Abstract
Eckard and Lattal’s Perspectives on Behavior Science, 43(1), 5–19 (2020) critique of internal clock (IC) mechanisms is based on narrow concepts of clocks, of their internality, of their mechanistic nature, and of scientific explanations in general. This reply broadens these concepts to characterize all timekeeping objects—physical and otherwise—as clocks, all intrinsic properties of such objects as internal to them, and all simulatable explanations of such properties as mechanisms. Eckard and Lattal’s critique reflects a restrictive billiard-ball view of causation, in which environmental manipulations and behavioral effects are connected by a single chain of contiguous events. In contrast, this reply offers a more inclusive stochastic view of causation, in which environmental manipulations are probabilistically connected to behavioral effects. From either view of causation, computational ICs are hypothetical and unobservable, but their heuristic value and parsimony can only be appreciated from a stochastic view of causation. Billiard-ball and stochastic views have contrasting implications for potential explanations of interval timing. As illustrated by accounts of the variability in start times in fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement, of the two views of causality examined, only the stochastic account supports falsifiable predictions beyond simple replications. It is thus not surprising that the experimental analysis of behavior has progressively adopted a stochastic view of causation, and that it has reaped its benefits. This reply invites experimental behavior analysts to continue on that trajectory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
Not applicable
Notes
“Function” and “mechanism” are relative terms, much in the way that Churchland (1997) conceived “function” and “structure” as relative terms: a neural mechanism (e.g., long-term potentiation) subserving a function (e.g., long-term memory) may also be a function that other mechanisms (e.g., activation of NMDA receptors) subserve. The same may be said about computational mechanisms.
As Burgos and Killeen (2019) pointed out, the distinction between observable and unobservable is not as simple as sometimes it is made to be. Perhaps a more precise claim is that the merit of mechanistic models does not hinge on their observability.
References
Balci, F., & Simen, P. (2016). A decision model of timing. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 8, 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.02.002.
Brackney, R. J., Cheung, T. H. C., & Sanabria, F. (2017). A bout analysis of operant response disruption. Behavioural Processes, 141(Part 1). 42–49. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.04.008
Brackney, R. J., & Sanabria, F. (2015). The distribution of response bout lengths and its sensitivity to differential reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 104(2), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.168.
Briggs, T. S., & Rauscher, W. C. (1973). An oscillating iodine clock. Journal of Chemical Education, 50(7), 496. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed050p496.
Buhusi, C. V., Oprisan, S. A., & Buhusi, M. (2016). Clocks within clocks: Timing by coincidence detection. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 8, 207–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.02.024.
Burgos, J. E., & Killeen, P. R. (2019). Suing for peace in the war against mentalism. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 42(2), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-0169-2.
Cheung, T. H. C., Neisewander, J. L., & Sanabria, F. (2012). Extinction under a behavioral microscope: Isolating the sources of decline in operant response rate. Behavioural Processes, 90(1), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2012.02.012.
Church, R. M., Meck, W. H., & Gibbon, J. (1994). Application of scalar timing theory to individual trials. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Behavior Processes, 20(2), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1037//0097-7403.20.2.135
Churchland, P. (1997). Reductionism and antireductionism in functionalist theories of mind. In B. Beakley & P. Ludlow (Eds.), The philosophy of mind: Classical problems/contemporary issues (4th ed., pp. 59–67). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Daniels, C. W., & Sanabria, F. (2017a). About bouts: A heterogeneous tandem schedule of reinforcement reveals dissociable components of operant behavior in Fischer rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning & Cognition, 43(3), 280–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000144.
Daniels, C. W., & Sanabria, F. (2017b). Interval timing under a behavioral microscope: Dissociating motivational and timing processes in fixed-interval performance. Learning & Behavior, 45(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-016-0234-1.
Dragoi, V., Staddon, J. E. R., Palmer, R. G., & Buhusi, C. V. (2003). Interval timing as an emergent learning property. Psychological Review, 110(1), 126–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.126.
Eckard, M. L., & Lattal, K. A. (2020). The internal clock: A manifestation of a misguided mechanistic view of causation? Perspectives on Behavior Science, 43(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-00189-5.
Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of Reinforcement. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Fetterman, J. G., Killeen, P. R., & Hall, S. (1998). Watching the clock. Behavioural Processes, 44(2), 211–224.
Freestone, D. M., & Balcı, F. (2019). Bayesian behavioral systems theory. Behavioural Processes, 168(June), 103904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103904.
Grace, R. C. (2001). On the failure of operationism. Theory & Psychology, 11(1), 5–33.
Gupta, T. A., Daniels, C. W., Ortiz, J. B., Stephens, M., Overby, P., Romero, K., et al. (2019). The differential role of the dorsal hippocampus in initiating and terminating timed responses: A lesion study using the switch-timing task. Behavioural Brain Research, 376(August), 112184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2019.112184.
Hanson, S. J., & Killeen, P. R. (1981). Measurement and modeling of behavior under fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 7(2), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1037//0097-7403.7.2.129.
Jiménez, Á. A., Sanabria, F., & Cabrera, F. (2017). The effect of lever height on the microstructure of operant behavior. Behavioural Processes, 140, 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.05.002.
Jozefowiez, J., Staddon, J. E. R., & Cerutti, D. T. (2009). The behavioral economics of choice and interval timing. Psychological Review, 116(3), 519.
Killeen, P. R. (2001). The four causes of behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(4), 136–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00134.
Killeen, P. R., & Fetterman, J. G. (1988). A behavioral theory of timing. Psychological Review, 95(2), 274–295.
Killeen, P. R., Hall, S. S., Reilly, M. P., & Kettle, L. C. (2002). Molecular analyses of the principal components of response strength. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78(2), 127–160.
Killeen, P. R., & Taylor, T. J. (2000). How the propagation of error through stochastic counters affects time discrimination and other psychophysical judgments. Psychological Review, 107(3), 430–459. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-29SX.107.3.430.
Lejeune, H., & Wearden, J. H. (2006). Scalar properties in animal timing: Conformity and violations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(11), 1875–1908. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210600784649.
Ludvig, E. A., Balci, F., & Spetch, M. L. (2011). Reward magnitude and timing in pigeons. Behavioural Processes, 86(3), 359–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2011.01.003.
Machado, A. (1997). Learning the temporal dynamics of behavior. Psychological Review, 104(2), 241–265 Retrieved from isi:A1997WU96300002.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Matell, M., & Meck, W. (2004). Cortico-striatal circuits and interval timing: Coincidence detection of oscillatory processes. Cognitive Brain Research, 21(2), 139–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.06.012.
Maye, A., Hsieh, C., Sugihara, G., & Brembs, B. (2007). Order in spontaneous behavior. PloS One, 2(5), e443.
McDowell, J. J. (2004). A computational model of selection by consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 81(3), 297–317.
McDowell, J. J. (2013). A quantitative evolutionary theory of adaptive behavior dynamics. Psychological Review, 120(4), 731–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034244.
Merchant, H., Harrington, D. L., & Meck, W. H. (2013). Neural basis of the perception and estimation of time. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 36(1), 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-062012-170349.
Neuringer, A. (1991). Humble behaviorism. The Behavior Analyst, 14(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03392543.
Neuringer, A., & Jensen, G. (2012). The predictably unpredictable operant. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 7, 55–84. https://doi.org/10.3819/ccbr.2012.70004.
Paton, J. J., & Buonomano, D. V. (2018). The neural basis of timing: Distributed mechanisms for diverse functions. Neuron, 98(4), 687–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.03.045.
Rachlin, H. (2017). In defense of teleological behaviorism. Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology, 37(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000060.
Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sanabria, F., Daniels, C. W., Gupta, T., & Santos, C. (2019). A computational formulation of the behavior systems account of the temporal organization of motivated behavior. Behavioural Processes, 169, 103952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103952.
Sanabria, F., & Oldenburg, L. (2014). Adaptation of timing behavior to a regular change in criterion. Behavioural Processes, 101, 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2013.07.018.
Sanabria, F., & Thrailkill, E. A. (2009). Pigeons (Columba Livia) approach Nash equilibrium in experimental matching pennies competitions. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 91(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2009.91-169.
Sanabria, F., Thrailkill, E. A., & Killeen, P. R. (2009). Timing with opportunity cost: Concurrent schedules of reinforcement improve peak timing. Learning & Behavior, 37(3), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.37.3.217.
Shull, R. L., Gaynor, S. T., & Grimes, J. A. (2001). Response rate viewed as engagement bouts: Effects of relative reinforcement and schedule type. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 75(3), 247–274.
Skinner, B. F. (1963). Behaviorism at fifty. Science, 140(3570), 951–958.
Slife, B. D., Yanchar, S. C., & Williams, B. (1999). Conceptions of determinism in radical behaviorism: A taxonomy. Behavior and Philosophy, 27(2), 75–96.
Tallot, L., & Doyère, V. (2020). Neural encoding of time in the animal brain. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 115(June 2019), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.12.033.
Timberlake, W. (2001). Motivational modes in behavior systems. In R. R. Mowrer & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary learning theories (pp. 155–209). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Treisman, M. (1963). Temporal discrimination and the indifference interval: Implications for a model of the “internal clock”. Psychological Monographs, 77(13), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093864.
Funding
Not applicable
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The first author is the sole author of this article
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
Not applicable
Code availability
Not applicable
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sanabria, F. Internal-Clock Models and Misguided Views of Mechanistic Explanations: A Reply to Eckard & Lattal (2020). Perspect Behav Sci 43, 779–790 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-020-00268-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-020-00268-6