An Ultrasonic Device for Recording Activity

The ultrasonic motion detector: A conditioned stimulus for rats in the CER paradigm

“…Testing subsequent to the conditioning phase, however, revealed reliable group differences in terms of both response suppression and latency to the first response following CS offset, suggesting that the tone had acquired the ability to elicit an emotiqnal and/or skeletal-motor response. Peacock and Williams's (1962) failure to establish conditioned responses to the signal produced by their device may reflect the relative insensitivity of the measures they chose to record, or it may be that the sound-pressure-level of their tone was below the rat's threshold. Nonetheless, at least one commercially available motion detector generates a tone which can function as a CS for the rat.…”

“…In an investigation of the upper portion (10-50 kHz) of the rat's audiogram using a special discriminative-operant procedure, Gourevitch and Hack (1966) concluded that the rat was most sensitive in a one-octave band in the vicinity of 40 kHz (threshold at 3.5-11 dB, re 0.0002 dyne/cm 2 ). Crowley, Hepp-Reymond, Tabowitz, and Palin (1965) sensitivity at 40 kHz in a cochlear-microphonic study of the rat audiogram.The foregoing studies certainly suggest that perhaps Peacock and Williams (1962) were incorrect in their original assertion as to the unobtrusiveness of the ultrasonic device. Several recent studies have provided additional da ta in this regard.…”

“…The foregoing studies certainly suggest that perhaps Peacock and Williams (1962) were incorrect in their original assertion as to the unobtrusiveness of the ultrasonic device. Several recent studies have provided additional da ta in this regard.…”

“…It has been suggested that this device possesses several advantages over mechanical motion-detecting devices , namely , readily adjustable sensitivity, conveniently recorded digital output, and apparent unobtrusiveness (Peacock, Hodge, & Thomas, 1966 ;Peacock & Williams , 1962). [n support of this last contention, Peacock and Williams (1962) reported a failure to condition the rat's shuttlebox avoidance response to the 41-kHz signal generated by their device.…”

“…It has been suggested that this device possesses several advantages over mechanical motion-detecting devices , namely , readily adjustable sensitivity, conveniently recorded digital output, and apparent unobtrusiveness (Peacock, Hodge, & Thomas, 1966 ;Peacock & Williams , 1962). [n support of this last contention, Peacock and Williams (1962) reported a failure to condition the rat's shuttlebox avoidance response to the 41-kHz signal generated by their device. Moreover, after 100 paired presentations of the signal with a "painful" shock , they observed no conditioned pinna-reflex or changes in respiration and concluded that either their rats were not sensitive to the signal or that its intensity (which was not specitled) was below the rat's threshold.…”