Anticipatory contrast as a measure of time horizons in the rat: Some methodological determinants

33Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

In three experiments, the time horizon over which the rat evaluates alternative feeding sources was investigated. The time horizon was measured by the suppression of intake of one incentive (a 0.15% saccharin solution) when a preferred alternative incentive (a 32% sucrose solution) was available but delayed. In Experiment 1, we found a direct function between the amount of saccharin intake and the delay time before access to 32% sucrose. Compared with intake for a saccharin-only control, saccharin intake was suppressed before 4-min and 16-min sucrose delays, but not before a 32-min delay. Because previous work (Flaherty & Checke, 1982) had reported suppression before a delay of nearly 32 min, in the subsequent experiments we examined factors that might account for this difference. In Experiment 2, we found that saccharin intake was suppressed before a 32-min delay interval when saccharin and sucrose solutions were presented in a bright-novel test environment but not when the same solutions were presented in the home cage. In Experiment 3, we found that the time between testing and subsequent postsession feeding could also affect the suppression of saccharin intake. Saccharin intake was suppressed when access to 32% sucrose was delayed by 32 min and the test situation was followed by immediate postsession feeding, but not when postsession feeding was delayed by 90 min. These results thus extend estimates of the rat's time horizon to at least 32 min, but indicate that the effective time horizon can vary, depending on the test situation. © 1988 Psychonomic Society, Inc.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lucas, G. A., Gawley, D. J., & Timberlake, W. (1988). Anticipatory contrast as a measure of time horizons in the rat: Some methodological determinants. Animal Learning & Behavior, 16(4), 377–382. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209375

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free