Open-field exploration as a function of age.

Furchtgott, Ernest; Wechkin, Stanley; Dees, James W.

doi:10.1037/h0044087

Cited by 64 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Younger rats are more active than adult rats (Furchtgott, Wechkin, & Dees, 1961;Bronstein, 1972), and prepubertally, septal rats are more active than normal controls (Johnson, 1972). This heightened activity, occurring in an apparatus in which there is proportionally more room for locomotion in a juvenile as compared to an adult rat, may have facilitated the development of collateral behavior chains, and thus improved DRL efficiency.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Since the balsa blocks are much softer, perhaps hardness of the blocks relates to their usefulness in the development of collateral behavior chains, harder blocks taking more time to chew. Another possibility is that juvenile rats, being more active (Furchtgott, Wechkin, & Dees, 1961;Bronstein, 1972), are more adept at forming spontaneous collateral behavior chains, with the result that the wooden blocks were of less value to them. However, why the wooden blocks facilitated the performance of the rats with septal lesions but not that of the normal rats is an unresolved question.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many studies have used laboratory rats as Ss, since their offspring are altricial, numerous, and develop rapidly. Weanling rats, between 21 and 35 days old, have been shown to be more active than adults (Furchtgott, Wechkin, & Dees, 1961;Bronstein, 1972), slower to acquire a passive avoidance habit (Brunner, 1969), and to have poor retention of tasks such as leverpress discrimination (Campbell, Jaynes, & Misanin, 1968) and active avoidance (Klein & Spear, 1969). However, few differences have been found between adult and weanling rats in the acquisition of an active avoidance response (Kirby, 1963) and in reversal and probability learning (Roberts, 1966).…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

DRL performance of juvenile rats with septal lesions

Gittis

Hothersall

1974

Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infant rats received either lesions of the septal nuclei or control operations at 7 days of age. Following weaning at 21 days, the infant rats were trained to leverpress for food. A DRL 20-secschedule was then used, with the rats being tested in either a conventional operant chamber or one which contained wooden balsa blocks. DRL training continued for 40 daily 60-min sessions. The infant rats successfully leverpressed for food. The presence of the wooden blocks facilitated the development of efficient DRL behavior in the rats with septal lesions, but not in the controls. With training, the juvenile rats with septal lesions trained in conventional chambers showed an improvement in their DRL behavior.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

DRL performance of juvenile rats with septal lesions

Gittis

Hothersall

1974

Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Latency to leave the starting unit was found to increase across 3 days in rats of various ages (Furchtgott et al, 1961). A more complex picture was noted by Ader (1969) when latency fell markedly from Day 1 to 2 but then increased slightly over the next 2 days.…”

Section: Temporal Analysis Of Open-field Behaviormentioning

confidence: 95%

The open-field test: A critical review.

Walsh

Cummins²

1976

Psychological Bulletin

2,118

1,055

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past 40 years the open field has evolved as a commonly used tool for the measurement of animal behavior. This review takes a critical look at the use of this instrument, especially with regard to the development of a standard form for its use. The various procedures and their shortcomings are discussed, with particular reference to the seemingly inconsequential details which have been shown to modulate open-field performance per se. Dependent parameters arc considered both with regard to their reliability and their validity for the measurement of such underlying constructs as emotionality.Since its introduction some 40 years ago, the open-field test has attained the status of one of the most widely used instruments in animal psychology. Its popularity probably stems in large part from the simplicity of the apparatus, the easy and rapid measurement of clearly defined behaviors, and a generally accepted interpretation of these behaviors. In addition, certain of the measured behaviors are sensitive to a wide range of genetic, experiential, physiological, and pharmacological manipulations and are sufficiently reliable under standardized conditions to give repeatable measures on an enormous range of independent variables. Simplicity, ease of quantification, and wide applicability are therefore probably the prime determinants of its popularity.However, in spite of its status as one of the most widely used tests of animal behavior, the open-field test has survived for 40 years with only one major review (Archer, 1973), and this was limited to a-consideration of its usefulness for estimating emotionality in rodents. Apparatus, techniques, subjects, parameters, analyses, and interpretations have We would like to express our gratitude to Otto

show abstract

“…Data presently available suggest that senescent organisms are less active than younger organisms [Goodrick, 1965[Goodrick, , 1967Olewine et al, 1964;Welford, 1959;Werboff and H avlena, 1962], arc less responsive to stress than younger organisms [Campbell et al, 1961; Doty, 1968], are less 'emo tional' than younger organisms [Doty, 1966;F urchtgott et al, 1961;Seward, 1945], and perhaps have lower motivation levels than younger organisms [Jerome, 1959; Kay, 1959;Welford, 1959], Further, it has been suggest ed that the results obtained with senescent organisms are also influenced by the stress history of the organism [Ordy et a!., 1964] and by the genetic composition of the organism [Goodrick, 1967; Meier, 1964;R ussell and Sprott, in press]. These observations make the interpretation of extant learning data extremely difficult since all of the variables described could have an effect upon performance in learning situations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open-Field Behavior in Aging Inbred Mice

Sprott

Eleftheriou²

1974

Gerontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open-field activity levels of young (2- to 6-month-old) and older (12- to 30-month-old) C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mice were assessed in two experiments conducted in separate laboratories. A large decrement in activity level was observed with advancing age in mice of both genotypes. The environment in which the subjects were maintained and tested also appeared to be a major contributor to behavioral variability in the openfield.

show abstract

Open-field exploration as a function of age.

Cited by 64 publications

References 12 publications

DRL performance of juvenile rats with septal lesions

DRL performance of juvenile rats with septal lesions

The open-field test: A critical review.

Open-Field Behavior in Aging Inbred Mice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About