Free-operant Psychophysical Procedure Research Articles

Quantitative analysis of local-level resurgence.

Resurgence is the recurrence of a previously reinforced and then extinguished behavior induced by the extinction of another more recently reinforced behavior. Resurgence provides insight into behavioral processes relevant to treatment relapse of a range of problem behaviors. Resurgence is typically studied across three phases: (1) reinforcement of a target response, (2) extinction of the target and concurrent reinforcement of an alternative response, and (3) extinction of the alternative response, resulting in the recurrence of target responding. Because each phase typically occurs successively and spans multiple sessions, extended time frames separate the training and resurgence of target responding. This study assessed resurgence more dynamically and throughout ongoing training in 6 pigeons. Baseline entailed 50-s trials of a free-operant psychophysical procedure, resembling Phases 1 and 2 of typical resurgence procedures. During the first 25 s, we reinforced target (left-key) responding but not alternative (right-key) responding; contingencies reversed during the second 25 s. Target and alternative responding followed the baseline reinforcement contingencies, with alternative responding replacing target responding across the 50 s. We observed resurgence of target responding during signaled and unsignaled probes that extended trial durations an additional 100 s in extinction. Furthermore, resurgence was greater and/or sooner when probes were signaled, suggesting an important role of discriminating transitions to extinction in resurgence. The data were well described by an extension of a stimulus-control model of discrimination that assumes resurgence is the result of generalization of obtained reinforcers across space and time. Therefore, the present findings introduce novel methods and quantitative analyses for assessing behavioral processes underlying resurgence.

Animal timing: a synthetic approach.

Inspired by Spence's seminal work on transposition, we propose a synthetic approach to understanding the temporal control of operant behavior. The approach takes as primitives the temporal generalization gradients obtained in prototypical concurrent and retrospective timing tasks and then combines them to synthetize more complex temporal performances. The approach is instantiated by the learning-to-time (LeT) model. The article is divided into three parts. In the first part, we review the basic findings concerning the generalization gradients observed in fixed-interval schedules, the peak procedure, and the temporal generalization procedure and then describe how LeT explains them. In the second part, we use LeT to derive by gradient combination the typical performances observed in mixed fixed-interval schedules, the free-operant psychophysical procedure, the temporal bisection task, and the double temporal bisection task. We also show how the model plays the role of a useful null hypothesis to examine whether temporal control in the bisection task is relative or absolute. In the third part, we identify a set of issues that must be solved to advance our understanding of temporal control, including the shape of the generalization gradients outside the range of trained stimulus durations, the nature of temporal memories, the influence of context on temporal learning, whether temporal control can be inhibitory, and whether temporal control is also relational. These issues attest to the heuristic value of a Spencean approach to temporal control.

Reinforcer distributions affect timing in the free-operant psychophysical choice procedure

In procedures used to study timing behavior, the availability of reinforcement changes according to time since an event. Manipulation of this reinforcer differential often produces violations of scalar timing, but it is unclear whether such effects arise because of a response bias or a change in temporal discrimination. The present experiment investigated the effects of the overall and relative probability of obtaining a reinforcer on performance in the free-operant psychophysical procedure. We arranged short and long trials with unequal reinforcer ratios, at high or low overall reinforcer rates. Changes in the overall reinforcer rate produced only small changes in timing behavior. Changes in relative reinforcer probability, which caused differences in the likely availability of reinforcers across time within a trial, produced a change in both bias and discrimination. We suggest reinforcers affect timing, and that discrimination in timing tasks depends on the distribution of reinforcers in time, as well as on the interval to be timed.

New Findings on the Sensitivity of Free-Operant Timing Behaviour to 5-Hydroxytryptamine Receptor Stimulation

Timing performance maintained under the free-operant psychophysical procedure (FOPP) is sensitive to 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)1A and 5-HT2A receptor stimulation. Agonists of these receptors displace the psychometric function towards shorter durations, reducing , the index of central tendency of timing. Here we report the effects of Ro-600175, a selective 5-HT2C receptor agonist, and mCPP, a 5-HT receptor agonist with high affinity for 5-HT2C receptors and lower affinity for 5-HT1A, 5-HT1B and 5-HT2A receptors, on timing behaviour. Rats were trained under the FOPP to press two levers (A and B) in 50-s trials in which reinforcers were provided intermittently for responding on A in the first half, and B in the second half of the trial. Percent responding on B (%B) was recorded in successive 5-s epochs of the trials; logistic psychometric curves were fitted to the data from each rat under each treatment condition for derivation of timing indices [ (time corresponding to %B = 50%), Weber fraction]. The rats received systemic treatment with Ro-600175, mCPP, and mCPP in combination with antagonists of 5-HT1A (WAY-100635), 5-HT1B (isamoltane), 5-HT2A (MDL-100907) or 5-HT2C (SB-242084) receptors. mCPP (2.5 mg kg−1 i.p.), but not Ro-600175 (1, 2, 4 mg kg−1 i.p.), reduced . SB-242084 (0.6 mg kg−1 i.p.) potentiated mCPP’s effect on . mCPP’s effect on was not altered by isamoltane (8.0 mg kg−1 i.p.), but was attenuated by MDL-100907 (1.0 mg kg−1 i.p.) and WAY-100635 (0.1 mg kg−1 s.c.). The results suggest that mCPP’s effect on timing is mediated by an agonistic action at 5-HT1A and 5-HT2A, but not 5-HT1B, receptors. The role of 5-HT2C receptors is unclear, in view of SB-242084’s ability to potentiate the effect of mCPP, while Ro-600175 had no effect on . The possibility is considered that 5-HT2C receptors may counteract 5-HT1A and/or 5-HT2A receptor-mediated effects on timing performance.

Pharmacological studies of performance on the free-operant psychophysical procedure

In the free-operant psychophysical procedure (FOPP), reinforcement is provided intermittently for responding on lever A in the first half and lever B in the second half of a trial. Temporal differentiation is measured from the psychometric function (percent responding on B, %B, versus time from trial onset, t), the index of timing being T50, the value of t at %B=50. T50 is reduced by acute treatment with 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT1A, 5-HT2A) and dopamine (D1-like, D2-like) receptor agonists. The effects of the agonists can be reversed by the respective antagonists of these receptors. Evidence is reviewed suggesting that the effect of endogenous 5-HT is mediated by 5-HT2A receptors and the effect of endogenous dopamine by D1-like receptors. Data are presented on the effects of lesions of the prefrontal cortex and corpus striatum on the sensitivity of performance on the FOPP to D1-like and D2-like receptor agonists. Lesions of the nucleus accumbens, but not the dorsal striatum or prefrontal cortex, attenuated the effects of a D1-like receptor agonist, 6-chloro-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-1-phenyl-1H-3-benzazepine [SKF-81297], but not a D2-like receptor agonist, quinpirole, on T50. The results indicate that a population of D1-like receptors in the ventral striatum may contribute to the control of timing performance on the FOPP.This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: SQAB 2012.

Fos expression in the prefrontal cortex and ventral striatum after exposure to a free-operant timing schedule

It has been proposed that cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical circuits that incorporate the prefrontal cortex and corpus striatum regulate interval timing behaviour. In the present experiment regional Fos expression was compared between rats trained under an immediate timing schedule, the free-operant psychophysical procedure (FOPP), which entails temporally regulated switching between two operanda, and a yoked variable-interval (VI) schedule matched to the timing task for food deprivation level, reinforcement rate and overall response rate. The density of Fos-positive neurones (countsmm−2) in the orbital prefrontal cortex (OPFC) and the shell of the nucleus accumbens (AcbS) was greater in rats exposed to the FOPP than in rats exposed to the VI schedule, suggesting a greater activation of these areas during the performance of the former task. The enhancement of Fos expression in the OPFC is consistent with previous findings with both immediate and retrospective timing schedules. Enhanced Fos expression in the AcbS was previously found in retrospective timing schedules based on conditional discrimination tasks, but not in a single-operandum immediate timing schedule, the fixed-interval peak procedure. It is suggested that the ventral striatum may be engaged during performance on timing schedules that entail operant choice, irrespective of whether they belong to the immediate or retrospective categories.

The importance of the reinforcer as a time marker

Shifts in the psychometric function in the Free Operant Psychophysical Procedure (FOPP) have traditionally been explained by suggesting the pacemaker rate is proportional to the reinforcement rate (Behavioral Theory of Timing; BeT), or by direct associative competition between the two responses (Learning to Time; LeT). The application of these models assumes that the stimulus onset is the relevant time marker. Head-entries were reinforced in the second half of a stimulus (s1) and in the first half of a different stimulus (s2). During extinction, response times shifted earlier in s2 only, contrary to BeT. Competition between responses is an unlikely cause of the shift, contrary to LeT. We found a single-cycle correlation between the last food delivery and the time the rat stopped responding on s2. This correlation was also present in FOPP data. These results are consistent with the interpretation that the reinforcer, more than the stimulus onset, acted as the relevant time marker on this task.

Attenuation of the effects of d-amphetamine on interval timing behavior by central 5-hydroxytryptamine depletion

RationaleInterval timing in the free-operant psychophysical procedure is sensitive to the monoamine-releasing agent d-amphetamine, the D2-like dopamine receptor agonist quinpirole, and the D1-like agonist 6-chloro-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-1-phenyl-1H-3-benzepine (SKF-81297). The effect of d-amphetamine can be antagonized by selective D1-like and 5-HT2A receptor antagonists. It is not known whether d-amphetamine’s effect requires an intact 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) pathway.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to examine the effects of d-amphetamine, quinpirole, and SKF-81297 on timing in intact rats and rats whose 5-hydroxytryptaminergic (5-HTergic) pathways had been ablated.Materials and methodsRats were trained under the free-operant psychophysical procedure to press levers A and B in 50-s trials in which reinforcement was provided intermittently for responding on A in the first half, and B in the second half of the trial. Percent responding on B (%B) was recorded in successive 5-s epochs of the trials; logistic functions were fitted to the data for derivation of timing indices (T50, time corresponding to %B = 50%; Weber fraction). The effects of d-amphetamine (0.4 mg kg−1 i.p.), quinpirole (0.08 mg kg−1 i.p.), and SKF-81297 (0.4 mg kg−1 s.c.) were compared between intact rats and rats whose 5-HTergic pathways had been destroyed by intra-raphe injection of 5,7-dihydroxytryptamine.ResultsQuinpirole and SKF-81297 reduced T50 in both groups; d-amphetamine reduced T50 only in the sham-lesioned group. The lesion reduced 5-HT levels by 80%; catecholamine levels were not affected.Conclusionsd-Amphetamine’s effect on performance in the free-operant psychophysical procedure requires an intact 5-HTergic system. 5-HT, possibly acting at 5-HT2A receptors, may play a ‘permissive’ role in dopamine release.

Evidence for the sensitivity of operant timing behaviour to stimulation of D1 dopamine receptors

Temporal differentiation of operant behaviour is sensitive to dopaminergic manipulations. Previous studies using the fixed-interval peak procedure implicated D(2)-like dopamine receptors in these effects. However, recent findings suggest that d-amphetamine alters timing performance on the free-operant psychophysical procedure via D(1)-like receptors. It is not known whether this effect of d-amphetamine is mimicked by direct D(1)-like receptor stimulation. The effects of a D(1)-like receptor agonist 6-chloro-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-1-phenyl-1H-3-benzazepine (SKF-81297) on performance on the free-operant psychophysical procedure and the interaction between SKF-81297 and a D(1)-like receptor antagonist 8-bromo-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-3-methyl-5-phenyl-1H-3-benzazepin-7-ol (SKF-83566) and a D(2)-like receptor antagonist haloperidol, were examined. Rats were trained to respond on two levers (A and B) under a free-operant psychophysical schedule, in which sucrose reinforcement was provided intermittently for responding on A during the first half and on B during the second half of 50-s trials. Logistic psychometric functions were fitted to the relative response rate data (percent responding on B [%B] vs time from trial onset [t]) under each treatment condition, and quantitative indices of timing (T(50) [value of t corresponding to %B = 50] and the Weber fraction [(T(75)-T(25))/2T(50); T(25) and T(75) are values of t corresponding to %B = 25 and %B = 75] were compared among treatments. SKF-81297 (0.8 mg kg(-1)) reduced T(50); this effect was antagonized by SKF-83566 (0.03 mg kg(-1)) but not by haloperidol (0.05, 0.1 mg kg(-1)). Stimulation of D(1)-like dopamine receptors affects performance in the free-operant psychophysical procedure.

Effect of quinpirole on timing behaviour in the free-operant psychophysical procedure: evidence for the involvement of D2 dopamine receptors

Operant timing behaviour is sensitive to dopaminergic manipulations. It has been proposed that this effect is mediated principally by D(2)-like dopamine receptors. However, we recently found that the effect of d-amphetamine on timing in the free-operant psychophysical procedure was mediated by D(1)-like dopamine receptors. It has not been established whether stimulation of D(2)-like receptors affects timing in this schedule. To examine the effects of a D(2)-like receptor agonist quinpirole on second-range timing and the ability of dopamine receptor antagonists to reverse quinpirole's effects. Rats responded on two levers (A and B) under a free-operant psychophysical schedule in which reinforcement was provided intermittently for responding on A during the first half, and B during the second half, of 50-s trials. Logistic functions were fitted to the relative response rates [percent responding on B (%B) vs time (t)] under each treatment; quantitative timing indices [T (50) (value of t when %B = 50) and Weber fraction] were compared among treatments. Quinpirole (0.04, 0.08 mg kg(-1)) reduced T (50). This effect was attenuated by D(2)-like receptor antagonists haloperidol (0.05, 0.1 mg kg(-1)), eticlopride (0.04, 0.08 mg kg(-1)) and sulpiride (30, 60 mg kg(-1)), but not by the D(3) receptor-preferring antagonist nafadotride (0.5, 1 mg kg(-1)), the D(4) receptor antagonist L-745870 (1, 3 mg kg(-1)) or the D(1)-like receptor antagonist SKF-83566 (0.015 mg kg(-1)). Results suggest that quinpirole reduced T (50) via an action at D(2) receptors. D(1)-like and D(2)-like receptors may mediate behaviourally similar but pharmacologically distinct effects on timing behaviour.

Tolerance to the effect of 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) on free-operant timing behaviour: interaction between behavioural and pharmacological mechanisms

The psychostimulant d-amphetamine, the D(2/3) dopamine receptor agonist quinpirole and the 5-HT(2) receptor agonist 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) have similar effects on free-operant timing behaviour. There is evidence that tolerance develops to the effects of psychostimulants on timing performance during chronic treatment; this tolerance is generally attributed to behavioural adaptation rather than to pharmacological desensitisation. There have been no previous investigations of tolerance to the effect of DOI on free-operant timing behaviour. To demonstrate tolerance to DOI's effect on timing performance and to examine the nature of this tolerance. Rats were trained under the free-operant psychophysical procedure to press two levers (A and B) in 80-s trials in which reinforcement was provided intermittently for responding on A in the first half and B in the second half of the trial. Percent responding on B (%B) was recorded in successive 8-s epochs of the trials; logistic functions were fitted to the data from each rat for the derivation of timing indices (T (50) [time corresponding to %B = 50]; Weber fraction). In experiment 1, DOI (0.25 mg kg(-1)) reduced T (50) compared to vehicle; tolerance to this effect was seen after repeated daily treatments with DOI if the rats were exposed to behavioural training during the period of treatment but not if the repeated treatments took place during a 'holiday' from behavioural training. In experiment 2, repeated treatment with DOI resulted in tolerance to the effect of DOI on T (50) and cross-tolerance to the effect of d-amphetamine (0.4 mg kg(-1)), but no cross-tolerance was seen to the effect of quinpirole (0.08 mg kg(-1)). The results indicate that behavioural adaptation is involved in the development of tolerance to DOI's effect on timing. The finding of cross-tolerance to d-amphetamine but not to quinpirole suggests that the reduction of T (50) in the free-operant psychophysical procedure may be brought about by two distinct pharmacological mechanisms, one activated by DOI and d-amphetamine, and the other by quinpirole.

Shifts in the psychophysical function in rats

The primary goal was to compare results from a free-operant procedure with pigeons [Machado, A., Guilhardi, P., 2000. Shifts in the psychometric function and their implications for models of timing. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 74, 25-54, Experiment 2] with new results obtained with rats. The secondary goal was to compare the results of both experiments with dependent variables that were not used in the original publication. As in the original study with pigeons, rats were trained on a two-alternative free-operant psychophysical procedure in which left lever press responses were reinforced during the first and second quarters of a 60-s trial, and right lever press responses were reinforced during the third and fourth quarters of the trial. The quarters were reinforced according to four independent variable interval (VI) schedules of reinforcement. The VI duration was manipulated in each quarter, and shifts in the psychophysical functions that relate response rate with time since trial onset were measured. The results obtained with rats were consistent with those previously obtained with pigeons. In addition, results not originally reported were also consistent between rats and pigeons, and provided insights into the perception, memory, and decision processes in Scalar Expectancy Theory and Learning-to-Time Theory.

Effects of d-amphetamine and DOI (2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine) on timing behavior: interaction between D1 and 5-HT2A receptors

The dopamine-releasing agent d-amphetamine and the 5-HT(2) receptor agonist 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) have similar effects on free-operant timing behavior. The selective D(1) dopamine receptor antagonist 8-bromo-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-3-methyl-5-phenyl-1H-3-benzazepin-7-ol (SKF-83566), but not the D(2) dopamine receptor antagonist haloperidol, can antagonize the effect of d-amphetamine, and the selective 5-HT(2A) receptor antagonist (+/-)2,3-dimethoxyphenyl-1-(2-(4-piperidine)-methanol (MDL-100907) can antagonize the effect of DOI. However, it is not known whether the effect of d-amphetamine can be reversed by MDL-100907 and the effect of DOI by dopamine receptor antagonists. The objective of this work is to examine the interactions of d-amphetamine and DOI with MDL-100907, SKF-83566, and haloperidol on timing performance. Rats (n = 12-15 per experiment) were trained under the free-operant psychophysical procedure to press two levers (A and B) in 50-s trials in which reinforcement was provided intermittently for responding on A in the first half, and B in the second half of the trial. Percent responding on B (%B) was recorded in successive 5-s epochs of the trials; logistic functions were fitted to the data from each rat for the derivation of timing indices [T (50) (time corresponding to %B = 50); Weber fraction]. Rats were treated systemically with d-amphetamine or DOI, alone and in combination with haloperidol, SKF-83566, or MDL-100907. d-Amphetamine (0.4 mg kg(-1)) reduced T (50) compared to vehicle; this effect was antagonized by SKF-83566 (0.03 mg kg(-1)) and MDL-100907 (0.5 mg kg(-1)), but not by haloperidol (0.05, 0.1 mg kg(-1)). DOI (0.25 mg kg(-1)) also reduced T (50); this effect was reversed by MDL-100907 (0.5 mg kg(-1)), but not by SKF-83566 (0.03 mg kg(-1)) or haloperidol (0.05 mg kg(-1)). The results suggest that both 5-HT(2A) and D(1) receptors, but not D(2) receptors, are involved in d-amphetamine's effect on timing behavior in the free-operant psychophysical procedure. DOI's effect on timing is mediated by 5-HT(2A) receptors, but neither D(1) nor D(2) receptors are involved in this effect.

Evidence for a role of D1 dopamine receptors in d-amphetamine’s effect on timing behaviour in the free-operant psychophysical procedure

Temporal differentiation of operant behaviour is sensitive to dopaminergic manipulations. Studies using the fixed-interval peak procedure implicated D2 dopamine receptors in these effects. Less is known about the effects of dopaminergic manipulations on temporal differentiation in other timing schedules. To examine the effects of a D1 antagonist,8-bromo-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-3-methyl-5-phenyl-1H-3-benzazepin-7-ol (SKF-83566), and a D2 antagonist, haloperidol, on performance on the free-operant psychophysical procedure, and the ability of these antagonists to reverse the effects of the catecholamine-releasing agent, d-amphetamine on performance. The antagonists' ability to reverse d-amphetamine-induced hyperlocomotion was also examined. Rats responded on two levers (A and B) under a free-operant psychophysical schedule, in which reinforcement was provided intermittently for responding on A during the first half, and B during the second half, of 50-s trials. Logistic functions were fitted to the relative response rate data (percent responding on B [%B] vs time [t]) in each treatment condition, and quantitative timing indices [T50 (value of t corresponding to %B=50) and Weber fraction] were compared among treatments. Effects of the treatments on locomotion were measured in a separate experiment. SKF-83566 (0.015, 0.03, 0.06 mg kg(-1)) did not affect timing performance. Haloperidol (0.025, 0.05 mg kg(-1)) had no effect; a higher dose (0.1 mg kg(-1)) reduced T (50). d-Amphetamine (0.4 mg kg(-1)) reduced T50; this effect was antagonised by SKF-83566 but not by haloperidol. Both antagonists reduced d-amphetamine-induced hyperlocomotion. The results suggest that d-amphetamine's effect on performance in the free-operant psychophysical procedure is mediated by D1 rather than D2 receptors.

Contextual determinants of temporal control: Behavioral contrast in a free-operant psychophysical procedure

The question of how temporal control of responding might be influenced by contingency changes in other contexts was investigated. Each of three pigeons first was exposed to a two-component multiple schedule in which a two-key free-operant psychophysical procedure operated in one component and a variable-interval schedule operated in the other component. The variable-interval schedule then was changed to extinction while the free-operant psychophysical procedure remained unchanged. Finally, the variable-interval schedule was reintroduced. Response rates on the left key and the estimated temporal threshold under the free-operant psychophysical procedure increased for each pigeon when the alternate component schedule was changed to extinction and then decreased again when the variable-interval schedule was reintroduced. The results suggest one way that temporal control is affected by its context, and may be interpreted through the direct effects of overall reinforcement rate on temporal control mechanisms or the disruptive effects of alternative sources of reinforcement on temporally controlled behavior.

Evidence that the effect of 5-HT2 receptor stimulation on temporal differentiation is not mediated by receptors in the dorsal striatum

5-HT2 receptor stimulation alters temporal differentiation in free-operant timing schedules. The anatomical location of the receptor population responsible for this effect is unknown. We examined the effect of a 5-HT2 receptor agonist and antagonists, injected systemically and into the dorsal striatum, a region that is believed to play a major role in interval timing. Rats were trained under the free-operant psychophysical procedure to press levers A and B in 50s trials in which reinforcement was provided intermittently for responding on A in the first half, and B in the second half of the trial. Percent responding on B (%B) was recorded in successive 5s epochs of the trials; logistic functions were fitted to the data from each rat to derive timing indices (T50: time corresponding to %B = 50; Weber fraction: [T75-T25]/2T50, where T75 and T25 are the times corresponding to %B = 75 and %B = 25). Systemic treatment with the 5-HT(2A/2C) receptor agonist 2,5,-dimethoxy-4-iodo-amphetamine (DOI) (0.25 mg/kg, s.c.) reduced T50; the 5-HT2A receptor antagonist MDL-100907 (0.5 mg/kg, i.p.) did not affect performance, but completely blocked the effect of DOI. DOI (1 and 3 microg) injected bilaterally into the dorsal striatum did not alter T50. The effect of systemic treatment with DOI (0.25 mg/kg, s.c.) was not altered by intra-striatal injection of MDL-100907 (0.3 microg) or the 5-HT2C receptor antagonist RS-102221 (0.15 microg). The ability of systemically administered MDL-100907 to reverse DOI's effect on T50 confirms the sensitivity of temporal differentiation to 5-HT2A receptor stimulation. The failure of intra-striatal MDL-100907 to antagonize the effects of DOI suggests that 5-HT2A receptors in the dorsal striatum are unlikely to be primarily responsible for DOI's effects on timing. Furthermore, the results provide no evidence for a role of striatal 5-HT2C receptors in DOI's effect on timing.

Effects of quipazine and m-chlorophenylbiguanide (m-CPBG) on temporal differentiation: evidence for the involvement of 5-HT2A but not 5-HT3 receptors in interval timing behaviour

Temporal differentiation refers to animals' ability to regulate their behaviour during an ongoing interval. Striatal dopaminergic mechanisms are purported to be involved in temporal differentiation, and recent evidence also implicates 5-hydroxytryptaminergic (5-HTergic) mechanisms, possibly mediated by 5-HT(2A) receptors. There is evidence that 5-HT(3) receptors contribute to the regulation of dopamine release in the basal ganglia; however, it is not known whether 5-HT(3) receptor stimulation can influence temporal differentiation. We examined the effects of a selective 5-HT(3) receptor agonist m-CPBG, a mixed 5-HT(2A/3) receptor agonist quipazine, and selective 5-HT(3) and 5-HT(2A) receptor antagonists (MDL-72222 and ketanserin, respectively) on temporal differentiation in a free-operant psychophysical procedure. Twenty-four rats were trained to respond on two levers (A and B) under a free-operant psychophysical schedule, in which sucrose reinforcement (0.6 M: , 50 microl) was provided intermittently for responding on A during the first half and on B during the second half of 50-s trials. Logistic psychometric functions were fitted to the relative response rate data [percent responding on B (%B) vs time from trial onset (t)], and quantitative indices of timing performance [T (50) (value of t corresponding to %B=50), Weber fraction, and mean time of switching from A to B, S (50)] were derived. Quipazine (0.5, 1, and 2 mg kg(-1)) altered timing performance, dose-dependently reducing T (50) and S (50); m-CPBG (2.5, 5, and 10 mg kg(-1)) had no significant effect. The effect of quipazine was antagonized by ketanserin (2 mg kg(-1)), but not by MDL-72222 (1 mg kg(-1)). The present results provide no evidence for the involvement of 5-HT(3) receptors in temporal differentiation and indicate that the effect of quipazine on performance was mediated by 5-HT(2A) receptor stimulation. The results are consistent with previous evidence for the involvement of 5-HT(2A) receptors in interval timing behaviour.

Effects of a 5-HT2 receptor agonist, DOI (2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine), and antagonist, ketanserin, on the performance of rats on a free-operant timing schedule.

This experiment examined the effect of a 5-HT2 receptor agonist DOI (2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine), and antagonist, ketanserin, on temporal differentiation performance. Twelve rats were trained under the free-operant psychophysical procedure to press two levers (A and B) in 50-s trials in which sucrose reinforcement (0.6 mol/l, 50 microl) was provided intermittently for responding on A during the first half, and on B during the second half of the trial. Psychometric curves were derived from percent responding on B (%B), recorded in successive 5-s epochs of the trials; logistic functions were fitted to these data for the derivation of timing indices (T50 [time corresponding to %B=50%], epsilon [slope of the logistic curve], Weber fraction). Cumulative probability of switching in successive 5-s epochs was used to estimate the mean switching time, S50. DOI (0.0625, 0.125 and 0.25 mg/kg, s.c.) dose-dependently reduced T50 and S50. These effects of DOI (0.25 mg/kg) were antagonized by ketanserin (1.0 mg/kg). The results show that DOI alters temporal differentiation in the free-operant psychophysical procedure. The antagonistic effect of ketanserin indicates that the effect of DOI was probably mediated by 5-HT2A rather than 5-HT2C receptors, since ketanserin is relatively selective for 5-HT2A receptors. Comparison of these results with our previous findings with a 5-HT1A receptor agonist indicates that 5-HT1A and 5-HT2A receptors mediate qualitatively similar effects on temporal differentiation.

Failure of central 5-hydroxytryptamine depletion to alter the effect of 8-hydroxy-2-(di- n -propylamino)tetralin (8-OH-DPAT) on timing performance on the free-operant psychophysical procedure

The 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)(1A) receptor agonist 8-hydroxy-2-(di-n-propylamino)tetralin (8-OH-DPAT) alters temporal differentiation of behaviour on the free-operant psychophysical procedure, displacing the psychophysical curve to the left, thereby reducing the indifference point T(50). However, it is not known whether this effect of 8-OH-DPAT is mediated by an action of the drug at somatodendritic autoreceptors or at postsynaptic receptors. To compare the effects of 8-OH-DPAT on performance on the free-operant psychophysical procedure in normal (sham-lesioned) rats and in rats whose 5-HTergic pathways had been lesioned by means of intra-raphe injections of the selective neurotoxin 5,7-dihydroxytryptamine (5,7-DHT). Twelve rats received 5,7-DHT-induced lesions of the median and dorsal raphe nuclei, and twelve received sham lesions. They were trained under the free-operant psychophysical procedure to press two levers (A and B) in 50-s trials, during which reinforcement was provided intermittently for responding on A in the first half and B in the second half of the trial. Percentage responding on B (%B) was recorded in successive 5-s epochs of the trials; logistic psychophysical curves were fitted to the data from each rat for the derivation of timing indices [T(50) (time corresponding to %B=50%) and Weber fraction] following treatment with acute doses of 8-OH-DPAT (25, 50, 100, 200 microg kg(-1), s.c.) and saline (vehicle-alone treatment). Levels of 5-HT, 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA), noradrenaline and dopamine were measured in forebrain regions after the completion of the experiment. Under the vehicle-alone condition, the lesioned group displayed a greater propensity for switching between the levers, but T(50) and the Weber fraction did not differ between the groups. In both groups, 8-OH-DPAT shifted the psychophysical curve to the left, significantly reducing T(50) at the 200-microg kg(-1) dose; the effect of 8-OH-DPAT did not differ significantly between the groups. Levels of 5-HT and 5-HIAA in the lesioned group were about 10% of those in the sham-lesioned group; there was no effect of the lesion on catecholamine levels. The results confirm that 8-OH-DPAT disrupts temporal differentiation in the free-operant psychophysical schedule, reducing the indifference time, T(50). The failure of central 5-HT depletion to alter the effect of 8-OH-DPAT suggests that this effect may be mediated by stimulation of postsynaptic 5-HT(1A) (or possibly 5-HT(7)) receptors rather than somatodendritic 5-HT(1A) autoreceptors.

Effects of 8-hydroxy-2-(di- n -propylamino)tetralin (8-OH-DPAT) on performance on two operant timing schedules

Previous experiments have shown that the disruptive effect of central 5-HT depletion on interval timing behaviour is critically dependent upon the particular timing schedule used. However, it is not known how acute disruption of 5-HTergic function brought about by drugs acting at 5-HT receptors affects timing. To examine the effects of the 5-HT1A receptor agonist 8-hydroxy-2-(di-n-propylamino)tetralin (8-OH-DPAT) on performance on two quantitative timing schedules, a free-operant schedule in which rats were trained to distribute their responses differentially between two levers during the course of a 50-s trial (free-operant psychophysical procedure) and a discrete-trials schedule in which rats were trained to discriminate the durations of light stimuli (interval bisection task). In experiment 1, rats were trained under the free-operant psychophysical procedure to respond on two levers (A and B) in 50-s trials in which reinforcement was provided intermittently for responding on A in the first half, and B in the second half, of the trial. For one group, repetitive switching between levers was permitted; for another group, it was prevented. In experiment 2, rats were trained to press lever A after a 2-s stimulus and lever B after an 8-s stimulus, and were then tested with stimuli of intermediate durations. For one group, a 'poke response' (depression of a central tray flap) was required after stimulus presentation to effect lever presentation; for the other group this requirement did not operate. In both experiments, quantitative indices of timing were derived from the psychophysical functions (%B responding vs time). In experiment 1, 8-OH-DPAT (25, 50, 100 and 200 microg kg(-1) s.c.) displaced the psychophysical curve to the left in both versions of the schedule. In experiment 2, 8-OH-DPAT increased the Weber fraction in both versions of the task without displacing the curve. These results show that 8-OH-DPAT disrupts timing behaviour. The results of experiment 1 are consistent with the proposal that 5-HTergic mechanisms help to regulate the period of the hypothetical pacemaker. However, the results of experiment 2 do not support this suggestion. Taken together, the results support the notion that different neural mechanisms may be involved in timing tasks involving temporal distribution of responding and discrimination of the durations of exteroceptive stimuli.