Can a decay process explain the timing of conditioned responses?

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Volumn 71, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 264-271

  Gallistel, C R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Response latencies; Scalar variability; Subjective time; Temporal psychophysics; Time scale invariance

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; MEMORY; NOTE; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; REACTION TIME; REINFORCEMENT; TIME PERCEPTION;

ANIMALS; MEMORY; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; REACTION TIME; REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE; TIME PERCEPTION;

EID: 0040435885     PISSN: 00225002     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-264     Document Type: Review

References (4)

1. Brunner, D., Gibbon, J., & Fairhurst, S. (1994). Choice between fixed and variable delays with different reward amounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 20, 331-346.
2. Dews, P. B. (1970). The theory of fixed-interval responding. In W. N. Schoenfeld (Ed.), The theory of reinforcement schedules (pp. 43-61). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
3. Gibbon, J. (1977). Scalar expectancy theory and Weber's law in animal timing. Psychological Review, 84, 279-335.
4. Gibbon, J., & Church, R. M. (1981). Time left: Linear versus logarithmic subjective time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 7, 87-107.