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.     

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.