The role of context in intertrial interval effects in autoshaping

Two experiments evaluated the role of differential conditioning of the context in mediating the effect of intertrial interval (ITI) in autoshaping. In Experiment 1 pigeons were given acquisition with two keylights, each presented in a particular context. A given keylight/context combination had associated with it either a short (10-sec) or a long (2-min) ITI. Acquisition was more rapid with the long ITI. Tests with those keylights in a common third context indicated that the longer ITI had resulted in greater conditioning. On the other hand, pigeons trained on keylights with mixed ITIs in a third context evoked more responding when they were tested in the short ITI context compared with the long ITI context. That suggests that a context with a history of a short ITI enhances performance. In Experiment 2, two keylights were initially conditioned with mixed ITIs and then extinguished in different contexts under different ITI lengths. Extinction was more rapid for the keylight presented with a short ITI. That difference persisted when the keylights were tested with mixed ITIs in a common third context, suggesting a difference in associative strength of the keylights. The results are interpreted in terms of differential context conditioning resulting in differences in learning about the keylight.     

Retention interval and intertrial interval in a serial learning or delayed discrimination task

In each of four experiments, rats were provided with the same three-event decreasing series (18-1-0) of 0.045-g food pellets in a runway. Tracking, running fast to 18 pellets and running slow to 1 and 0 pellets, was investigated as a function of the temporal interval elapsing between the events of the series (the retention interval), shifts in retention interval, and number of trials each day (or the intertrial interval), a trial being defined as presentation of each of the three events of the series. Neither retention interval, which varied from 15 s to 30 min in various investigations, nor shifts in retention interval affected tracking when only one trial was given each day. But when more than one daily trial was given, tracking was acquired more slowly and was disrupted by a shift in retention interval from 15 s to 5 min. Tracking was also disrupted by a shift from one to two trials each day. These results indicate that when given one 18-1-0 trial each day, the rat partitions events on a first-event/subsequent-event basis; that little forgetting occurs even at long retention intervals; that somewhat different memories signal events when one or more than one 18-1-0 trial occurs each day; and that retention interval deficits can arise owing to the same or similar memories' signaling different events. The results described limit the generality of three hypotheses suggested in two recent investigations: that as retention interval increases, rats find it increasingly difficult to remember and utilize serial position cues; that tracking in serial tasks is not influenced by number of trials each day; and that there are specific stimuli associated with each retention interval which, when changed, necessarily disrupt performance.     

Function of intertrial interval in matching-to-sample

Twelve pigeons were trained on matching-to-sample using either a 0-, 5-, 15-, 25-, or 60-sec intertrial interval. Eight of these 12 pigeons were given one of the following intertrial interval changes: 0 to 60, 0 to 5, 5 to 0, 60 to 0, 15 to 25, 5 to 15, 60 to 5, 5 to 1, 1 to 5, 1 to 25, and 25 to 1 sec. Most intertrial interval changes were repeated at least once. The 0-sec intertrial interval subjects failed to match beyond chance levels, while other intertrial interval values resulted in matching acquisition. Changes from 0 sec to other intertrial interval values increased and changes to 0 sec decreased matching performance. Changes to intertrial interval values other than 0 sec resulted in little change in matching accuracy once stable performance had been attained.     

Effects of intertrial interval, orientation, and adaptation on orientation discrimination measured with a yes-no signal detection paradigm

This paper describes a performance measure of lateral dominance, the Target Tests, which provides separate assessments of manual speed and accuracy within a relatively simple paper-and-pencil format. The Target Tests were administered to 111 normal adults, and scores were examined with respect to handedness, familial left-handedness, and sex. The tests significantly differentiated between right- and left-handers. Target scores were substantially correlated with the Harris Tests of Lateral Dominance, suggesting adequate reliability and validity. The means, standard deviations, and ranges for the preferred and nonpreferred hands for both handedness groups were nearly identical. The Target Tests provide a convenient instrument for assessing motoric lateralization of speed and accuracy in clinical and research settings.     

Pigeons' memory for number of events: Effects of intertrial interval and delay interval illumination

In Experiment 1, pigeons were trained at a 0-s baseline delay to discriminate sequences of light flashes (illumination of the feeder) that varied in number but not time (2f/4s and 8f/4s). During training, the intertrial interval was illuminated by the houselight for Group Light, but it was dark for Group Dark. Testing conducted with dark delay intervals produced a strong choose-small bias in both groups. All birds then received baseline training with a 5-s dark delay and were subsequently tested at shorter and longer dark delays. A choose-small bias was again observed at delays longer than the training delay, while a choose-large bias occurred at delays shorter than the training delay. Differentiating the ambient chamber illumination during the intertrial interval and the delay interval did not attenuate choose-small or choose-large effects. In Experiment 2, all birds received baseline training with a 5-s illuminated delay and were subsequently tested at shorter and longer illuminated delays. A choose-large bias was observed at delays longer than the training delay, while a choose-small bias occurred at delays shorter than the training delay. In Experiment 3, on intermittent test trials, when the duration of the second flash on small-sample trials was equal to the total flash duration on large-sample trials (i.e., 1600 ms), accuracy fell to approximately chance. These results suggest that pigeons discriminated the sequences of light flashes that varied in number but not in total duration of the sequence by relying on other temporal properties of the sequence rather than by using an event switch to count flashes.     

Contrasting effects of interference and of breaks in interval timing

When a break is introduced during an interval to be timed, the interval is perceived shorter as break location is delayed. This is interpreted as a result of attention sharing between timing and monitoring the source of the break signal. Similar effects and interpretations are found in another context involving interfering tasks. Such tasks are assumed to induce transient interruptions in timing, comparable to those obtained with breaks. Break and interference conditions were contrasted in a temporal reproduction procedure with identical stimuli. Both conditions induced temporal underestimation and similar location effects. Similar trends occurred in a control condition where no processing of the interfering signal was required. The data suggest that expectancy, intentional processing, and automatic attraction of attention shorten temporal estimates.     

The effects of variation of intertrial interval on exploration of elevatd and enclosed mazes

The interval between exploratory trials was varied in experiments using simple elevated or enclosed mazes. Activity on the second trial was depressed for short intertrial intervals but had recovered after about 10 min.; the degree of recovery was different in the two types of maze. A second decrease in second trial activity was found with inter-trial intervals of more than 20 min., but a further experiment suggested this was due to the effects of delay itself, rather than to previous experience of the environment.     

Timing light and tone signals in pigeons

Pigeons' ability to time light and tone stimuli was examined in four experiments. In Experiment 1, two groups of pigeons were trained to discriminate between 2- and 8-s durations of lights or tones and then were transferred to reversal or nonreversal discriminations in the alternate modality. Pigeons learned the light discrimination faster than the tone discrimination and showed immediate positive intermodal transfer from tone to light but not from light to tone. In Experiments 2-4, the peak procedure was used to study birds' timing of 15- and 30-s fixed-interval light and tone signals. Peak times on empty trials under baseline conditions closely approximated the length of fixed-interval signals. When pigeons were tested with time-outs and intermodal switches introduced midway through an empty trial, they tended to reset the timing mechanism and begin timing again from 0 s. With both estimation and production procedures, pigeons were less accurate when timing the tone stimuli than when timing the light stimuli. A comparison of these data with data from timing experiments with rats suggests several possible differences in timing processes between pigeons and rats.     

A short intertrial interval facilitates acquisition of context-conditioned fear and a short retention interval facilitates its expression

Rats were shocked in a context on two occasions and then tested for fear reactions as indexed by freezing. Rats spent the interval between conditioning trials and between conditioning and test in their home cages. A short interval between context-conditioning trials or between trials involving a discrete conditioned stimulus (CS) produced better learning than longer intervals. A short retention interval between conditioning and test produced better performance than longer intervals. The effects of the intertrial interval on learning are the opposite of those reported previously and are opposite to those predicted by contemporary learning theories. The effects of the training to test interval on performance are predicted by Wagner's sometimes opponent process (SOP) theory (Wagner, 1981).