ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2016
A two-stage model of concurrent interval timing in monkeys.
Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- C-SMB 2.0: Integrating over 25 years of motor sequencing research with the Discrete Sequence Production task.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Review
- Drift-diffusion explains response variability and capacity for tracking objects.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Preparation of timing structure involves two independent sub-processes.Psychological research · 2018Article
- Short-term memory for spatial, sequential and duration information.Current opinion in behavioral sciences · 2017Review
- Working Memory for Sequences of Temporal Durations Reveals a Volatile Single-Item Store.Frontiers in psychology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate timing is critical for a wide range of cognitive processes and behaviors. In addition, complex environments frequently necessitate the simultaneous timing of multiple intervals, and behavioral performance in concurrent timing can constrain formal models of timing behavior and provide important insights into the corresponding neural mechanisms. However, the accuracy of such concurrent timing has not been rigorously examined. We developed a novel behavioral paradigm in which rhesus monkeys were incentivized to time two independent intervals. The onset asynchrony of two overlapping intervals varied randomly, thereby discouraging the animals from adopting any habitual responses. We found that only the first response for each interval was strongly indicative of the internal timing of that interval, consistent with previous findings and a two-stage model. In addition, the temporal precision of the first response was comparable in the single-interval and concurrent-interval conditions, although the first saccade to the second interval tended to occur sooner than in the single-interval condition. Finally, behavioral responses during concurrent timing could be well accounted for by a race between two independent stochastic processes resembling those in the single-interval condition. The fact that monkeys can simultaneously monitor and respond to multiple temporal intervals indicates that the neural mechanisms for interval timing must be sufficiently flexible for concurrent timing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.