ArticleLearning & behavior2026
The choose-short and choose-long effects may depend on interval consistency and similarity.
Article in Learning & behavior, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
The present study examined the effects of varying the events occurring during the delay interval (DI) and the intertrial interval (ITI) on asymmetries in temporal discrimination in pigeons. Four groups were exposed to combinations of equal or different events during DIs and ITIs and consistent or inconsistent arrangements between short-sample and long-sample trials. Results showed that differentiating short from long samples shortened acquisition time and eliminated asymmetries in performance. The specific form of performance depended on the interaction between interval similarity and task arrangement: Equal intervals with consistent arrangements produced a choose-short effect, whereas different intervals with consistent arrangements produced a choose-long effect. Inconsistent arrangements led to symmetrical performance, either stable or decreasing as the DI increased. These findings indicate that asymmetries in temporal discrimination under delayed matching-to-sample procedures depend not on memory mechanisms such as code loss or subjective shortening, but on how the organization of task events within the delay and intertrial intervals enhances or reduces stimulus control. The study thus supports interpreting temporal discrimination in this class of procedures as a problem of stimulus control shaped by the task's event structure rather than by memory decay.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42791467What 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.