Food deprivation and startle magnitude: inhibition, potentiation, or neither?

Anderson, D. Chris; Sergio, Joseph P.; Ewing, Michael F.

doi:10.3758/bf03330220

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although our study had fewer startle trials than these previous studies, our 20 trials equalled the numbers used by Meryman (1952) and for the two reports of Anderson et al (1982Anderson et al ( , 1985 and otherwise were introduced in a manner similar to that reported by Ison and colleagues (all in a single session using a closely massed interstimulus interval of 30 sec). Moreover , we tightly regulated both deprivation regimen and body weights, and our data suggest that habituation was complete well before the last block of startle presentations (as likely was the case in Ison's studies).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Startle-stimulus duration was 20 msec, and peak intensity was about llO dB, A-weighted measurement. All other relevant details regarding the apparatus are given in Anderson et al (1982).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It can' be inferred from Ison and Krauter's (1975) research that the time intervals (ISIs) separating presentations of their eliciting stimulus were relatively short (25-35 sec), as contrasted with the approximately 20+ min lSI spacings of Meryman and of Anderson et al . (1982Anderson et al .…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

“…However, Anderson, Sergio, and Ewing (1982) suggested that procedural variances might account for the difference between the deprivation, startleattenuation findings of Ison and colleagues and the null outcome of Anderson et al (1985). They noted, for example, that Ison and colleagues gave many more startles per session and more overall than either Meryman or Anderson, Crowell, and Brown did; that deprivation regimens often differed; and that Ison and colleagues usually employed within-subjects rather than between-groups procedures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…They noted, for example, that Ison and colleagues gave many more startles per session and more overall than either Meryman or Anderson, Crowell, and Brown did; that deprivation regimens often differed; and that Ison and colleagues usually employed within-subjects rather than between-groups procedures. Anderson et al (1982) evaluated one of these variances-different deprivation regimens-but failed to show that this manipulation reliably affected startle magnitudes . The present studies represent additional attempts to reconcile these disparate outcomes through procedural .evaluations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Activity, startle magnitude, and prolonged food and water deprivation: Two further failures to duplicate

Anderson

Crowell

Siroky

1985

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies from one laboratory have shown deprivation-induced attenuation of startle response magnitudes, but another laboratory has reported failures to show any relationship between these variables. In an attempt to locate possible procedural contributions to this discrepancy in outcomes, our Experiment 1 involved 20 massed startle-stimulus presentations (30-sec lSI) to rats that had gone either 43 h or 1 h since eating (80% body weights equated for groups). Experiment 2 entailed spaced presentations (four trials per five bidaily sessions, 20-min lSI) to rats that had gone either 43 h or 1 h since drinking (80% weights also equated). Activity prior to, during, and after startle presentations also was recorded. Although group startle magnitudes differed on some trial blocks of both experiments, these differences were not systematically related to either of the deprivation conditions. Mean activity level was sensitive to startle-stimulus presentations, and showed systematic trial-block rates of decline for periods prior to, during, and following startle presentations that were identical for all groups.In a frequently cited but unpublished study, Meryman (1952) reported that a stimulus previously paired respectively with electric shock (a fear CS) and with prolonged food deprivation could intensify startle reactions to an intense , punctate acoustic stimulus . He further showed that even larger startle magnitudes resulted from the combined presence of both stimuli . Anderson, Crowell, and Brown (1985) more recently published a detailed exposition of Meryman 's (1952) study and duplicated its essential features . They similarly found lower startle magnitudes to a fear CS alone than to a fear CS presented in combination with food deprivation. However, in contrast to Meryman, they reported that food deprivation alone was ineffective in facilitating startle magnitude. Anderson et al. (1985) explained the latter disparity by proposing that augmented startle magnitude was occasioned exclusively by the fear CS in these studies, and that satiation may have served to attenuate fear rather than that deprivation intensified startle. They further deduced that Meryman's alleged nonfearful groups probably were modestly fearful but, because of a procedural modification, their groups were not. Because of the postulations that satiation in the absence of fear, along with deprivation per se, should exert null influence on startle magnitude , we then applied Anderson et al . 's (1985) satiation, fear-attenuation proposal to explain the startle differences associated with these two studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Startle-stimulus duration was 20 msec, and peak intensity was about llO dB, A-weighted measurement. All other relevant details regarding the apparatus are given in Anderson et al (1982).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 85%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Activity, startle magnitude, and prolonged food and water deprivation: Two further failures to duplicate

Anderson

Crowell

Siroky

1985

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Effect of Avoidance-Avoidance Conflict on Magnitude of Startle: Reduced Fear during Conflict

Allan

Armus

1983

Psychol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study used 13 male, hooded rats in a within-subjects design to test the hypothesis that a modified avoidance-avoidance conflict situation in a discrimination learning task would evoke a more intense auditory startle reaction than would the absence of such conflict. The presumed mechanism was an increase in drive or arousal, as a consequence of the conflict, resulting in greater startle. The findings were inconsistent with the hypothesis; the startle reactions of animals in a conflict situation were not different from those of animals in a non-conflict situation.

show abstract