Are separate theories of conditioning and timing necessary?

Abstract

Conditioning and timing studies have evolved under separate traditions, which is exemplified in both traditional theories (e.g. the Rescorla-Wagner model of conditioning vs. Scalar Timing Theory) and in a dual process model (Gibbon, J., Balsam, P., 1981. In: Autoshaping and Conditioning Theory. Academic Press, New York.). Other lines of theoretical development in both timing and conditioning fields have resulted in the emergence of 'hybrid' theories in which conditioning and timing processes are integrated. Simulations were conducted with a recent hybrid theory of timing (Machado, A., 1997. Psychol. Rev. 104, 241 -265). The simulations were of classical conditioning procedures in which the local or global predictability of food was varied by manipulating the variability of the CS-US relationship, variability of the CS duration, and variability of the intertrial interval. The hybrid model provided good qualitative fits to indices of conditioning (discrimination ratios) and timing (local rates of responding), indicating that it may be possible to model both conditioning and timing results with a single process in which an internal representation of time and a strength of association are integrated. However, the failure of the model to provide good quantitative fits of the data indicates the need for a consideration of alternative perceptual representations of time and/or principles of association within the framework of the hybrid model.

Shifts in the Psychometric Function and Their Implications for Models of Timing

“…In addition to the well-known problem of deriving the scalar property from the assumption that is strictly proportional to overall reinforcement rate-an assumption that is not supported by the data (e.g., Bizo & White, 1994a, 1994bFetterman & Killeen, 1991)it seems that LeT's learning rule must also be revised to account for the nonlinear relation between reinforcement and response rates. (Additional quantitative difficulties with the model are discussed by Kirkpatrick & Church, 1998;Machado & Cevik, 1998;Rodríguez-Gironés & Kacelnik, 1999.) But one should remember that LeT's ability to predict the conditions in which the psychometric function should and should not shift depends more on the model's structural features than on the specific forms taken by their mathematical instantiation.…”

Temporal Uncertainty During Overshadowing

“…Both conditioning and timing are known to occur in many basic conditioning procedures, and are often studied using highly similar experimental procedures; it is the dependent measures of responding that differ (Kirkpatrick & Church 1998). Yet surprisingly little attention has been paid to understanding the relationship between measures of the magnitude of responding (conditioning) and the time of responding (timing), and the nature of the relationship between these two forms of learning.…”

Timing in trace conditioning of the nictitating membrane response of the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus): Scalar, nonscalar, and adaptive features

“…The theoretical aim of these studies was to inform models of NM conditioning, which assume that CR timing is mediated by a spectrum of microstimuli initiated by the conditioned stimulus (CS) (Desmond and Moore 1988;Grossberg and Schmajuk 1989;Gluck et al 1990;Sutton and Barto 1990;Buonomano and Mauk 1994;Machado 1997;Kirkpatrick and Church 1998;Buhusi and Schmajuk 1999;Vogel et al 2003;Ludvig et al 2008Ludvig et al , 2009. Their neural counterpart resides in activation across the cerebellar cortex (Buonomano and Mauk 1991;Moore and Choi 1997;Mauk et al 2000), including the planar arrangement of Purkinje cells and their dendritic morphology (Ito 1984;Steuber and Willshaw 2004).…”