Typical delay determines waiting time on periodic-food schedules: Static and dynamic tests.

Pigeons and other animals soon learn to wait (pause) after food delivery on periodic-food schedules before resuming the food-rewarded response. Under most conditions the steady-state duration of the average waiting time, t, is a linear function of the typical interfood interval. We describe three experiments designed to explore the limits of this process. In all experiments, t was associated with one key color and the subsequent food delay, T, with another. In the first experiment, we compared the relation between t (waiting time) and T (food delay) under two conditions: when T was held constant, and when T was an inverse function of t. The pigeons could maximize the rate of food delivery under the first condition by setting t to a consistently short value; optimal behavior under the second condition required a linear relation with unit slope between t and T. Despite this difference in optimal policy, the pigeons in both cases showed the same linear relation, with slope less than one, between t and T. This result was confirmed in a second parametric experiment that added a third condition, in which T + t was held constant. Linear waiting appears to be an obligatory rule for pigeons. In a third experiment we arranged for a multiplicative relation between t and T (positive feedback), and produced either very short or very long waiting times as predicted by a quasi-dynamic model in which waiting time is strongly determined by the just-preceding food delay.

When static meets dynamic: Comparing cone-beam computed tomography and acoustic reflection for upper airway analysis

INTRODUCTION: Upper airway measurement can be important for the diagnosis of breathing disorders. Acoustic reflection (AR) is an accepted tool for studying the airway. Our objective was to investigate the differences between cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and AR in calculating airway volumes and areas. METHODS: Subjects with prescribed CBCT images as part of their records were also asked to have AR performed. A total of 59 subjects (mean age, 15 ± 3.8 years) had their upper airway (5 areas) measured from CBCT images, acoustic rhinometry, and acoustic pharyngometry. Volumes and minimal cross-sectional areas were extracted and compared with software. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation on 20 randomly selected subjects, remeasured 2 weeks apart, showed high reliability (r >0.77). Means of total nasal volume were significantly different between the 2 methods (P = 0.035), but anterior nasal volume and minimal cross-sectional area showed no differences (P = 0.532 and P = 0.066, respectively). Pharyngeal volume showed significant differences (P = 0.01) with high correlation (r = 0.755), whereas pharyngeal minimal cross-sectional area showed no differences (P = 0.109). The pharyngeal volume difference may not be considered clinically significant, since it is 758 mm3 for measurements showing means of 11,000 ± 4000 mm3. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT is an accurate method for measuring anterior nasal volume, nasal minimal cross-sectional area, pharyngeal volume, and pharyngeal minimal cross-sectional area.