title: Prospective and retrospective timing by pigeons.
abstract: Pigeons discriminated between two pairs of durations: a short set (2.5 and 5 sec) and a long set (5 and 10 sec). The pairs were intermixed within sessions and identified by the colors on the signal and choice keys. Once the task was learned, the pigeons experienced the following three conditions seriatim: (1) The signal key was made ambiguous about the test change, but the choice keys were informative (retrospective); (2) the signal key identified the test range, but the choice keys did not (prospective); (3) probe trials were introduced in which the color of the center key signaled one test range, but the color of the choice keys signaled the other test range (inconsistent). Accuracy of choice decreased in the retrospective condition and, returned to baseline levels, was higher under the prospective condition than under the retrospective condition. In a final condition, referred to as conflict trials, the center-key color signified one test range and the choice-key colors the other range. The results from these conflict-inconsistent tests indicate that choice behavior was largely controlled by the signal-key color and not by the choice-key color. We relate these findings to different approaches to timing in animals.
authors.affiliation: Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202, USA. gfetter@iupui.edu
authors.forename: J Gregor
authors.initials: JG
authors.lastname: Fetterman
authors.forename: P Richard
authors.initials: PR
authors.lastname: Killeen
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001245:Association Learning; D002755:Choice Behavior; D003118:Color Perception; D010856:Columbidae; D003463:Cues; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D008297:Male; D008570:Memory, Short-Term; D011337:Probability Learning; D012055:Reinforcement Schedule; D013998:Time Perception
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1960 Apr;59:246-53
references.pmid: 14407066
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Sep;60(9):1303-12
references.pmid: 17676560
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1992 Apr;18(2):154-73
references.pmid: 1583445
references.citation: Behav Processes. 1993 Dec;30(3):259-71
references.pmid: 24896950
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1997 Apr;104(2):241-65
references.pmid: 9127582
references.citation: Behav Processes. 2009 Jun;81(2):286-92
references.pmid: 19162143
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1996 Jan;22(1):3-18
references.pmid: 8568494
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1977 Jul;3(3):216-28
references.pmid: 881613
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1956 Jan;51(1):79-88
references.pmid: 13286444
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1986 Jan;12(1):69-77
references.pmid: 3701260
references.citation: Behav Processes. 2006 Jun 1;72(3):195-206
references.pmid: 16616993
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 1997 Jun;4(2):184-97
references.pmid: 21331825
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 2001 Jan;127(1):22-44
references.pmid: 11271754
references.citation: Behav Processes. 1998 Dec;44(2):211-224
references.pmid: 19701487
references.citation: J Exp Anal Behav. 2008 Jul;90(1):33-51
references.pmid: 18683611
references.citation: J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 May;11(3):223-38
references.pmid: 5660703
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1988 Apr;95(2):274-95
references.pmid: 3375401