Search

The spontaneously hypertensive (SHR/NCrl) rat from Charles River is one of the most widely used models of the combined subtype of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD-C). Although often used as its control strain, the Wistar Kyoto (WKY/NCrl) from Charles River has been proposed as a model of the predominately inattentive subtype of ADHD (ADHD-PI). In Experiment 1 SHR/NCrl, WKY/NCrl, and Wistar (WI; the progenitor strain for the two models) rats were trained on a left → right lever-press sequence in the presence of light discriminative stimuli that signaled the active lever in the sequence. In subsequent conditions the discriminative light cues were removed or reversed. WKY/NCrl accuracy remained relatively stable across cue light transitions. SHR/NCrl and WI accuracy was more disrupted when light cues were removed or reversed—an indication that behavior of the WKY/NCrl rats may not have come under control of the discriminative light cues as it did for the other strains, but relied more on past behavior and spatial cues. In Experiment 2, all three strains were exposed to a response-initiated fixed-interval (RIFI) 8-s schedule of reinforcement. In RIFI schedules behavior must be timed from a past instance of the target response. Replicating previous work, timing during the FI was roughly equivalent across the three strains; however, latencies to initiate the FI were significantly longer for SHR/NCrl than WKY/NCrl and WI rats, suggesting SHR/NCrl behavior was less sensitive to the first-response:food contingency in the RIFI schedule. These findings identify differences in stimulus control between the three strains and may help determine the efficacy of SHR/NCrl and WKY/NCrl as models of ADHD subtypes in humans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Behavior and events distributed in time can serve as markers that signal delays to future events. The majority of timing research has focused on how behavior changes as the time to some event, usually food availability, decreases. The primary objective of the two experiments presented here was to assess how behavior changes as time passes between two time markers when the first time marker was manipulated but the second, food delivery, was held constant. Pigeons were exposed to fixed-interval, response-initiated fixed-interval, and signaled response-initiated fixed-interval 15- and 30-s schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, first-response latencies were systematically shorter in the signaled response-initiated schedules than response-initiated schedules, suggesting that the first response was a more effective time marker when it was signaled. In Experiment 2, responding in no-food (i.e. 'peak') trials indicated that timing accuracy was equivalent in the three schedule types. Compared to fixed interval schedules, timing precision was reduced in the signaled response-initiated schedules and was lowest in response-initiated schedules. Results from Experiments 1 and 2 coupled with previous research suggest that the overall 'informativeness' of a time marker relative to other events and behaviors in the environment may determine its efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In fixed-interval (FI) and response-initiated fixed-interval (RIFI) schedules of reinforcement, a response is required after an interval has elapsed for delivery of reinforcement. In RIFI schedules, a response is required to initiate each interval as well. The objective of this experiment was a systematic comparison of performance in the two schedule types over a range of interval durations. Four pigeons were exposed to FI and RIFI schedules of 15, 30, 60, 120 and 240 s. Interfood intervals were longer and more variable in RIFI than corresponding FI schedules. In addition, response rates early in the RIFI schedules were higher than in corresponding FI schedules. However, the distribution of first-response latencies, mean breakpoints, and normalized response gradients suggest that temporal discrimination was equivalent in the two schedules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]