Aguilar F, Carpio C

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 1580-1596
PDF size: 751.47 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Two of the most important theories of timing proclaim adjunctive behavior as the basic feature for timing development. There is empirical evidence for these theories, where experimental chamber size was modified in order to know adjunctive behavior role in timing. However, in all of them sizes were smaller than the standard one. In the present paper results from experimental size manipulation, with bigger sizes than the standard, that allowed to asses changes in adjunctive behavior structure and their effects on timing with a fixed interval schedule with pigeons are shown. Principal findings were that experimental size manipulation have effect over timing precision indeed but depends on presentation order of experimental chamber sizes . Results are discussed in relation with empirical predictions derived from the mentioned theories of timing. Finally some studies are proposed that may continue this sort of timing inquiry.

REFERENCES

1. Bruner, A. y Revusky, S. (1961). Collateral behavior in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 349-350.

2. Ferster, C.B. y Skinner. B. F. (1957). Schedules of Reinforcement. Englewood: Prentice-Hall.

3. Fetterman, J. y Killeen, P. (1991). Adjusting the Pacemaker. Learning and motivation, 22, 226-252.

4. Frank, J. y Staddon, J. (1974). Effects of restraint on temporal discrimination behavior. The Psychological Record, 24, 123-130.

5. Gibbon, J. (1977). Scalar Expectancy Theory and Weber´s Law in Animal Timing. Psychological Review, 3, 279-325.

6. Glazer, H. y Singh, D. (1971). Role of collateral behavior in temporal discrimination performance and learning in rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 91, 78-84.

7. Higa, J., Moreno, S. y Sparkman, N. (2002). Interval timing in rats: Tracking unsignaled changes in the fixed interval schedule requirement. Behavioural Processes, 58, 167–176.

8. Higa, J.J., y Staddon, J.E.R. (1997). Dynamic models of rapid temporal control in animals. In C.M. Bradshaw y E. Szabadi (Eds.) Time and behavior: Psychological and neurobehavioral analysis. (pp. 1-40). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

9. Killeen, P.R. y Fetterman, J.G. (1988). A Behavioral Theory of Timing. Psychological Review, 95, 274-295.

10. Laties, V., Weiss, B., Clark, R. y Reynolds, M. (1965). Overt “mediating” behavior during temporally spaced responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis Behavior, 8, 107-116.

11. Lattal, K. A., y Boyer, S. S. (1980). Alternative reinforcement effects on fixedinterval performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis Behavior, 34, 285- 296.

12. López, F. y Menez, M. (2005). Effects of reinforcement history on response rate and response pattern in periodic reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 83, 221-241.

13. Machado, A. (1997). Learning the Temporal Dynamics of Behavior. Psychological Review, 104, 241-265.

14. Machado, A., Malheiro, M. T., y Erlhagen, W. (2009). Learning to time: a perspective. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 92, 423- 458.

15. Richardson, W. y Loughead, T. (1974). The effect of physical restraint on behavior under the differential-reinforcement of-low-rate schedule. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 455-461.

16. Staddon, J. (1983). Adaptive behavior and learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

17. Staddon, J. (2001). Adaptive Dynamics. The Theoretical Analysis of Behavior. England: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.