Abstract
The experiments reported in the present study tested whether decreasing intertrial intervals (ITIs) intensifies the disruptive effects of increasing retention intervals (RIs) in a delayed conditional discrimination by decreasing the animal’s trial tracking accuracy (Cohen & Armstrong, 1996; Cohen & Roberts, 1996). Rats responded on a fixed ratio (FR) 1 or fixed interval (FI) 10-sec reinforcement schedule at a second light or tone stimulus, S2, when the first light or tone stimulus, S1, had signaled an FI 10-sec or FR 1 schedule, respectively. RIs between S1 and S2 were increased from 3 to 24 sec and never exceeded ITIs that were reduced from 24 to 6 sec. For some rats, the trials were separated from each other by extending the lever at S1 and retracting it at the end of S2 (ITI lever-retracted group). For other, control rats, the lever remained extended throughout the session (lever-extended group, Experiment 1) or was extended and retracted with the onset and offset of each stimulus (RI/ITI lever-retracted group, Experiment 2). The rats under all trial conditions learned to delay leverpressing on the FI 10-sec schedule. Latency to begin leverpressing on the FI 10-sec schedule declined as RIs were increased, but this effect was attenuated in the ITI lever-retracted groups in both experiments, as would be predicted by thetrial tracking hypothesis. Decreasing ITIs from 24 to 6 sec intensified the disruptive effects of increasing RIs from 3 to 6 sec in the RI/ITI lever-retracted group (Experiment 2), as would be predicted by the trial tracking hypothesis.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Cohen, J. S., &Armstrong, D. L. (1996). Sources of intertrial proactive interference in rats’ short-term memory in a delayed successive matching-to-sample modality discrimination.Learning & Motivation,27, 485–499.
Cohen, J. S., &Roberts, R. (1996). The role of trial tracking on rats’ successive delayed matching-to-sample modality performance.Behavioral Processes,36, 277–287.
Edhouse, W. V., &White, K. G. (1988). Sources of proactive interference in animal memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,14, 56–70.
Fetterman, J. G., &MacEwen, D. (1989). Short-term memory for responses: The “choose-small” effect.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,52, 311–324.
Gibbon, J. (1977). Scalar expectancy theory and Weber’s Law in animal timing.Psychological Review,84, 279–325.
Grant, D. S. (1975). Proactive interference in pigeon short-term memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,104, 207–220.
Grant, D. S., &Spetch, M. L. (1991). Pigeons’ memory for event duration: Differences between choice and successive matching tasks.Learning & Motivation,22, 180–199.
Green, M., Terman, M., &Terman, J. S. (1982). Comparison of yes-no and latency measures of auditory intensity discrimination.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,32, 363–372.
Herman, L. M. (1975). Interference and auditory short-term memory in the bottlenosed dolphin.Animal Learning & Behavior,3, 43–48.
Jarrard, L. E., &Moise, S. L. (1971). Short-term memory in the monkey. In L. E. Jarrard (Ed.),Cognitive processes of nonhuman primates (pp. 1–24). New York: Academic Press.
Kendrick, D. F., &Rilling M. E. (1986). AIM: A theory of active and inactive memory. In D. F. Kendrick, M. E. Denny, & M. R. Denny (Eds.),Theories of animal memory (pp. 129–152). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kendrick, D. F., Rilling, M. E., &Stonebraker, T. B. (1981). Stimulus control of delayed matching in pigeons: Directed forgetting.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,36, 241–251.
Maki, W. S., &Hegvik, D. K. (1980). Directed forgetting in pigeons.Animal Learning & Behavior,8, 567–574.
Maki, W. S., Moe, J. C., &Bierley, C. M. (1977). Short-term memory of stimuli, responses, and reinforcers.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,3, 156–177.
McNicol, D. (1972).A primer of signal detection theory. London: Allen & Unwin.
Nelson, K. R., &Wasserman, E. A. (1978). Temporal factors influencing the pigeon’s successive matching-to-sample performance: Sample duration, intertrial interval, and retention interval.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,30, 153–162.
Roberts, W. A. (1980). Distribution of trials and intertrial retention of delayed matching to sample with pigeons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,6, 217–237.
Roberts, W. A. (1998).Principles of animal cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Roberts, W. A., &Kraemer, P. J. (1982). Some observations on the effects of intertrial interval and delay on delayed matching-to-sample in pigeons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,8, 342–353.
Roitblat, H. L., &Scopatz, R. A. (1983). Sequential effects in pigeons’ delayed matching-to-sample performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,9, 202–221.
Roper, K. L., &Zentall, T. R. (1993). Directed forgetting in animals.Psychological Bulletin,113, 513–532.
Santi, A. (1984). The trial spacing effect in delayed matching-to-sample by pigeons is dependent upon the illumination condition during the intertrial interval.Canadian Journal of Psychology,38, 154–165.
Santi, A., Coyle, J., Copps, R., &Ross, L. (1998). The timing of auditory and visual signals by pigeons: Differential sensitivity to intertrial duration.Learning & Motivation,29, 345–365.
Spetch, M. L., &Rusak, B. (1992a). Temporal context effects in pigeons’ memory for event duration.Learning & Motivation,23, 117–144.
Spetch, M. L., &Rusak, B. (1992b). Time present and time past. In W. K. Honig & J. G. Fetterman (Eds.),Cognitive aspects of stimulus control (pp. 47–67). Hilldale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Winer, B. J. (1971).Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Zentall, T. R. (1997). Animal memory: The role of “instructions.”Learning & Motivation,28, 280–308.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The present study is based on an honors thesis of the second author in partial fulfilment of a B.A. honors degree in psychology from the University of Windsor, 1992. Portions of this research were reported at the meetings of the Psychonomic Society in St. Louis (1992). We thank W. A. Roberts at the University of Western Ontario for his very helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cohen, J.S., Njegovan, M. The role of trial tracking in rats’ working memory. Animal Learning & Behavior 27, 211–220 (1999). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199677
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199677