Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37985603›Full record

ArticleLearning & behavior2024

Giving time a chance in the midsession reversal task.

Catarina Soares, Carlos Pinto, Armando Machado

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Learning & behavior, 2024. 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. Review
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.

Catarina SoaresSchool of Psychology, University of Minho, Gualtar Campus, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal. csoares@psi.uminho.pt.ORCID 0000-0001-5680-7362
Carlos PintoSchool of Psychology, University of Minho, Gualtar Campus, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4435-6880
Armando MachadoWilliam James Center for Research, University of Aveiro, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-4380-3711

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The midsession reversal task involves a simultaneous discrimination between stimuli S1 and S2. Choice of S1 but not S2 is reinforced during the first 40 trials, and choice of S2 but not S1 is reinforced during the last 40 trials. Trials are separated by a constant intertrial interval (ITI). Pigeons learn the task seemingly by timing the moment of the reversal trial. Hence, most of their errors occur around trial 40 (S2 choices before trial 41 and S1 choices after trial 40). It has been found that when the ITI is doubled on a test session, the reversal trial is halved, a result consistent with timing. However, inconsistent with timing, halving the ITI on a test session did not double the reversal trial. The asymmetry of ITI effects could be due to the intrusion of novel cues during testing, cues that preempt the timing cue. To test this hypothesis, we ran two types of tests after the regular training in the midsession reversal task, one with S1 and S2 choices always reinforced, and another with S1 always reinforced but S2 reinforced only after 20 trials when the ITI doubled or 40 trials when the ITI halved. For most pigeons, performance was consistent with timing both when the ITI doubled and when it was halved, but some pigeons appeared to follow strategies based on counting or on reinforcement contingencies.

Indexed as

ColumbidaeReversal LearningAnimalsChoice BehaviorConditioning, OperantCuesDiscrimination LearningReinforcement, PsychologyTime FactorsTime PerceptionMidsession reversal taskPigeonReinforcement contingenciesTiming

Identifiers

PMID37985603
PMCPMC11408557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.