When exposed to periodic reinforcement, animals

adapt to the time when reinforcers are available by

showing a distinctive change in the organization of
their behavior during the interval of time between reinforcers.
An example comes from fixed interval (FI)
reinforcement schedules during which a reinforcer is
given for the first response after a fixed amount of time
has elapsed since delivery of the preceding reinforcer.
During FI schedules, animals typically pause or wait
before emitting a response, after which there is a gradual
acceleration in responding (scalloping pattern) or
an abrupt change from a low to high rate of responding
(“break-and-run” pattern) as the end of the interval
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 818 257 6462;
fax: +1 817 257 7681.
E-mail address: J.Higa@Tcu.edu (J.J. Higa).
nears (e.g., Ferster and Skinner, 1957). The point in an
interval at which response rate changes, break point, is
about two-thirds the FI requirement (Schneider, 1969).
Wait time, the time of the first response in an interval, is
generally a smaller fraction of the interval requirement,
ranging from one-fourth to one-half the interval duration
depending on the species and range of intervals
studied (e.g., Lowe and Harzem, 1977; Shull, 1970;
Wynne and Staddon, 1988). The entire process is referred
to as interval timing.
Researchers have found evidence of interval timing
in a variety of species ranging from pigeons and rats
(e.g., Lejeune and Wearden, 1991) to human infants
(e.g., Darcheville et al., 1993). However, relatively little
research has examined timing in fish. Results from
the few studies on fish are mixed. Interval timing has
been reported in goldfish (Carassius auratus, Gee et al.,
0376-6357/$ – see front matter © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2004.08.007
502 J.J. Higa, L.A. Simm / Behavioural Processes 67 (2004) 501–509
1994; Rozin, 1965; Talton et al., 1999) and gouramis
(Helostoma rudolf,Wolf and Baer, 1963). However, the
results with tilapia are less clear. Some studies have reported
evidence of good temporal control over behavior.
For example, overall responses rates were lower
during an FI 2mthan a fixed ratio reinforcement schedule
(Eskin and Bitterman, 1960), and responding was
lower during the early part of an interval and higher as
the interval elapsed during an FI 60 and 120 s (Lejeune
andWearden, 1991). But, other studies report little evidence
of scalloping in the pattern of responding during
an interval (Eskin and Bitterman, 1960). Furthermore,
there were little differences in responding during FI
and variable interval, aperiodic, schedules (Gonzalez
et al., 1962).
There are several possible reasons for the mixture
of results with fish. First, the differences may be due to
variations in the response requirement, reinforcers, and
lack of data in a form amenable for detailed analysis
(see Lejeune andWearden, 1991 who used quantitative
techniques for comparing behavior during FI schedules
across species). Second, with few exceptions (e.g.,
Talton et al., 1999) only a small number of FI schedules
are typically examined in a study, which makes it
difficult to evaluate the extent to which the animals are
sensitive to changes in the interval requirement. Third,
although food reinforcers are a natural extension of research
with rats and pigeons, there are several disadvantages
to consider. Liquid food mixture (e.g., Woodard
and Bitterman, 1974) may cloud a tank and limit visibility.
In addition, dry pellets often move across the
surface and/or sink to the bottom of the tank so that
there is a delay between the response and a reinforcer
and gap in the location between the response and reinforcer
(e.g., Talton et al., 1999). Fourth, although it is
possible to base the duration of a session on the fish’s
daily ration, the amount of food can be small depending
on the species and size of the fish which may limit
the number of trials conducted.
The purpose of this paper is to test a method for
studying interval timing in fish that does not involve
food reinforcers and to measure performance across a
range of interval durations. We chose a method and
species of fish based on studies on visual reinforcement
in Betta splendens (Siamese fighting fish). Presentation
of a visual stimulus (mirror image) of a male
Betta usually evokes an aggressive display characterized
by extension of the gill cover, dorsal and ventral
fins, and the fish will swim in parallel with its image
(e.g., Rhoad et al., 1975). Initial studies demonstrate
that mirror image is an effective positive reinforcer for
training Bettas to swim through a submerged ring (e.g.,
Baenninger and Mattleman, 1973; Thompson, 1963;
Turnbough and Lloyd, 1973) and researchers have successfully
used the method to study the effects of delay
of reinforcement (Lattal and Metzger, 1994) and stimulus
control (Wirth et al., 2003). However, to date, no
study has applied the method to examine interval timing
in Bettas. In the present study, we investigated whether
Bettas are able to time the availability of a reflective
mirror programmed according to a FI schedule, and,
if so how do the patterns of behavior compare to that
from other species. We chose to test the fish during
short-term exposure to the different FI schedules (five
sessions each) to evaluate whether they would be able
to adjust to rapid changes in the temporal reinforcement
requirement.
1. Method
1.1. Subjects
The subjects were four male B. splendens purchased
from PetsMart who had a variety of training experience
including temporal conditioning procedures.
Dark-colored fish worked best with the infrared system
that we used. The subjects were housed in individual
two and a half gallon tanks, approximately 14 cm ×
28 cm × 12.5 cm. Each tank contained a thermometer
and heater that maintained the water at approximately
25–27 ◦C. Two-thirds of the water was removed and
replaced with distilled water and aquarium salt every
7–10 days for filtration purposes. The fish were kept
on a diet of common Betta food (Hikari) and were
fed approximately 6–8 pellets once daily after testing.
White paper covered the sides of the tank to prevent
the fish from seeing neighboring fish and to minimize
reflections inside the tank. We tested the fish in their
home tanks, moving the apparatus from one tank to the
next.