links within and across pigeons, as indexed by initial-link choice proportions. In addition, terminal-link response rates were relatively low. With the chained FI FI schedule terminal links, for each pigeon, there was relatively more preference for the alternating terminal link and terminal-link response rates increased relative to conditions with the chained FT FT schedule terminal links. These data suggest that the segmentation effect is not due simply to the number of terminal-link stimulus or response segments per se, but rather to a required period of responding during a stimulus segment that never is paired with reinforcement.     

Self-control and impulsiveness with asynchronous presentation of reinforcement schedules

IN DISCRETE TRIALS, PIGEONS WERE PRESENTED WITH TWO ALTERNATIVES: to wait for a larger reinforcer, or to respond and obtain a smaller reinforcer immediately. The choice of the former was defined as self-control, and the choice of the latter as impulsiveness. The stimulus that set the opportunity for an impulsive choice was presented after a set interval from the onset of the stimulus that signaled the waiting period. That interval increased or decreased from session to session so that the opportunity for an impulsive choice became available either more removed from or closer in time to the presentation of the larger reinforcer. In three separate conditions, the larger reinforcer was delivered according to either a fixed interval (FI) schedule, a fixed time (FT) schedule, or a differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) schedule. The results showed that impulsive choices increased as the opportunity for such a choice was more distant in time from presentation of the larger reinforcer. Although the schedule of the larger reinforcer affected the rate of response in the waiting period, the responses themselves had no effect on choice unless the responses postponed presentation of the larger reinforcer.