Stimulus probability effects on temporal bisection performance of mice (Mus musculus)
- 367 Downloads
In the temporal bisection task, participants classify experienced stimulus durations as short or long based on their temporal similarity to previously learned reference durations. Temporal decision making in this task should be influenced by the experienced probabilities of the reference durations for adaptiveness. In this study, we tested the temporal bisection performance of mice (Mus musculus) under different short and long reference duration probability conditions implemented across two experimental phases. In Phase 1, the proportion of reference durations (compared to probe durations) was 0.5, whereas in Phase 2 it was increased to 0.8 to further examine the adjustment of choice behavior with more frequent reference duration presentations (under higher reinforcement rate). Our findings suggest that mice developed adaptive biases in their choice behaviors. These adjustments in choice behavior were nearly optimal as the mice maximized their gain to a great extent which required them to monitor stimulus probabilities as well as the level of variability in their temporal judgments. We further found that short but not long categorization response times were sensitive to stimulus probability manipulations, which in turn suggests an asymmetry between short and long categorizations. Finally, we investigated the latent decision processes underlying the bias manifested in subjects’ choice behavior within the diffusion model framework. Our results revealed that probabilistic information influenced the starting point and the rate of evidence accumulation process. Overall, the stimulus probability effects on choice behavior were modulated by the reinforcement rate. Our findings illustrate that mice can adapt their temporal behaviors with respect to the probabilistic contingencies in the environment.
KeywordsChoice behavior Diffusion model Interval timing Optimality Temporal bisection
This study was conducted at the Koç University Animal Research Facility. The authors thank Dr. Ali Cihan Taşkın, Mehmet Yücel, and Ahmet Kocabay for their assistance in animal care and technical support. This research was supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) 1001 (#111K402) Grant to FB.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
All animal procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Koç University Animal Research Local Ethics Committee.
- Leite FP, Ratcliff R (2011) What cognitive processes drive response biases? A diffusion model analysis. Judgm Decis Mak 6:651–687Google Scholar
- Maloney LT (2002) Statistical decision theory and biological vision. In: Heyer D, Mausfeld R (eds) Perception and the physical world: psychological and philosophical issues in perception. Wiley, New York, pp 145–189Google Scholar
- Mamassian P, Landy MS, Maloney LT (2002) Bayesian modeling of visual perception. In: Rao R, Lewicki M, Olshausen B (eds) Probabilistic models of the brain: perception and neural function. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 13–36Google Scholar
- Rodríguez-Gironés MA, Kacelnik A (1998) Response latencies in temporal bisection: implications for timing models. In: De Keyser V, D’Ydewalle G, Vandierendonck A (eds) Time and the dynamic control of behavior. Hogrefe & Huber, Seattle, pp 51–70Google Scholar