2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2011.06.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Behavioral responses to physical vs. social novelty in male and female laboratory rats

Abstract: Most behavioral tests used with laboratory rodents involve measuring behavioral responses to physical novelty. However, laboratory rodents are often derived from highly social species for which novel social stimuli may induce different levels of fear or curiosity compared to novel physical objects. We hypothesized that behavioral responses will differ in response to novel physical vs. social cues, and that females may show more exploration of social novelty, based on prior studies indicating that females more … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
12
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
3
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the social approach test, rats showed a clear preference to be near an unfamiliar rat confined behind wire mesh than near a novel object, consistent with a previous report that rats prefer novel social stimuli over novel physical stimuli (Cavigelli, Michael, West, & Klein, ). In the social interaction test arena, however, rats spent more time investigating the novel object in the 10 min interval than they did in the next 10 min with a stimulus rat.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…In the social approach test, rats showed a clear preference to be near an unfamiliar rat confined behind wire mesh than near a novel object, consistent with a previous report that rats prefer novel social stimuli over novel physical stimuli (Cavigelli, Michael, West, & Klein, ). In the social interaction test arena, however, rats spent more time investigating the novel object in the 10 min interval than they did in the next 10 min with a stimulus rat.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Interestingly, optogenetic stimulation enhanced the object exploration in the animals in a dose-dependent manner during the 20-min monitoring period (34.5 ± 5.8 s for 10-Hz group and 85.8 ± 33.0 s for 20-Hz group compared with 14.8 ± 3.3 s for the nonstimulation group, *P ≤ 0.05, one-way ANOVA, Dunn's method). In contrast, open-field exploration activity was not significantly different between the stimulation and nonstimulation groups [F (2,19) = 0.483, P = 0.624, two-way rmANOVA] (Fig. 4B).…”
Section: Optogenetic Modulation Of Septo-hippocampal Gabaergic Fibersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Social exploration involves complex processes that differ from those involved in the nonsocial exploration (2). Several distinctions were proposed to categorize the different forms of nonsocial exploratory behaviors from a motivational perspective (3).…”
Section: Ca V 31 T-type Ca2mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A gender difference also emerged for young rats: males had an increase in dendrite length, but females did not (Kolb et al, 2003). Others have also found sex differences in responses to enriched environments, which might be related to differences in male and female rat spatial learning and exploratory behavior (Cavigelli, Michael, West, & Klein, 2011). …”
Section: Neuroplasticity After the Juvenile Periodmentioning
confidence: 99%