ArticleBio-protocol2020
The Peak Interval Procedure in Rodents: A Tool for Studying the Neurobiological Basis of Interval Timing and Its Alterations in Models of Human Disease.
Article in Bio-protocol, 2020. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effort, timing and choice: a refined rodent effort choice task with excellent sensitivity to dopamine modulators.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026Article
- Self-supervised learning of scale-invariant neural representations of space and time.Journal of computational neuroscience · 2025Article
- Surfacing of Latent Time Memories Supports the Representational Basis of Timing Behavior in Mice.Animal cognition · 2024Article
- Testing cognitive models of decision-making: selected studies with starlings.Animal cognition · 2023Article
- Systemic injection of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor antagonist mecamylamine affects licking, eyelid size, and locomotor and autonomic activities but not temporal prediction in male mice.Molecular brain · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animals keep track of time intervals in the seconds to minutes range with, on average, high accuracy but substantial trial-to-trial variability. The ability to detect the statistical signatures of such timing behavior is an indispensable feature of a good and theoretically-tractable testing procedure. A widely used interval timing procedure is the peak interval (PI) procedure, where animals learn to anticipate rewards that become available after a fixed delay. After learning, they cluster their responses around that reward-availability time. The in-depth analysis of such timed anticipatory responses leads to the understanding of an internal timing mechanism, that is, the processing dynamics and systematic biases of the brain's clock. This protocol explains in detail how the PI procedure can be implemented in rodents, from training through testing to analysis. We showcase both trial-by-trial and trial-averaged analytical methods as a window into these internal processes. This protocol has the advantages of capturing timing behavior in its full-complexity in a fashion that allows for a theoretical treatment of the data.
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.