Avoidance learning in a black and white shuttlebox

Moot, Seward A.; Nelson, Kelly A.; Bolles, Robert C.

doi:10.3758/bf03334270

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such conditions include punishment of intertrial crossings (Bignami, Amorico, FrontaIi, & Rosie, 1971;Schwartzbaum, Green, Beatty, & Thompson, 1967; for a similar effect of intertrial response prevention, see Moot, Nelson, & Bolles, 1974) and increases in shock intensity (Anisman & Waller, 1972;Archer, Ogren, & Johansson, 1984;Bauer, 1972;Bignamiet al, 1971;Cicala, Owen, & Hill, 1976;Henderson, 1970;Johnson & Church, 1965;Levine, 1966;McAllister, McAllister, & Douglass, 1971;Moyer & Korn, 1964;Schwartzbaum et al, 1967;Theios, Lynch, & Lowe, 1966). A similar assertion can tentatively be made with regard to the impairment of rat avoidance obtained by the use of a central partition with an opening of limited size at floor level (Bignami et al, 1971;Dalby & Shuttlesworth, 1978;Henderson, 1970; for preexposure conditions modifying this effect, see Alleva, De Acetis, Amorico, & Bignarni, 1983).…”

Section: Experiments La-iementioning

confidence: 99%

Bidirectional avoidance by mice as a function of CS, US, and apparatus variables

Bignami

Alleva

Amorico

et al. 1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acquisition of two-way avoidance by mice was slower with a light CS than with a buzzer CS, with punishment of intertrial responses than without punishment, and with a short CS-CS interval than with a long CS-CS interval (30 vs. 60 sec). Light-cued avoidance was little affected by shock level (.35-1.5 mA), whereas mice trained with the buzzer CS learned faster at 1.5 mA. Animals required to move away from light or toward light showed comparable rates of acquisition. Other CS, US, and apparatus variables (directionality of cue, maximal shock duration, and presence vs. absence of a central partition in the shuttlebox) interacted in a complex fashion with those already mentioned. This resulted in widely differing performances in what may superficially appear to be different versions of the same task. The differences in mouse and rat responses to some of the variables can contribute to an understanding of the interactions between organismic and test factors and the relative explanatory value of alternative avoidance models.

show abstract

Section: Experiments La-iementioning

confidence: 99%

Bidirectional avoidance by mice as a function of CS, US, and apparatus variables

Bignami

Alleva

Amorico

et al. 1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The success rate of learning for our young rats was relatively low relative to that observed in a previous similar study (Kelly et al 2006). There are at least two main reasons for this: the number of sessions allowed for each rat to learn the task (10) was probably too small and we also underestimated the difficulty of escape-avoidance learning for rats in a two-way shuttle box where the safe and dangerous places are not perceptually different (Theios and Dunaway 1964;Moot et al 1974;Denny 2010). Neverthless, we found that noise exposure had no effect on the ability to learn the task (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Temporal Alterations to Central Auditory Processing without Synaptopathy after Lifetime Exposure to Environmental Noise

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People are increasingly exposed to environmental noise through the cumulation of occupational and recreational activities, which is considered harmless to the auditory system, if the sound intensity remains <80 dB. However, recent evidence of noise-induced peripheral synaptic damage and central reorganizations in the auditory cortex, despite normal audiometry results, has cast doubt on the innocuousness of lifetime exposure to environmental noise. We addressed this issue by exposing adult rats to realistic and nontraumatic environmental noise, within the daily permissible noise exposure limit for humans (80 dB sound pressure level, 8 h/day) for between 3 and 18 months. We found that temporary hearing loss could be detected after 6 months of daily exposure, without leading to permanent hearing loss or to missing synaptic ribbons in cochlear hair cells. The degraded temporal representation of sounds in the auditory cortex after 18 months of exposure was very different from the effects observed after only 3 months of exposure, suggesting that modifications to the neural code continue throughout a lifetime of exposure to noise.

show abstract

Extraversion and neuroticism in rats

Garcia-Sevilla¹

1984

Personality and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Avoidance learning in a black and white shuttlebox

Cited by 3 publications

References 6 publications

Bidirectional avoidance by mice as a function of CS, US, and apparatus variables

Bidirectional avoidance by mice as a function of CS, US, and apparatus variables

Temporal Alterations to Central Auditory Processing without Synaptopathy after Lifetime Exposure to Environmental Noise

Extraversion and neuroticism in rats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About