1982
DOI: 10.1037/h0077860
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Conditioned suppression of medial forebrain bundle and septal intracranial self-stimulation in the rat: Evidence for a fear-relief mechanism of the septum.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

1983
1983
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Large septal lesions in rats (Beagley & Beagley, 1978) and cholinergic blockade of the septum in cats (Thomas & DeWald, 1977) prior to escape testing re-945 versed the escape-retarding effects of previous inescapable shocks. Although these findings are consistent with several theories of septal function, e.g., that the septum modulates response inhibition (McCleary, 1966), the relief of aversive states (Grauer & Thomas, 1982), or the response to stimuli not consistently associated with reward (Cormier, 1981;Gray, Feldon, Rawlins, Owen, & McNaughton, 1978), a clear alternative explanation for these findings is available. Because the lesions and cholinergic blockade were imposed after the inescapable shocks, it is possible that, rather than directly interfering with the processes mediating the escape deficit, these treatments may have simply disrupted the memory of the prior inescapable shocks.…”
supporting
confidence: 86%
“…Large septal lesions in rats (Beagley & Beagley, 1978) and cholinergic blockade of the septum in cats (Thomas & DeWald, 1977) prior to escape testing re-945 versed the escape-retarding effects of previous inescapable shocks. Although these findings are consistent with several theories of septal function, e.g., that the septum modulates response inhibition (McCleary, 1966), the relief of aversive states (Grauer & Thomas, 1982), or the response to stimuli not consistently associated with reward (Cormier, 1981;Gray, Feldon, Rawlins, Owen, & McNaughton, 1978), a clear alternative explanation for these findings is available. Because the lesions and cholinergic blockade were imposed after the inescapable shocks, it is possible that, rather than directly interfering with the processes mediating the escape deficit, these treatments may have simply disrupted the memory of the prior inescapable shocks.…”
supporting
confidence: 86%
“…A Shared Neural Mechanism for Internal (Brain) and External (Natural) Rewards We have shown here that train electrical stimulation of the MS can be rewarding for alert behaving WT mice, and that it can serve as an operant reinforcer-namely, the experimental animal will generate specific behaviors (lever presses) to obtain this internal reward (Olds and Milner 1954;Mora and Cobo 1990;Wise 1996). Indeed, the MS has been recognized for years as an important neural center involved in selfstimulation reward (Ball and Gray 1971;Buño and Velluti 1977;Grauer and Thomas 1982;Cazala et al 1988). The present results support the notion that this internal reward system shares similar neural mechanisms with those activated by a natural reinforcer (e.g., food), that is, both of them produced a significant decrease in the amplitude of hippocampal fEPSPs evoked at the very moment of the reinforcement.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…To test for differences in CER behavior between the two sites, we compared the susceptibility oflateral septa! and MFB ICSS to conditioned suppression, using rats as subjects (Grauer & Thomas, 1982). In brief, we superimposed on baseline ICSS a 30-sec light CS paired with a I-sec scrambled footshock.…”
Section: Stimulation Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%