Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27129789›Full record

ArticleLearning & behavior2016

What is timed in a fixed-interval temporal bisection procedure?

Adam E Fox, Katelyn E Prue, Elizabeth G E Kyonka

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Learning & behavior, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Adam E FoxDepartment of Psychology, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY, 13617, USA. afox@stlawu.edu.
Katelyn E PrueDepartment of Psychology, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY, 13617, USA.
Elizabeth G E KyonkaDepartment of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia. ekyonka@une.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent research on interval timing in the behavioral and neurological sciences has employed a concurrent fixed-interval (FI) procedure first reported by Platt and Davis (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 9, 160-170, 1983). Studies employing the task typically assess just 1 dependent variable, the switch/bisection point; however, multiple measures of timing are available in the procedure and it is unclear (a) what is timed (i.e., learned) by subjects and (b) what other measures might tell us about timing in the task and generally. The main objective of the current experiment was to utilize multiple dependent measures of timing accuracy and precision derived from the task to assess whether the 2 FIs are timed independently or if timing 1 FI interferes with timing the other, and vice versa. Four pigeons were exposed to an FI temporal bisection procedure with parametric manipulations across two phases. In the constant phase, the short FI was always the same; the long FI was 2 to 16 times the short FI and changed across conditions. In the proportional phase, the long FI was always 4 times the duration of the short FI. Across both phases, pigeon mean bisection points were near the geometric mean of the 2 FIs. Coefficients of variance increased as the durations to be timed increased. Results suggested pigeons' timing of the short FI was affected by the presence of the long FI, and vice versa. The FI temporal bisection task offers multiple dependent variables for analysis and is well suited for studying temporal learning and decision making.

Indexed as

Decision MakingLearningTime PerceptionAnimalsBehavior, AnimalColumbidaeInterval timingKey peckPigeonsResponse gradientScalar invarianceTemporal bisection

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.