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

2002 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer J. Higa ◽  
Sara Moreno ◽  
Nathan Sparkman
1969 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 199-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Nelson ◽  
Frank M. Lassman ◽  
Richard L. Hoel

Averaged auditory evoked responses to 1000-Hz 20-msec tone bursts were obtained from normal-hearing adults under two different intersignal interval schedules: (1) a fixed-interval schedule with 2-sec intersignal intervals, and (2) a variable-interval schedule of intersignal intervals ranging randomly from 1.0 sec to 4.5 sec with a mean of 2 sec. Peak-to-peak amplitudes (N 1 — P 2 ) as well as latencies of components P 1 , N 1 , P 2 , and N 2 were compared under the two different conditions of intersignal interval. No consistent or significant differences between variable- and fixed-interval schedules were found in the averaged responses to signals of either 20 dB SL or 50 dB SL. Neither were there significant schedule differences when 35 or 70 epochs were averaged per response. There were, however, significant effects due to signal amplitude and to the number of epochs averaged per response. Response amplitude increased and response latency decreased with sensation level of the tone burst.


1963 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 323-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Mechner ◽  
Laurence Guevrekian ◽  
Vicki Mechner

2004 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances J Blomeley ◽  
C.F Lowe ◽  
J.H Wearden

1977 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 1015-1021 ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. Barrett ◽  
John R. Glowa

In daily sessions, lever-pressing by each of two squirrel monkeys was maintained under two different conditions. During one condition responding that had been maintained initially under a 5-min. fixed-interval schedule of food presentation was suppressed when every 30th response produced an electric shock. In the presence of a different discriminative stimulus responding that initially postponed electric shock (avoidance) was ultimately maintained when responding instead produced shock under a 5-min. fixed-interval schedule. Thus responding was suppressed by shock presentation during one condition (punishment) and was maintained by the presentation of an identical shock during a second condition (reinforcement). Whether an environmental stimulus exerts reinforcing or punishing effects on behavior can depend on characteristics other than the nature of the event.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document