Surfacing of Latent Time Memories Supports the Representational Basis of Timing Behavior in Mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals can adapt their reward expectancy to changes in delays to reward availability. When temporal relations are altered, associative models of interval timing predict that the original time memory is lost due to the updating of the underlying associative weights, whereas the representational models render the preservation of the original time memory (as previously demonstrated in the extinction of conditioned fear). The current study presents the critical test of these theoretical accounts by training mice with two different intervals in a consecutive fashion (short → long or long → short) and then testing timing behaviors during extinction where neither temporal relation is in effect. Mice that were trained with the long interval first clustered their anticipatory responses around the average of two intervals (indirect higher-order manifestation of two memories in the form of temporal averaging), whereas mice trained with the short interval first clustered their responses either around the short or long interval (direct manifestation of memory representations by their independent indexing). We assert that the original memory representation formed during training with the long interval "metrically affords" the integration of subsequent experiences with a shorter interval, allowing their co-activation during extinction. The original memory representation formed during training with the short interval would not metrically afford such integration and thus result in the formation of a new (mutually exclusive) time memory representation, which does not afford their co-activation during extinction. Our results provide strong support for the representational account of interval timing. We provide a new theoretical account of these findings based on the "metric affordances" of the original memory representation formed during training with the original intervals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".