Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26520647›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2016

Temporal averaging across multiple response options: insight into the mechanisms underlying integration.

Benjamin J De Corte, Matthew S Matell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Neurocomputational Models of Interval Timing: Seeing the Forest for the Trees.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Numerical averaging in mice.Animal cognition · 2021
    Article
  5. Rational inattention and tonic dopamine.PLoS computational biology · 2021
    Article
  6. Asymmetry in updating long-term memory for time.Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) · 2021
    Article
  7. Modeling Interval Timing by Recurrent Neural Nets.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Interval timing, temporal averaging, and cue integration.Current opinion in behavioral sciences · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Benjamin J De CorteDepartment of Psychology, Villanova University, 800 E. Lancaster Ave., Villanova, PA, USA.
Matthew S MatellDepartment of Psychology, Villanova University, 800 E. Lancaster Ave., Villanova, PA, USA. Matthew.matell@villanova.edu.

Funding

Synthesis of Incongruent Temporal InformationR15DA029809 · NIDA · VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY · PI MATELL, MATTHEW S · 2011 to 2011
$405k
NIDA NIH HHS R15 DA029809
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rats trained on a dual-duration, dual-modality peak-interval procedure (e.g., tone = 10 s/light = 20 s) often show unimodal response distributions with peaks that fall in between the anchor durations when both cues are presented as a simultaneous compound. Two hypotheses can explain this finding. According to the averaging hypothesis, rats integrate the anchor durations into an average during compound trials, with each duration being weighted by its respective reinforcement probability. According to the simultaneous temporal processing hypothesis, rats time both durations veridically and simultaneously during compound trials and respond continuously across both durations, thereby producing a unimodal response distribution with a peak falling in between the anchor durations. In the present compounding experiment, rats were trained to associate a tone and light with two different durations (e.g., 5 and 20 s, respectively). However, in contrast to previous experiments, each cue was also associated with a distinct response requirement (e.g., left nosepoke for tone/right nosepoke for light). On the majority of compound trials, responding on a given nosepoke fell close to its respective duration, but was shifted in the direction of the other cue's duration, suggesting rats timed an average of the two durations. However, more weight appeared to be given to the duration associated with the manipulandum on which the rat responded, rather than the duration associated with a higher reinforcement probability as predicted by the averaging hypothesis. Group differences were also observed, with rats trained to associate the tone and light with the short and long durations, respectively, being more likely to show these shifts than the counterbalanced modality-duration group (i.e., light-short/tone-long). This parallels group differences observed in past studies and suggest that cue weighting in response to stimulus compounds is influenced by the modality-duration relationship of the anchor cues. The current results suggest that temporal averaging is a more flexible process than previously theorized and provide novel insight into the mechanisms that affect cue weighting.

Indexed as

Conditioning, OperantCuesReinforcement ScheduleAnimalsBehavior, AnimalMaleRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyReinforcement, PsychologyTime FactorsInterval timingSimultaneous temporal processingStimulus compoundingTemporal averagingTime perception

Identifiers

PMID26520647
PMCPMC4752890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.