Effect of distracter preexposure on the reset of an internal clock

mPFC catecholamines modulate attentional capture by appetitive distracters and attention to time in a peak-interval procedure in rats

The behavioral and neural mechanisms by which distracters delay interval timing behavior are currently unclear. Distracters delay timing in a considerable dynamic range: Some distracters have no effect on timing ("run"), whereas others seem to "stop" timing; some distracters restart ("reset") the entire timing mechanisms at their offset, whereas others seem to capture attentional resources long after their termination ("over-reset"). While the run-reset range of delays is accounted for by the Time-Sharing Hypothesis (Buhusi, 2003, 2012), the behavioral and neural mechanisms of "over-resetting" are currently uncertain. We investigated the role of novelty (novel/familiar) and significance (consequential/inconsequential) in the time-delaying effect of distracters and the role of medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) catecholamines by local infusion of norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor (NDRI) nomifensine in a peak-interval (PI) procedure in rats. Results indicate differences in time delay between groups, suggesting a role for both novelty and significance: inconsequential, familiar distracters "stopped" timing, novel distracters "reset" timing, whereas appetitively conditioned distracters "over-reset" timing. mPFC infusion of nomifensine modulated attentional capture by appetitive distracters in a "U"-shaped fashion, reduced the delay after novel distracters, but had no effects after inconsequential, familiar distracters. These results were not due to nomifensine affecting either timing accuracy, precision, or peak response rate. Results may help elucidate the behavioral and physiological mechanisms underlying interval timing and attention to time and may contribute to developing new treatment strategies for disorders of attention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Blockade of Catecholamine Reuptake in the Prelimbic Cortex Decreases Top-down Attentional Control in Response to Novel, but Not Familiar Appetitive Distracters, within a Timing Paradigm

Emotionally charged distracters delay timing behavior. Increasing catecholamine levels within the prelimbic cortex has beneficial effects on timing by decreasing the delay after aversive distracters. We examined whether increasing catecholamine levels within the prelimbic cortex also protects against the deleterious timing delays caused by novel distracters or by familiar appetitive distracters. Rats were trained in a peak-interval procedure and tested in trials with either a novel (unreinforced) distracter, a familiar appetitive (food-reinforced) distracter, or no distracter after being locally infused within the prelimbic cortex with catecholamine reuptake blocker nomifensine. Prelimbic infusion of nomifensine did not alter timing accuracy and precision. However, it increased the delay caused by novel distracters in an inverted-U dose-dependent manner, while being ineffective for appetitive distracters. Together with previous data, these results suggest that catecholaminergic modulation of prelimbic top-down attentional control of interval timing varies with distracter’s valence: prelimbic catecholamines increase attentional control when presented with familiar aversive distracters, have no effect on familiar neutral or familiar appetitive distracters, and decrease it when presented with novel distracters. These findings detail complex interactions between catecholaminergic modulation of attention to timing and nontemporal properties of stimuli, which should be considered when developing therapeutic methods for attentional or affective disorders.

The distractor intensity is related to the rightward shift of the response rate distribution in a peak procedure in pigeons

The expected effect of interrupting the light that signals the to-be-estimated fixed Interval in a peak procedure is a shift rightward of the peak time. Nevertheless, it has not been studied the effect of inserting a distractor using a peak procedure in pigeons. In this experiment, two lights of different intensities were used as distractors (i.e., 10 and 50 luxes). They elapsed for 5 s, during a to-be-estimated interval of 30 s. It was observed an immediate decrease of the response rate as the distractor was inserted and a rightward shift of the response rate distribution, both related to the distractor intensity. Our results support other findings using different species and with different stimuli modalities,suggesting that rats, mice, and pigeons could share a common timing mechanism.

Attentional Mechanisms during the Performance of a Subsecond Timing Task

There is evidence that timing processes in the suprasecond scale are modulated by attentional mechanisms; in addition, some studies have shown that attentional mechanisms also affect timing in the subsecond scale. Our aim was to study eye movements and pupil diameter during a temporal bisection task in the subsecond range. Subjects were trained to discriminate anchor intervals of 200 or 800 msec, and were then confronted with intermediate durations. Eye movements revealed that subjects used different cognitive strategies during the bisection timing task. When the stimulus to be timed appeared randomly at a central or 4 peripheral positions on a screen, some subjects choose to maintain their gaze toward the central area while other followed the peripheral placement of the stimulus; some others subjects used both strategies. The time of subjective equality did not differ between subjects who employed different attentional mechanisms. However, differences emerged in the timing variance and attentional indexes (time taken to initial fixation, latency to respond, pupil dilatation and duration and number of fixations to stimulus areas). Timing in the subsecond range seems invariant despite the use of different attentional strategies. Future research should determine whether the selection of attentional mechanisms is related to particular timing tasks or instructions or whether it represents idiosyncratic cognitive “styles”.

Clocks within Clocks: Timing by Coincidence Detection

The many existent models of timing rely on vastly different mechanisms to track temporal information. Here we examine these differences, and identify coincidence detection in its most general form as a common mechanism that many apparently different timing models share, as well as a common mechanism of biological circadian, millisecond and interval timing. This view predicts that timing by coincidence detection is a ubiquitous phenomenon at many biological levels, explains the reports of biological timing in many brain areas, explains the role of neural noise at different time scales at both biological and theoretical levels, and provides cohesion within the timing field.