Pharmacological manipulations of interval timing using the peak procedure in male C3H mice.

RATIONALE: Timing deficits are characteristic of developmental and neurodegenerative disorders that are accompanied by cognitive impairment. A prominent theory of this interval timing posits an internal clock whose pace is modulated by the neurotransmitter dopamine. OBJECTIVES: We tested two hypotheses about the pharmacology of interval timing in mice: (1) that general cognitive enhancers should increase, and cognitive disruptors should decrease temporal precision and (2) that acutely elevated dopamine should speed this internal clock and produce overestimation of elapsing time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: C3H mice were tested in the peak procedure, a timing task, following acute administration of two putative cognitive enhancers (atomoxetine and physostigmine), two cognitive disruptors (scopolamine and chlordiazepoxide [CDP]), or two dopamine agonists (D: -amphetamine and methamphetamine). RESULTS: The first hypothesis received strong support: temporal precision worsened with both cognitive disruptors, but improved with both cognitive enhancers. The two dopamine agonists also produced underestimation of elapsing time-congruent with the slowing of an internal clock and inconsistent with a dopamine-driven clock. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that interval timing has potential as an assay for generalized cognitive performance and that the dopamine-clock hypothesis needs further refinement.

Acquisition of peak responding: what is learned?

We investigated how the common measures of timing performance behaved in the course of training on the peak procedure in C3H mice. Following fixed interval (FI) pre-training, mice received 16 days of training in the peak procedure. The peak time and spread were derived from the average response rates while the start and stop times and their relative variability were derived from a single-trial analysis. Temporal precision (response spread) appeared to improve in the course of training. This apparent improvement in precision was, however, an averaging artifact; it was mediated by the staggered appearance of timed stops, rather than by the delayed occurrence of start times. Trial-by-trial analysis of the stop times for individual subjects revealed that stops appeared abruptly after three to five sessions and their timing did not change as training was prolonged. Start times and the precision of start and stop times were generally stable throughout training. Our results show that subjects do not gradually learn to time their start or stop of responding. Instead, they learn the duration of the FI, with robust temporal control over the start of the response; the control over the stop of response appears abruptly later.