Configural integration of temporal and contextual information in rats: Automated measurement in appetitive and aversive preparations

Abstract

Two experiments investigated the capacity of rats to learn configural discriminations requiring integration of contextual (where) with temporal (when) information. In Experiment 1, during morning training sessions, food was delivered in context A and not in context B, whereas during afternoon sessions food was delivered in context B and not in context A. Rats acquired this discrimination over the course of 20 days. Experiment 2 employed a directly analogous aversive conditioning procedure in which footshock served in place of food. This procedure allowed the acquisition of the discrimination to be assessed through changes in activity to the contextual+temporal configurations (i.e., inactivity or freezing) and modulation of the immediate impact of footshock presentations (i.e., post-shock activity bursts). Both measures provided evidence of configural learning over the course of 12 days, with a final test showing that the presentation of footshock resulted in more post-shock activity in the nonreinforced than reinforced configurations. These behavioral effects reveal important parallels between (i) configural discrimination learning involving components allied to episodic memory and (ii) simple conditioning.

Flavors paired with internal pain or with nausea elicit divergent types of hedonic responses.

“…Orofacial responses to the solution were recorded in all training sessions and a single non-reinforced test, before being followed by a series of tests of voluntary consumption with the analysis of licking microstructure. In addition to the orofacial and somatic responses traditionally assessed using the TR test, we also analyzed immobility/freezing behavior as an index of conditioned fear (Bouton & Bolles, 1980;Dumigan, Lin, Good, & Honey, 2015).…”

Novel sensory preconditioning procedures identify a specific role for the hippocampus in pattern completion

“…It was assumed that lower levels of activity were indicative of greater fear during the final test. Previous experiments have established the utility of this measure in providing automated measures of standard behavioral effects based on fear conditioning (see Dumigan et al, 2015 , Lin et al, 2013 ). A computer (Mark II Control Unit) controlled the apparatus, operated the program (using Behavioural Net Controller Control 1.0) and recorded ambulatory movement (all equipment was supplied by Campden Instruments Ltd., Loughborough, England).…”