Step changes in the intertrial interval in the midsession reversal task: Predicting pigeons' performance with the learning‐to‐time model

Abstract

Our goal was to assess the role of timing in pigeons' performance in the midsession reversal task. In discrete-trial sessions, pigeons learned to discriminate between 2 stimuli, S1 and S2. Choices of S1 were reinforced only in the first half of the session and choices of S2 were reinforced only in the second half. Typically, pigeons choose S2 before the contingency reverses (anticipatory errors) and S1 after (perseverative errors), suggesting that they time the interval from the beginning of the session to the contingency reversal. To test this hypothesis, we exposed pigeons to a midsession reversal task and, depending on the group, either increased or decreased the ITI duration. We then contrasted the pigeons' performance with the predictions of the Learning-to-Time (LeT) model: In both conditions, preference was expected to reverse at the same time as in the previous sessions. When the ITI was doubled, pigeons' preference reversal occurred at half the trial number but at the same time as in the previous sessions. When the ITI was halved, pigeons' preference reversal occurred at a later trial but at an earlier time than in the previous sessions. Hence, pigeons' performance was only partially consistent with the predictions of LeT, suggesting that besides timing, other sources of control, such as the outcome of previous trials, seem to influence choice.

Constantly timing, but not always controlled by time: Evidence from the midsession reversal task.

“…Smith et al (2017) replicated this result when training pigeons with a 5-s ITI and testing them with either a 2.5-s or a 10-s ITI. After replicating these results, Soares et al (2020) contrasted the pigeons’ choices with the predictions of the learning-to-time model (LeT). Their study indicated that timing is indeed involved, but local cues such as the outcome of previous trials also seem to influence choice.…”

“…To further examine the role of timing in the MSR task, Soares et al (2020) varied the payoff of each of the alternatives. Specifically, they made S1 or S2 leaner than the alternative by reducing its payoff to 20%, a manipulation known to bias performance in temporal discrimination tasks (Bizo & White, 1995; Cambraia et al, 2019; Machado & Guilhardi, 2000).…”