Bang-Bang Control of Feeding: Role of Hypothalamic and Satiety Signals

Rats, people, and many other omnivores eat in meals rather than continuously. We show by experimental test that eating in meals is regulated by a simple bang-bang control system, an idea foreshadowed by Le Magnen and many others, shown by us to account for a wide range of behavioral data, but never explicitly tested or tied to neurophysiological facts. The hypothesis is simply that the tendency to eat rises with time at a rate determined by satiety signals. When these signals fall below a set point, eating begins, in on–off fashion. The delayed sequelae of eating increment the satiety signals, which eventually turn eating off. Thus, under free conditions, the organism eats in bouts separated by noneating activities. We report an experiment with rats to test novel predictions about meal patterns that are not explained by existing homeostatic approaches. Access to food was systematically but unpredictably interrupted just as the animal tried to start a new meal. A simple bang-bang model fits the resulting meal-pattern data well, and its elements can be identified with neurophysiological processes. Hypothalamic inputs can provide the set point for longer-term regulation carried out by a comparator in the hindbrain. Delayed gustatory and gastrointestinal aftereffects of eating act via the nucleus of the solitary tract and other hindbrain regions as neural feedback governing short-term regulation. In this way, the model forges real links between a functioning feedback mechanism, neuro–hormonal data, and both short-term (meals) and long-term (eating-rate regulation) behavioral data

Eccentric stimuli on multiple fixed-interval schedules

The effects of presenting a different (“eccentric”) stimulus for one interval during either or both components of a cyclic multiple fixed-interval fixed-interval schedule, with 12 short and four long intervals per cycle, were studied in three experiments. Eccentric stimuli in the short-interval component reliably produced a persistent, substantial elevation in key-peck rate. The effect appears to depend on schedule context and an initial “disinhibiting” effect of the eccentric stimulus

Timing in choice experiments

In Experiment 1, pigeons chose between variable- and fixed-interval schedules. The timer for 1 schedule was reset by a reinforcement on that schedule or on either schedule. In both cases, the pigeons timed reinforcement on each schedule from trial onset. The data further suggest that their behavior reflects 2 independent processes: 1 deciding when a response should be emitted and responsible for the timing of the overall activity, and the other determining what this response should be and responsible for the allocation of behavior between the 2 response keys. Results from Experiment 2, which studied choice between 2 fixed-interval schedules, support those 2 conclusions. These results have implications for the study of operant choice in genera

The conditions for temporal tracking under interval schedules of reinforcement

On many cyclic-interval schedules, animals adjust their postreinforcement pause to follow the interval duration (temporal tracking). Six pigeons were trained on a series of square-wave (2-valued) interval schedules (e.g., 12 fixed-interval [FI] 60, 4 FI 180). Experiment 1 showed that pigeons track square-wave schedules, except those with a single long interval per cycle. Experiments 2 and 3 established that tracking and nontracking are learned and both can transfer from one cyclic schedule to another. Experiment 4 demonstrated that pigeons track a schedule with a single short interval per cycle, suggesting that a dual process--cuing and tracking--is necessary to explain behavior on these schedules. These findings suggest a potential explanation for earlier results that reported a failure to track square-wave schedules

Dynamics of waiting in pigeons

Two experiments used response-initiated delay schedules to test the idea that when food reinforcement is available at regular intervals, the time an animal waits before its first operant response (waiting time) is proportional to the immediately preceding interfood interval (linear waiting; Wynne & Staddon, 1988). In Experiment 1 the interfood intervals varied from cycle to cycle according to one of four sinusoidal sequences with different amounts of added noise. Waiting times tracked the input cycle in a way which showed that they were affected by interfood intervals earlier than the immediately preceding one. In Experiment 2 different patterns of long and short interfood intervals were presented, and the results implied that waiting times are disproportionately influenced by the shortest of recent interfood intervals. A model based on this idea is shown to account for a wide range of results on the dynamics of timing behavior

Cumulative Distribution of IMI PIM Sizes

<p>The values are calculated in bins of .5 h from .15 h to 6.15 h. The IMIs were measured at night; those that began or ended in daytime, and the PIM and the following IMI, were excluded. Less than 10% of the IMIs following PIMs are longer than 4.15 h.</p